Manus E ZIP Try.rtf by tongxiamy


									Manus E ZIP Try
472 pp 4x 0.7

                       WHAT HAS TO BE CHANGED



                                             AND HOW


                                BY J. M. ZUBE, 1962
First complete translation, from German into English, with some changes and additions: 1979.
First published in the PEACE PLANS series as PEACE PLANS 61 - 65, in 1979.
Then re-filmed and reproduced in PEACE PLANS 61-63. (Refilming on 3 microfiche was cheaper than getting 5
microfiche duplicated again, in a set of 100 each.)
In the present proof-reading of the scanned texts some changes are likely to be introduced again.
Previously to 1979 only some sections were published in my PEACE PLANS series.

Digitized: 6.12.02, which took about 10-11 hours with my old system. (HP PrecisionScan. - The newer programs,
Omnipage 9 - German & English version - & Omnipage Pro 10 - presently refuse to recognize the existence of my
scanner: HP ScanJet 6200C.) The proof reading will probably take much more time.

Available free of charge, upon request, by e-mail, in RTF, zipped, until it is available on some website or CD-

No copyrights claims are made except that I reserve the right to publish it myself in any medium and to allow
others to do so.
If you should know of a better libertarian peace programme, please do inform me about it.

Most of the ideas here somewhat systematically explained were alphabetically combined in my second peace book:
"An ABC Against Nuclear War", primitively offset printed & bound as PEACE PLANS 16-18 in 1975, later
microfilmed and then microfilmed again, as PEACE PLANS 16/17, then also digitised and made available via e-

The German original was microfilmed in PEACE PLANS 399-401, with some additional material and recently
digitised and is also available by e-mail upon request. It comes to 579 Kbs zipped in RTF.
The German original is being revised by Andre Lichtschlag for publication in print, upon demand, with certain
segments excised.

The digitised versions are the most legible ones. They are also somewhat corrected, revised and supplemented.
In the appendix some material is here added to this peace book, items that appeared in PEACE PLANS 61-63, for
this digitised edition is also to serve me as an electronic version of PEACE PLANS 61-63.

& Research Centre for Monetary & Financial Freedom Libertarian Peace Plans, Panarchism, Productive Coops,
Free Trade, Libertarian Defence, Liberation Revolution & Militias, Alternative Media & Enlightenment Options, a
Libertarian Encyclopaedia, Archive of Ideas, Bibliographies, Abstracts, Indexes, Definitions, Classification
Schemes, Directories, Reviews, Slogans for Liberty Encyclopaedia, Refutations Encyclopaedia, etc., on the road
towards a complete and permanent Libertarian Library, Publishing and Information Service, making optimal use of
all affordable and powerful alternative media so far vastly under-utilized for libertarian texts, like microfiche,
floppy disks, CD-ROMs and DVDs to bring about a genuinely cultural revolution & sufficient enlightenment,
together with PIOT: Panarchy In Our Time or: To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her

John Zube, LIBERTARIAN MICROFICHE PUBLISHING, P.O. Box 52 or 35 Oxley St., Berrima, NSW 2577,
Australia, e-mail: Tel. (02) 48 771 436. No FAX!

Main website: It lists alphabetically the authors of PEACE PLANS Nos. 1-1545 &
offers and introduction to microfilming & some essays on monetary freedom and panarchism. Total nearly 5 Mbs.
Supplementary lists, alphabetically and by PEACE PLANS numbers, covering PEACE PLANS 1546 - 1768, on
5.8 Mbs, are now available at Cross references in these lists are still very incomplete.

LMP's main website offers a 2,000 pages guide to the PEACE PLANS issues that LMP has produced since 1977,
containing, on about 500,000 pages, libertarian and anarchist books, pamphlets, magazines, newsletters,
dissertations, bibliographies, directories, indexes, essays & articles, letter, review & leaflet collections, etc., with an
average of over 300 pages per microfiche: $ 1 cash each, post-free for orders of at least 10, or 2 International Reply
Coupons or $ 2 other non-cash, with small cheques not accepted.

Has any other individual published more freedom texts, more cheaply, in any medium?

Many of the PEACE PLANS in the Supplementary List do contain material compiled from websites, with their
links. My thus recorded survey of libertarian sites is still very incomplete and I would prefer to see such a
compilation on CD-ROMs.

Lists on the libertarian CD-ROM project are on If you want to be entered in an
update list, please contact me by e-mail, with the entry you prefer for yourself.

An alphabetical compilation on free banking or monetary freedom, 2.6 Mbs, is available on
www.butterbach/freebank.htm A small step towards an encyclopaedia on Free Banking. Your entries are needed!

All of PEACE PLANS 1-20, 61-63, 183 & 399-401 are now available in small batches via e-mail, until they can
be offered on a website or CD-ROM or both.


                                         Advertisement from the 1979 edition:

                                                         A short

                                               PEACE QUESTIONAIRE

Please keep your replies to 1-10 pages foolscap unless you have a whole libertarian peace programme to offer in
manuscript for non-exclusive microfilming.

I intend to compile the answers into a book and to "publish" this on microfiche film. Mention your full name and
address or not, as you please.
Please use separate sheet(s) for your reply. At least another 50 replies are needed for the first issue - of what
thoughtful people think on peace. (The replies were microfilmed in PEACE PLANS 650.)

                  1.) What do you understand under the term "civil and international peace"?

                  2.) What do you consider to be the main foundation stones for this peace?

                  3.) How, according to you, could this kind of peace be achieved?
You might consider this to be a mini-referendum, putting the thinking, responsibility and decision back to you.

That our governments and recognized experts are incapable of solving this question seems to be obvious by now.

Please send your answers to: John Zube, 35 Oxley St., Berrima, NSW, Australia 2577.
(2002 address! I would gladly reproduce a larger edition than that offered in PEACE PLANS 650. - J.Z., 7.12.02.)

Is there a higher duty than thinking about & working for a peaceful, just & free society for all
rational beings? - J.Z. 2/84.



                                                    MAJOR DIVISIONS


UPON THESE CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES? ………………….………………………………….. 25 - 155

         (A) P R I N C I P L E S ……………………………………………………………………………. 25 - 71

Sec. I What GENERAL new human rights must be included in all constitutions? ……………………                                            25 - 63

Sec. II What ECONOMIC new human rights are to be included in all constitutions? …………………                                         64 - 71

         (B) I N S T I T U T I O N S ………………………………………………………………………                                                                72 - 155

Sec. III To what extent have our institutions and principles for the protection of human rights to be changed?
What new institutions for the protection of human rights have to be established? ……………………… 72 - 92
Sec.IV What new economic institutions are to be established upon the above economic rights? ……           93 - 155

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 156 - 328

(C) FORCEFUL REALISATION WHERE NECESSARY …………………………………………….                                             156 - 276

Sec.V Realisation of human rights and of the natural rights of rational beings, and thereby of peace,
by REVOLUTIONS to overthrow the dictatorial regimes ………………………………………………                                  156 - 203

Sec.VI The organization of MILITIAS for the protection of human rights and the establishment of
world peace - and their conduct and programme in war and peace ………………………………………                          204 - 276


Sec.VII How can the reform ideas advanced in this programme be sufficiently spread
in the democratic States? ………………………………………………………………………………… 277 - 328

A P P E N D I X . ………………………………………………………………………………………… 329 - 392

ALPHABETICAL INDEX ………………………………………………………………………………                                                        393 ff.

For more detailed subdivisions see pages 11 - 24 & 447.



                        AND HOW CAN THESE REFORMS BE REALIZED?

                                           BY J. M. ZUBE, 1962


              AND STILL DO
              WHAT THEY CAN DO.


              "People want peace so much that governments had better get out of their way
              and let them have it!" - Dwight D. Eisenhower
               "The conditions and not people cause wars.
               The conditions of war cannot develop out of purely personal relations
               but merely out of the existing conditions." - Jean Jaques Rousseau

               "Ask all people: Do you want peace?
               Unanimously they will answer:
               "I wish, desire, want and love it!"
               Thus you must also love justice -
               for justice and peace are two friends.
               If you don't love the friend of peace,
               then peace will neither love you nor come to you." - Augustinus



This book is dedicated to the memory and ideas of Ulrich von Beckerath, who died ten years ago and was my
admired teacher, mentor and friend for 17 years. He either developed, re-discovered or stressed most of the ideas in
this book. From his writings, letters, notes and remarks in conversations with him I have taken very much literally,
without always stating this expressly. Usually, I could not have provided a better wording myself and he did not
want to be mentioned too often.

In the depth and sharpness and richness of his thoughts and ideas he has in my opinion not been exceeded by any
other social reformer.

I hope that in the not too far future his numerous pioneering thoughts will become known and appreciated. Nay,
more so: I do happen to wish to survive and live a long and free life, I wish life and liberty to all those dear to me
and to all non-aggressive others and for this purpose I, all others and this whole world truly depend on the rapid
realisation of his most important ideas, in the tolerant ways he suggested. Without them I do not see much hope for
us but instead almost the certainty of disaster, a greater man-made disaster than ever before, perhaps the final one.

While I find his ideas as crucially important, I see them still and everywhere among the most unknown, ignored,
misunderstood and least appreciated ideas in existence. This discrepancy is sometimes hard to take and only the
hope, however forlorn, provided by his programme, gives me the courage to battle on.

Because of his advancing age and failing health after the second World War he did not get around to put this peace
programme in writing himself. I am sure he would have done a better job of it. For all remaining its faults I claim
exclusive responsibility.

                                               J. M. Zube, 5/79.


           BEWARE OF                      THE         DISINTERESTED                          O N E S!

On all those who will put this book away again, after a short glance, Bruno Jasiewski had this to say in his book :
Die Verschwoerung der Gleichgueltigen" (The Conspiracy of the Disinterested):

                      Do not fear your enemies - for at most they can only kill you.
                      Do not fear your friends. At most they can only betray you.
                      But be afraid of the disinterested ones.
                       They do not kill and they do not betray -
                       But only due to their tacit agreement
                       do murder and treason rule in this world!


                                          PUBLIC WARNING


Here your last chance is offered :

Use the new economic, political and social tolerance here proposed, to realize your (in our view wrong) ideas,
theories and plans, in rightful experiments, i.e. at your own expense and at your own risk, among voluntary
members only (in voluntaristic, autonomous and exterritorial communities under personal laws), and then to appeal
to others to voluntarily imitate your examples, but take care to cease all attempts to impose your ideas upon us -
unless you want to be overthrown and held responsible by us, by all whom you oppress or threaten.

This book describes how this can be done, how ideas can become more powerful than all armies and police forces,
how they can mobilise rightful defensive forces for the protection of all individual human rights.

                                            PUBLIC APPEAL

If you unite in a common defence and liberation effort against all totalitarians and despotic majority and
minority groups, unite in away which would permit you to retain your full diversity and free choice for all
your individual members (as suggested in this book), unite only in a common programme to regain or
protect your rights, then, between you, you will far outnumber any other existing organisation which
oppresses or threatens your rights and will actually for the first time constitute a world-wide and effective
majority, possessing the strongest creative and defensive powers.
You can achieve this under a platform of mutual tolerance for all tolerant actions, a programme which will
lastly lead to full autonomy for yourself and to the maximum chance to spread your ideals as widely as
possible. What more could any rational and non-aggressive being ask for? Any other attempt is self-
destructive in the long run. This programme offers united strength through the greatest possible toleration
for diversity.


                                     To the Original German Manuscript, 1962

This book is not a captivating novel. It demands much from its readers and is difficult to read because (apart from
its style and structure, for which I am to blame) it brings many new, contrary, "great" and abstract ideas, none of
them popular, most of them opposed to conventional thinking on these subjects.

Only a few readers will possess sufficient knowledge, interest and ability to concentrate to enable them to read it in
one sitting. It would indeed be surprising if a book on which the author worked for several years, mostly from
1958-1962, could be read and understood within a few hours. I must myself confess that the subject matter, in
describing, developing and revising the text, has cost me so much mental labour that I could work only on a few
pages in one sitting.

Thus I appeal to you to use this book at first only like a reference work. For this purpose the contents description
and the alphabetical index have been rather detailed. One could begin to read this book almost anywhere, for
instance in the appendix section: The draft of a new declaration of human rights, in Appendix I and the Peace
Programme, in Appendix V, bring in concise form the main ideas of this book. The essays and excerpts (in
Appendix. 11/1 - 11/7) from dePuydt, Herbert Spencer, J. G. Fichte etc., describe clearly enough, although not
with all international implications, the most revolutionary idea in this book. (This idea is going to be developed in
great detail in a planned separate book, most likely under the title: The Exterritorial Imperative.)
(See the growing encyclopaedia: "ON PANARCHY", of which so far 24 volumes on 24 LMP microfiche appeared
and also the website established by Gian Piero de Bellis, which brings the classic article by
dePuydt in French, English, German, Italian and Spanish - & much other material. - J.Z., 7.12.02.)

One can also read most of the seven major sections of this book by themselves.
From the beginning to the end one should read this book possibly only after repeated part-assaults of the above
type - if one has thereby developed a sufficient interest in the details of the peace programme contained in these
Naturally, you do not have to follow my advice - but do remember, you have been warned!

As many thoughts in this book will be new to most readers or contrary to many of their established opinions, I also
ask you to hold back with your criticism to the end, when you have finally read everything in context. (Then, by all
means, get stuck into these ideas, preferably by writing to me. I would love to put out a volume of criticism of this
work together with my replies.)

I have (here!) intentionally failed to answer all objections which I have already heard or which might be made.
This book would only have become still more voluminous and less legible as a result.
In this respect and right now I can only offer my assurance that there are probably few books which considered as
much criticism against the own positions taken. (This will be proven to a large extent when I get around to publish
in microfiche form an encyclopaedia of refutations of common myths, errors, prejudices and beliefs on social

Once you have read and thought through all the reform proposals here made and their interrelationships then you
can hardly fail to notice that most of the initial objections and doubts occurring during a first superficial reading do
no longer apply. I have not, knowingly, ignored any of the many thousand objections which were held against me
in the oral discussions of these subjects, or which I could think of myself. Unless I have answered at least a few
dozen, if not a few hundred objections, to my own satisfaction, I do not take any position in writing, as a rule. At
least I always try not to do so - particularly when an idea is close to my heart.

Many readers, after a cursory perusal, are likely to ask what many of the reforms here advanced have to do with the
promotion of peace and whether they would not even contradict peaceful endeavours. Among the most frequent


are likely to be the following:

Is not the cause of peace directly opposed to all military preparations and revolutionary attempts?

Does a peace lover really have to have military knowledge? Does he have to be a revolutionary? Does he have to
understand something of ethics, economics and sociology?

Some detailed answers to such questions are to be found in the corresponding sections of this book. Here it must
suffice to indicate some of its basic ideas:

One of the characteristics of the military establishments and of modern wars is their tendency to perpetuate
themselves, to cause ever new wars and military expenditures and even to threaten mankind with extinction. I hold
that only serious peace lovers are able to advance the principles and practices of military science from conventional
military barbarism to an advanced stage at which military forces of the present type would be dissolved, where
atomic destructive devices would be disarmed as valueless and where the last "wars" which might still be justified
and necessary: defensive wars against totalitarian States, would no longer deteriorate into total wars but, instead,
would be reduced to mere police actions against a small group of political criminals.
Such efforts would obviously not require great military strength in the conventional sense, large sacrifices of blood
and many destructive measures. Moreover, they could, without nuclear devices, be successfully conducted against
an enemy regime armed with nuclear devices.
Lastly, such "wars" could realize reforms which would largely prevent wars in the future. (Compare Section VI.)

Moreover, only peace lovers who are also revolutionaries, could rapidly end wars by depriving those of the
participating governments which do not conduct justified defensive wars, of all their powers.

Furthermore, it should be obvious that for the prevention of war peace lovers must also know how to overthrow
dictators, like Hitler, in time - and how their mass extermination devices could be destroyed. (Compare Section V.)

Moral philosophy is required to understand that the recognition of certain new moral principles, a rightful order
built upon them and certain protective organizations, are an essential foundation for the establishment of peace,
especially for the prevention of nuclear war. (Compare Sections I, III and PEACE PLANS No. 16-17.)

Peace lovers also require economic knowledge to enable them to carry out the economic reforms which are
essential to end economic and ideological motives for wars and to render the financing of wrongful wars
impossible. (See on this Sections II and IV.)

Peace lovers must also study sociology to enable them to see what difficulties must be overcome and what new
institutions must be established in order to bring to general recognition a peace programme that is practicable but
which contradicts, so far, the opinions of the majority and is represented today only by a handful of people.
(Compare Section VII.)

It will frequently happen that a reader will get lost in the thicket of these detailed proposals. For myself I doubt that
one can really discuss too many details of the problems associated with establishing world peace. Those readers,
who are getting lost, should be able to re-establish their bearings by referring to the extensive contents listing and
to the alphabetical index. (They might also benefit from consulting the alphabetized handbook provided with
PEACE PLANS Nos. 16-17.)

I would not have been able to fully and freely discuss the contents of this book publicly in my home town, in "free"
West Berlin. My superiors in the public service organization I was working in, told me that such ideas would
provoke the Soviets and that I would lose my job if I would not give up


propagating them. I preferred to give notice and to migrate to Australia, back in 1959 Here, again, I soon ended up
in a public service job. But here and in such a job I never experienced, during 20 years, any difficulties
for having uttered any of my radical views. To that extent Australia is still a free country and I do appreciate it as

In conclusion of my introduction let me quote Immanuel Kant's still necessary defence of the utopists (in "Kritik
der Reinen Vernunft" - Criticism of Pure Reason):

       "The Platonic Republic has become proverbial as a supposedly extreme instance of dreamed-up perfection
       which could be situated only in the brain of an idle thinker. Brucker finds it even ridiculous that the
       philosopher asserted that a prince would never rule well unless he would understand certain ideas.
       Yet one would do better to pursue this thought further and explain it through new endeavours (wherever
       Plato as a pioneer cannot help us) rather than merely condemn it as useless, under the miserable and
       harmful pretence of impracticability.

       A constitution of the greatest human liberty, according to principles which assure that the freedom of each
       can coexist with the freedom of others, not of the greatest happiness, for this would automatically follow, is
       at least a necessary idea. Thus it should not only be taken as the basis for any first draft of a State
       constitution but also as the foundation for every law.
       In this one should, initially, disregard any present hindrances as they might have arisen not at all or not
       inevitably out of human nature but rather out of the neglect of genuine ideas in legislation. For nothing can
       be found that is more harmful and less becoming to a philosopher than the common reference to supposedly
       contradictory experience - an experience which would not exist at all - if preparations had been made in
       time, in full accordance with genuine ideas, if the place for genuine ideas had not been occupied by rough
       concepts (rough precisely because they were merely taken from experience), which have obstructed all
       good intentions.

       The more legislation and government are arranged in accordance with this idea, the rarer would coercion
       (penalties) become. Thus it is quite reasonable (as Plato asserts) that in a perfect arrangement of them no
       coercion (penalties) would be necessary any longer.
       Although the latter may never be realized, nevertheless, the idea is quite right which sets up this maximum
       as the ultimate example towards which the lawful constitution of man should gradually strive, as closely as
       possible towards the greatest perfection.
       For what will be the highest degree at which mankind will have to stand still and thus, how great the gulf
       between the idea and its execution (which, necessarily, will remain) will be, this cannot and may not be
       determined by anyone - precisely because we are concerned with freedom which may exceed any set
       limits." - (The last few words have been stressed by me. - J.Z.)


                                      1979 INTRODUCTION

                                       TO THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION

This book is partly a translation and to a small extent a re-writing effort of a German book manuscript begun in
1958 and completed in 1962.
As I was then unable to get it published or publish it myself and also incapable to put it into understandable
English, I took up my PEACE PLANS series in 1964, in which I published small sections and the main ideas of
this book separately. Most of the German book publishers, whom I approached with this manuscript, rightly
concluded that there was not sufficient demand for it to permit conventional book publishing. The conventional
self-publishing houses were too expensive for me.

I postponed the large chore of translating this book until I could no longer say that my English was insufficient.

Inclusion in the PEACE PLANS series was postponed because of its size and the unsatisfactory appearance of
books in small print (Compare Peace Plans Nos. 9-11) and the difficulties and work in binding and selling such
books. (Compare Peace Plans Nos. 16-18.)

Now, with microfiche publishing, I have no longer any technical excuses or economic ones for not putting this
translation out. I just have to produce one legible copy to get the master fiche made, order a small number of
duplicates for immediate mailing and depend for the rest only upon your interest and your orders.

My thinking has changed and, supposedly, advanced in some respects since this manuscript was written. But this
concerns mostly only details not fundamentals. As a coordinated over-view of the close relationship between
individual liberty and international peace and as a practical programme on how to establish and maintain both, it is
still unique in my opinion, judging by the books, magazines, papers and talks I have come across in the intervening
20 years.

Thus I offer here my translation with only some re-writing, omissions and additions. A full revision of this thesis I
will have to leave to some future date. However imperfect this book still is, I want it at least microfiche published,
at last.
Many of its ideas have already been described or hinted at in the PEACE PLANS series. Whole sections of the
Appendix have been published there but the whole programme was never offered in context and complete and
detailed enough. Thus it has, possibly, not been understood by anyone yet. To achieve this, it has to be at least
completely published. To achieve a wide-spread understanding, institutions like those described in Section VII
have to be established first.

I firmly believe that this book, or rather the ideas it contains, has the chance to change the world, nay even to save
it. Whether it will do so depends on you. As far as an individual can undertake the initial steps suggested in this
programme, I am in one way or the other engaged in them - all too aware that the institutions required to allow an
individual to succeed with such creative endeavours have to be established first.

The potential is there - but it cannot be fully or sufficiently mobilised without your involvement.

                                                           J. M. Zube, 5/79.

                             TO MAKE A LASTING PEACE POSSIBLE
                         AND HOW CAN THESE REFORMS BE REALIZED?


What Fundamental Human Rights Have to Be Included in the Constitutions of all States to Assure Lasting World
Peace and what Institutions Are to Be Established upon these Constitutional Changes?

A) Principles ……………………………………………………………………………………………………                                                              25

Sec. I : What General New Human Rights Must Be Included in all Constitutions? …………………………..                         25

1. Introduction: Most Human Rights Apply only to Rational Beings ………………………………………….                                25

2. Extension of the Principle of Tolerance ……………………………………………………………………                                              25

3. The Right of Individuals to Secede from a State - and Exterritorial & Autonomous Communities of
   Volunteers …………………………………………………………………………………………………                                                                26

  a) Definition of the Right of Individuals to Secede from a State ………………………………………...                              26

  b) Exterritorial and Autonomous Communities of Volunteers as Peace Promoters ………………………                           27
     (How would the Exterritorial and Autonomous Communities of Volunteers resulting from the right to
      secede be more able than the present States to establish and preserve world Peace? Would already the
      mere exercise of the right to secede be peace promoting?)

     Experimental freedom for social, economic and political experiments would prevent wars ……………                 28
     The arms race would come to an end …………………………………………………………………….                                               29
     A rational disarmament would become practicable ……………………………………………………...                                      29
     The secret production of nuclear weapons would be made nearly impossible …..……… ………………                       30
     Atomic weapons would be obviously useless …………………………………………………………….                                           31
     There would no longer remain an enemy territory or a territory to be defended. …………………………                    32
     Frontiers and thereby all frontier wars would disappear …………………………………………………                                  32
     Civil wars would become very rare ………………………………………………………………………                                                33
     The communist world revolution would become difficult to impossible …………………………………                            33
     Imperialist wars would no longer threaten ………………………………………………………………..                                         34
     Militarism would also end ………………………………………………………………………………..                                                   35
     Instances of the conventional abuse of the principle of collective responsibility would become less
     frequent ……………………………………………………………………………………………………                                                              35
     Nationalism, in its new form, would cease to disturb peace …………………………………………… ..                              37
     Racial strife would be reduced …………………………………………………………………………….                                                38
     Trade wars would cease ……………………………………………………………………………………                                               39
     A widespread understanding between people of different nations would become possible ………………           39
     The number of motives for wars would be reduced ………………………………………………………                                 40
     The decision on war and peace would be made by the people themselves ……………………………….                    41
     Militias would be established to guarantee world peace ………………………………………………….                           42
     World federations would become easy to establish ………………………………………………………                                43
     International Law would subsequently rest securely upon human rights …………………………………                    44
     The timely declaration of rightful war and peace aims would either prevent or rapidly end wars ……….   44
     Prisoners of war and deserters would become allies ………………………………………………………                              45
     Governments-in-exile could be more easily established and would help to end wars more rapidly ………     46
     Peace treaties would be facilitated …………………………………………………………………………                                      47
     Separate peace treaties would shorten wars ………………………………………………………………..                                 48


     The preparation and conduct of wrongful wars would become more difficult ……………………………. 49
     World peace would also be promoted by an extension of freedom of movement ………………………… 51
     The war promoting weapons monopoly would be abolished ……………………………………………… 51
     Conscription could no longer be practised ………………………………………………………………… 52
     Dictators could be much more easily overthrown ………………………………………………………… 52
     Disobedience towards the orders of war criminals would be promoted …………………………………… 54
     General strikes would become obviously superfluous to achieve peace …………………………………… 54
     Wrongful wars could no longer be financed against the will of the people ………………………………… 55
     Tax strikes against governments preparing an unjust war would become feasible ……………………….. 55
     The sovereignty of governments, to the extent that it can lead to wars. would be abolished ……………… 55
     Summary …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 56

4. Right and duty to resist ………………………………………………………………………………………..                                            58
5. Right to bear arms ………………………………………………………………………………………………                                                 59
6. The right to organise and train militarily ……………………………………………………………………….                                 60
7. Freedom of migration and movement ………………………………………………………………………….                                         60
8. Arbitration courts ………………………………………………………………………………………………                                                 62
9. Assemblies in the open air …………………………………………………………………………………….                                            62

Sec. II: What Economic New Human Rights Are to Be Included in all Constitutions? …………………………. 64

1. Right to break monopolies ……………………………………………………………………………………..                                            65
2. Freedom to issue standardised and typified means of exchange without legal tender …………………………            65
3. Freedom to choose any standard of value ………………………………………………………………………                                     69
4. Right to refuse to accept inferior or suspected means of payment …………………………………………….                     69
5. Free Trade ………………………………………………………………………………………………………                                                      69
6. Freedom for and within productive cooperatives ………………………………………………………………                                 70

B) Institutions …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 72

Sec.III: To what Extent Have our Institutions and principles for the Protection of Human Rights to Be Changed?
What New Institutions for the Protection of Human Rights Have to Be Established? ………………………….. 72

1. The Protective Institutions of the Old Kind Have Failed …………………………………………………….. 73
2. Exterritorial and Autonomous Communities of Volunteers …………………………………………………… 74
3. A New Human Rights Declaration Is Necessary ……………………………………………………………… 75
4. International Arbitration Court ………………………………………………………………………………… 76
5. Local Militias and International Militia Federation ……………………………………………………………. 77
6. What Principles of International Law Have to Be Included in the Constitutions? …………………………….. 77

  a) The Faults of the Old International Law ……………………………………………………………………. 77
  b) The New International Law, Based Essentially on Human Rights ………………………………………… 79
   c) Whose Laws Are to Apply in Cases of Arguments between Members of Different
     Protective Associations? ……………………………………………………………………………………. 82


7. Referendums …………………………………………………………………………………………………                                                        81
   a) Why is the parliamentary representative system on its own, without the possibility of
      referendums, insufficient? …………………………………………………………………………………                                            81
   b) Why and on what subjects should there be referendums? …………………………………………………                             82
   c) How would the introduction of exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers
      affect referendums? …………………………………………………………………………………………                                                83
   d) Are the people to ignorant to decide rightfully in referendums? ……………………………………………                     84
   e) Would the people, unenlightened as they still are, at present, come too easily under the influence
      of demagogues? ……………………………………………………………………………………………..                                                  85
   f) Are referendums suitable only for small States? ……………………………………………………………                               86

8. Arbitration Courts ……………………………………………………………………………………………... 87

  a) Why and to what extent should the sphere of private arbitration be enlarged? …………………………… 87
  b) Some disadvantages of today's monopolistic and statist jurisdiction ……………………………………….. 88
  c) Some general rules for arbitration courts …………………………………………………………………. 90

 9. Recall of Officials …………………………………………………………………………………………...                                               90
10. Police Powers ……………………………………………………………………………………………….                                                     91
11. Penal Institutions …………………………………………………………………………………………….                                                 91
12. Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………………………                                                       92

Sec. IV: What New Economic Institutions Are to Be Established upon the above Economic Rights? ………… 93

1. Private Banks of Issue which Issue Goods Warrants (etc.) instead of the Banknotes of the Old Kind ……..   94

  1/1 Definition of goods warrants …………………………………………………………………………….. 94
  1/2 Purpose of goods warrants ……………………………………………………………………………….. 94
  1/3 General notes on the foundation of means of payment ………………………………………………….. 95
  1/4 Shop-, debtor- & acceptance foundation as cover, instead of a metallic redemption fund ………………. 95
  1/5 Currency unit (standard of value) ………………………………………………………………………… 96
  1/6 Gold market, gold coins circulation and discount of goods warrants ……………………………………. 96
  1/7 Goods warrants must not possess legal tender ……………………………………………………………. 96
  1/8 Limited validity or circulation period of the goods warrants ……………………………………………. 97
  1/9 Repeal of the legal claim of creditors to payment in cash ………………………………………………… 98
  1/10 Text of goods warrants, denominations and typification ………………………………………………… 98
  1/11 Limits of goods warrants issues ………………………………………………………………………….. 99
  1/12 Discount of goods warrants …………………………………………………………………………… 100
  1/13 Use of goods warrants …………………………………………………………………………………. 100
  1/14 Forgeries ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 100
  1/15 The granting of loans ………………………………………………………………………………….. 101
  1/16 The circuits of goods warrants …………………………………………………………………………. 101
  1/17 Loans on claims ………………………………………………………………………………………… 101
  1/18 Claims which can be discounted or serve as basis for loans …………………………………………… 102
  1/19 Condition for loans: no price increases ………………………………………………………………… 102
  1/20 Maximum amount for credits ………………………………………………………………………….. 102
  1/21 Business area …………………………………………………………………………………………… 102
  1/22 Fee for the use of goods warrants ………………………………………………………………………. 102
  1/23 Repayment and cancellation ……………………………………………………………………………. 102
  1/24 Repayment with clearing bills issued by oneself ………………………………………………………. 103
  1/25 Debt foundation as guaranty for the reflux of goods warrants …………………………………………. 103
  1/26 Surcharge in cases of repayments with other means of exchange ……………………………………… 103

  1/27   Reflux by Means of the Purchase of Goods Warrants …………………………………………………. 103
  1/28   Time Limit for Loans …………………………………………………………………………………… 104
  1/29   Repayment in Instalments ……………………………………………………………………………… 104
  1/30   Legal Form of the Issuing Centre ……………………………………………………………………….. 104
  1/31   No Business Secrets ……………………………………………………………………………………. 104
  1/32   Clearing Centre …………………………………………………………………………………………. 104
  1/33   The Position of Employers in the Goods Warrants System …………………………………………….. 104
  1/34   The Advantages of the Goods Warrants System for the Workers ……………………………………… 105
  1/35   The Advantages of the Goods Warrants System for Wholesalers ……………………………………… 105
  1/36   The Advantages of the Goods Warrants System for Independent Professionals ………………………. 105
  1/37   Individuals as Issuers of Goods Warrants ……………………………………………………………… 106
  1/38   Goods Warrants Issued by Large Firms ………………………………………………………………… 106
  1/39   Principles and Conditions for the Granting of Long-Term Credits in Goods Warrants by the
         Shop-Association Bank …………………………………………………………………………………. 106

2. Paper Money without Legal Tender but with Tax Foundation ……………………………………………….. 108

2/1 Freedom to Issue - even for the Treasury ………………………………………………………………….. 108
2/2 What Is State Paper Money when it Is not Redeemable and Does not Possess the
    Legal Tender Characteristic? ………………………………………………………………………………. 109
2/3 What Is the Essence of Tax Foundation? …………………………………………………………………… 109
2/4 Why Should such Paper Money never Possess Legal Tender? …………………………………………….. 110
2/5 When Must the Issue of Tax Warrants Cease? …………………………………………………………… 111
2/6 Value-Preserving State Paper Money can only Be Issued upon Short-Term Tax Claims ……………….. 111
2/7 No Monopoly for the Issue of such Means of Payment ………………………………………………….. 112
2/8 Gold-Clearing Currency ………………………………………………………………………………….. 112
2/9 Surcharge in Cases of Tax Payments with other Means of Exchange …………………………………… 112
2/10 Limited Validity for Tax Warrants? ……………………………………………………………………… 113
2/11 No Secrecy for the Issue of Tax Warrants ……………………………………………………………….. 113
2/12 Summary ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 113

3. Gold Clearing Currency within a Free Market for Gold and all other Metals which Con Serve as Standard of
Value and as means of payment ………………………………………………………………………………… 114

4. Free Trade System, introduced by Free Ports and Free Trade Zones ………………………………………… 115

4/1   The Fundamental Aims of Free Trade ……………………………………………………………………… 115
4/2   Principles and Facts upon which Free Traders Rest their Case ……………………………………………. 116
4/3   The Ideal of Protectionists ………………………………………………………………………………… 116
4/4   Free Trade and Tolerance …………………………………………………………………………………. 117
4/5   Precedents ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 117
4/6   Details on the Free Trade Zones to Be Established ……………………………………………………… 118
4/7   It Is up to the Protectionists to Arrange for the Barriers to their Trade which they Believe they Need …… 118
4/8   What Will Free Trade Associations Use as Means of Payment? …………………………………………… 119

      a) Payment with Foreign Exchange ………………………………………………………………………… 119
      b) Payment with the State Paper Money currently circulating .…………………………………………... 119
      c) Payment with Gold Coins and Gold Deposit Certificates ……………………………………………… 120
      d) Payment with Gold-Value-Clearing-Certificates ………………………………………………………. 120

4/ 9 Should Free Trade be Introduced even with Communist Governments? ……………………………… 121
4/10 Is the Transition to Free Trade too Difficult? …………………………………………………………… 121
4/11 Is Free Trade only Good for some People and Harmful ………………………………………………… 122
for others?

5. Productive Cooperatives ……………………………………………………………………………………… 123

 5/1 Principle : Everyone Becomes an Owner of Means of Production ……………………………………… 124
 5/2 Cooperative Property as Distinct from the so-called People's Property ………………………………….. 124
 5/3 Establishment of Productive Cooperatives through the Purchase of Existing Enterprises ……………….. 125
 5/4 Will the Unions Prevent these Reforms? …………………………………………………………………. 126
 5/5 Closed Cooperatives as Opposed to Open Cooperatives …………………………………………………. 126
 5/6 Main Problems: Management and Marketing …………………………………………………………….. 126
 5/7 Distribution of Profits …………………………………………………………………………………… 127
 5/8 Appeal to the Capital Market, when Necessary ………………………………………………………….. 127
 5/9 Responsibility of Members ………………………………………………………………………………. 127
 5/10 The Organs of the Cooperative ………………………………………………………………………… 127
 5/11 Particular Advantages of Cooperative Production ……………………………………………………… 128

    a) No more Strikes …………………………………………………………………………………………. 128
    b) Rationalisation ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 128
    c) Increase of Productivity by Subdivision of Large Cooperatives into small subgroups ………………… 129
    d) Higher Quality of Products ……………………………………………………………………………… 130
    e) Personal Independence …………………………………………………………………………………... 130
    f) Working Hours ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 130
    g) Earnings ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 130
    h) Management Mistakes Will Become less Frequent …………………………………………………….. 130
    i) "Go Slow" Policies Will End ……………………………………………………………………………. 131
    j) Jobs according to Ability ………………………………………………………………………………… 131
    k) Increase of Productivity through Job Rotation in Relatively Simple and Monotonous Jobs …………. 131
    l) Theft and Embezzlement Will Be Reduced ……………………………………………………………... 132
   m) Waste and Abuse through Neglect and Maliciousness Will Become Less Frequent ……………………. 132
   n) Amenities ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 132
   o) Less Supervision Required ……………………………………………………………………………… 132
   p) Superfluous Jobs Reduced ……………………………………………………………………………….. 132
   q) Corruption Avoided ……………………………………………………………………………………... 132
    r) Just Determination of the Individual Share in the Profits ……………………………………………… 133

 5/12 Summary ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 133

6. Open Cooperatives According to Theodor Hertzka to Abolish the Monopoly Position of those
   Natural Monopolies which Do not Deserve Recognition. ……………………………….…………………… 134

  6/1 Unlimited Acceptance of New Members ……………………………………………….……………… 134
  6/2 Participatory Decision Making by all those Interested ……….………………………………………… 135
  6/3 All Business Open to Public Scrutiny ………………………………………………………………….. 136
  6/4 The Essence of Open Cooperatives …………………………………………………………………….. 136
  6/5 Any Remaining Monopoly Earnings Will Be Donated by the Open Cooperatives ……………………. 137
  6/6 Land Monopoly ………………………………………………………………………………………… 137
  6/7 Real Estate Property and Right to Living Space ………………………………………………………. 138
  6/8 Conversion of Monopoly Enterprises into Open Cooperatives Means their Proper Socialisation
      or Transformation into Free Market Enterprises ………………………………………………………… 139

7. Free and Private Building and Housing Market ……………………………………………………………….. 140

 7/1   House Building Must Be Liberated ……………………………………………………………………… 141
 7/2   Disadvantages of the Provision of Housing by the State ………………………………………………… 142
 7/3   How Should Private House Building Be Financed? ……………………………………………………… 142
 7/4   Tax Exemption for New Buildings and Building Credits ……………………………………………….. 142
 7/5   Development of Saving and Building Cooperatives ……………………………………………………. 143
 7/6   Rationalisation of Building ……………………………………………………………………………… 143
 7/7   Cooperatives of Building Workers ……………………………………………………………………… 144

8. Private Social Insurance Companies …………………………………………………………………………... 144

  8/1   Repeal of Compulsory Insurance with a Monopolistic Insurance Authority …………………………                  144
  8/2   Self-Financing of the Private Social Insurance Companies with their Own Contribution Money .………   144
  8/3   Abolition of Interest Ceilings ……………………………………………………………………………                                      144
  8/4   Safeguarding Insurance Fund Investments by the Reform of the Trustee Acts …………………………               145
  8/5   Decentralisation into Many Local Insurance Cooperatives ……………………………………………..                       146
  8/6   Separation of the Old Age from the Invalidity Insurance ……………………………………………….                       146

 9. Free and Private Exchanges …………………………………………………………………………………                                            146
10. Voluntary Taxation ………………………………………………………………………………………….                                                147
11. Unemployment "Insurance" …………………………………………………………………………………                                              149
12. Employment Agencies ………………………………………………………………………………………                                                 150
13. Private and Competitive Transport Services …………………………………………………………………                                  150
14. Private and Competitive Energy Supply              151

     14/1 No Monopoly for any Power Plant …………………………………………………………………… 151
     14/2 Socialisation (via Open Cooperatives) for those Power Plans with a
          Natural Monopoly Position …………………………………………………………………………… 151
     14/3 No Nuclear Power Plants ……………………………………………………………………………... 151

         a) They are Monopoly Enterprises ……………………………………………………………………. 151
         b) They Can Be Abused for Military Purposes ……………………………………………………….. 152

     14/4 Supply of Future Energy Requirements through the Opening up of New and Development of Old,
          Cheap and, Contrary to Nuclear Energy, Harmless Energy Sources …………………………………… 152

15. Private Postal Services ………………………………………………………………………………………. 153
16. Private Water Works …………………………………………………………………………………………. 153
17. Private Garbage Removal ……………………………………………………………………………………. 153
18. Local Federations of Exterritorial and Autonomous Communities of Volunteers ………………………….. 154

     18/1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………..                                              154
     18/2 Remarks on some Possible Tasks of such Local Federations …………………………………………..                     154
     18/3 Community Assembly as the Supreme Body …………………………………………………………..                                 155
     18/4 Financing of Common Expenditures …………………………………………………………………..                                    155

19. Summary of Section IV …………………………………………………………………………………….                                               155


                                          PART TWO
DESCRIBED IN THE ABOVE FOUR SECTIONS, BE REALIZED? …………………………………...                                       156


REGIMES ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 156

1. Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 157
2. What Is a Revolution? ………………………………………………………………………………………… 157
3. When Is a Revolution Justified? ……………………………………………………………………………… 157
4. Against Whom and What Shall a Revolution Be Directed? ………………………………………………….. 158
5. Who Should Carry out the Revolution? ………………………………………………………………………. 158
6. A Programme Is Necessary …………………………………………………………………………………… 159
7. Final Aims of the Revolution Necessary Today ………………………………………………………………. 159
8. What Means and Methods Must not Be Used by Revolutionaries? …………………………………………... 160

  8/1    Mass Extermination Devices ……………………………………………………………………………. 160
  8/2    General Strike …………………………………………………………………………………………… 160
  8/3    Conscription ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 161
  8/4    Plunder and Requisitioning ……………………………………………………………………………… 162
  8/5    Payment with Requisitioning Certificates or Inflated Paper Money ……………………………………. 162
  8/6    A State of Siege …………………………………………………………………………………………. 163
  8/7    Blockade Measures ……………………………………………………………………………………… 163
  8/8    Measures Based upon the Principle of Collective Responsibility ………………………………………. 163
  8/9    Annihilation of the Army of the Dictator ………………………………………………………………. 163
  8/10   Torture, Rape and other Cruelties ………………………………………………………………………. 163
  8/11   Arson ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 164
  8/12   General Sabotage ………………………………………………………………………………………. 164
  8/13   Treatment of all Officers and Public Servants of the Dictator as Enemies ……………………………. 165
  8/14   The "No Pardon!" Practice as well as the Treatment of those who Were Conscripted against the
         Revolutionaries as Enemies and Prisoners of War ……………………………………………………... 165
  8/15   Unlimited Central Revolutionary Authority …………………………………………………………… 166
  8/16   Espionage ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 166
  8/17   Intoxication ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 166
  8/18   Barricades ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 167
  8/19   Flags ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 167
  8/20   Abuse of Prisoners …………………………………………………………………………………….. 167

9. What Means and Methods Should Be Used by Libertarian Revolutionaries? ………………………………… 167

  9/1 Strict Respect for Human Rights and the Natural Rights of Rational Beings …………………………….. 167
  9/2 Organisational Measures …………………………………………………………………………………. 168
  9/3 Military Measures …………………………………………………………………………………………. 171

     a) The Revolution Should Begin with a Military Insurrection ……………………………………………… 171
     b) Initial Meetings of Soldiers ……………………………………………………………………………….. 171
     c) Secession from the Army and Establishment of the Militia ……………………………………………… 171
     d) The First Small Actions of the Revolutionary Militia ……………………………………………………. 172
     e) Amnesty and Outlawry …………………………………………………………………………………… 173
     f) Peace Declaration Towards Foreign Countries …………………………………………………………… 174
     g) Disarmament with Regard to Weapons which Infringe Human Rights ………………………………….. 174
     h) Where Should the Revolution Start? ……………………………………………………………………… 176
     i) Timing the Beginning of the Revolution ………………………………………………………………….. 177
     j) How to Prevent a New Military Dictatorship …………………………………………………………….. 177


9/4 Economic Measures of the Revolutionaries ………………………………………………………………... 177

     A) Monetary Revolution …………………………………………………………………………………... 177

         a) Occupation and Closure of the Central Bank
         b) Proclamation of:
            the Repeal of Legal Tender & of the Monopoly Position of the Central Bank,
            the Freedom to Issue Means of Payment and the Right to Engage in Clearing whenever this
            is Possible. …………………………………………………………………………………………... 178
         c) Establishment and Initiation of Numerous Clearing Centres and Banks of Issue,
             Especially of Cooperative Banks of Retailers ………………………………………………………. 178
          d) Proclamation of Freedom in the Choice of Standards of Value and Establishment
             of a Free Gold Market and Introduction of the Gold Clearing Currency …………………………… 179

      B) Financing of the Revolution …………………………………………………………………………….. 179

         a) Some Remarks on the Importance of the Ability to Pay as Foundation
            for a Successful Revolution …………………………………………………………………………... 179
         b) What Is the Influence of a Revolution upon Payments and Credits? ………………………………... 180
         c) Financing of a Fighting Revolutionary Militia Army ………………………………………………… 180

            c/1 Cash Payments instead of Pillage ………………………………………………………………... 180
            c/2 Issue of Tax Foundation Money …………………………………………………………………. 181
            c/3 Tax Levies and Use of these Funds ………………………………………………………………. 181
            c/4 Usage of Rare Metal Coins ………………………………………………………………………. 182
            c/5 Issue of Shop Foundation Money and Clearing Certificates ……………………………………... 182

         d) The Importance of the Monetary Revolution for the Financing and
            the Victory of the Revolution ………………………………………………………………………… 183
         e) Shortening of Wage Payment Periods ………………………………………………………………. 184
         f) Financing of Larger Resistance Groups before he Outbreak of the General Revolution …………… 184

      C) Various Economic and Social Reform Measures of the Revolutionaries ……………………………… 186

         a) Tax Strike ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 186
         b) Refusal to Accept the Paper Money of the Dictator ………………………………………………… 187
         c) Protection of Property ……………………………………………………………………………….. 189
         d) Preservation and Use of Transport Facilities ………………………………………………………… 189
         e) Repeal of all Legal Monopolies and Economic Restrictions ………………………………………... 189
         f) Repeal of all Quotas ………………………………………………………………………………….. 189
         g) Repeal of Price Control ……………………………………………………………………………… 190
         h) Free Trade in Agricultural Products ………………………………………………………………… 190
         i) Free Choice of Professions? Training Opportunities and Jobs ………………………………………. 190
         j) Transformation of all National Enterprises into Ordinary or Open Cooperatives …………………… 190
         k) Establishment of Free Trade Relations with Foreign Countries ……………………………………... 190
         l) Unrestricted Sales of the State's Food Stores to the Population ……………………………………... 191
         m) Provision of Work for all those Rendered Unemployed through the Revolution …………………. 191
         n) Abolition of the Housing Shortage ………………………………………………………………….. 191
         o) Establishment of Guaranty Associations ……………………………………………………………. 191
         p) Recognition of Indemnification Claims only in a few Extreme Cases ……………………………... 191


10. What Can Already Now Be Done in the Free Countries to Prepare a Revolution against a Dictatorship like that
of the Soviets? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 193

      10/1 The Social Reforms which Are to Be Realized in the Dictatorial States in a Revolutionary Way,
           Are, first of all, to Be Realized in a Peaceful Way in the Relatively Free Countries …………………. 193
      10/2 An Academy for Revolutionaries …………………………………………………………………….. 193
      10/3 The Sketch of a Revolutionary Programme, here Supplied, Must Be further Developed ……………. 194
      10/4 Publication of the Revolutionary Programme in the Countries under Despotic Regimes ……………. 194
      10/5 Guaranties for the Rightful and Peaceful Intentions of the People in the Western Countries towards the
           Oppressed under Dictatorships ………………………………………………………………………... 195
      10/6 Unlimited Acceptance of Refugees and Deserters …………………………………………………… 195
      10/7 Employment and Accommodation for Refugees and Deserters ……………………………………… 196
      10/8 Establishment of Exterritorial and Autonomous Communities of Volunteers in the West and
           Promotion of such Associations formed by Refugees and Deserters …………………………………. 197
     10/9 Teaching the Language Prevailing in Despotically Governed Countries ……………………………… 198
     10/10   Preparation of Trade Relations ………………………………………………………………………. 198
     10/11   Storage and Smuggling in of Communication Kits …………………………………………………… 199
     10/12   Unilateral Destruction of all Nuclear Weapons ……………………………………………………….. 199
     10/13   Tyrannicide ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 201
     10/14   Appeal to the Oppressed Population to Let themselves Be Trained, Militarily, by the
             Dictators ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 201

11. Suggestions for Resistance Groups before the Outbreak of the General Revolution ………………………... 201
12. Tasks for the Resistance Groups …………………………………………………………………………….. 202
13. Open Word to the Soviet Government, the Rulers of Red China and to all other Despotic Regimes ……… 203


1. Is the Militia a Rightful Institution? …………………………………………………………………………...                             205
2. Is the Militia Necessary for the Protection of Human Rights? ………………………………………………                    206
3. On the Objection that the Weapons Monopoly Must not Be Repealed ………………………………………                    207
4. General Aims and Particular Tasks of the Militia …………………………………………………………….                          209

  4/1 Realisation and Protection of Human Rights and the Natural Rights of Rational Beings ………………..   209
  4/2 Resisting and Disarming Organizations Opposed to Human Rights ……………………………………...                 210
  4/3 Some Examples of Rights to Be Protected by the Militia ………………………………………………..                     210
  4/4 Abolition of the Threat of Nuclear War …………………………………………………………………..                              212
  4/5 Abolition of the Danger of War altogether ……………………………………………………………….                             213
  4/6 Tasks of the International Militia Federation ……………………………………………………………..                         213

        a) Support for the Rightful endeavours of the U.N. ………………………………………………………                      213
        b) Reform of the U.N. …………………………………………………………………………………...                                      214
        c) Abolition of Dictatorial Regimes ……………………………………………………………………..                              214
        d) Determining: Who is the Aggressor? …………………………………………………………………                               215

  4/7 Abolition of Standing Armies ……………………………………………………………………………. 219
  4/8 Decision on War and Peace ………………………………………………………………………………. 219


5. Structure and Organization of the Militia ……………………………………………………………………... 222

  5/1 Local Organization ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 222
  5/2 Voluntary Membership …………………………………………………………………………………... 222
  5/3 Oath to Uphold Human Rights …………………………………………………………………………... 222
  5/4 Autonomy of the Militia ………………………………………………………………………………… 223
  5/5 Kind of Armament ………………………………………………………………………………………. 224
  5/6 General Rights of Members of the Militia ……………………………………………………………….. 224

       a) Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 224
       b) Freedom of Speech and Press ………………………………………………………………………… 225
       c) Right to Assemble and Associate ……………………………………………………………………… 225
       d) Right to Petition ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 225
       e) Freedom of Information ………………………………………………………………………………... 225
       f ) Right and Duty to Keep Secrets ……………………………………………………………………….. 226
       g) Individual Responsibility ………………………………………………………………………………. 226
       h) Voluntarism ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 226
       i) What Rights Will Be Restricted through the Duty to Resist and to Keep Secrets? …………………….. 226

  5/7 The Military Obedience Arising out of the Right and Duty to Resist - and Its Limits …………………… 227
  5/8 Election of Militia Officers ………………………………………………………………………………. 228
  5/9 Recall of Militia Officers, in certain Cases, by their Subordinates ……………………………………… 230
  5/10 Are Professional Soldiers Necessary? ………………………………………………………………….. 231
  5/11 The Supreme Commander ……………………………………………………………………………… 231
  5/12 Mobilising the Militia: The "On-The-Minute-Man" System …………………………………………… 231
  5/13 Publicness of Aims, Meetings and Actions of the Militia .……………………………………………… 232
  5/14 Part-time Soldiers, Unpaid ……………………………………………………………………………… 232
  5/15 Support in Peace Time …………………………………………………………………………………… 232
  5/16 Training and Exercises …………………………………………………………………………………… 233
  5/17 Membership ……………………………………………………………………………………………... 233

       a) Acceptance …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 233
       b) Age Limit …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 234
       c) Right to Leave ………………………………………………………………………………………… 234
       d) Exclusion …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 234

  5/18 Age Structure of Different Units ………………………………………………………………………… 234
  5/19 Military Penal Code of the Militia ………………………………………………………………………. 235
  5/20 Jurisdiction ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 235
  5/21 Insurance of Members …………………………………………………………………………………… 236
5/22 Promotion System ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 236
5/23 No Class Distinctions between Officers and Men …………………………………………………………. 237

6. Can the Militia Become a Threat to Human Rights? ……………………………………………………….. 237
7. How Should the Militia Be Established in the Free and Democratic States? ………………………………… 237
8. Relationship of the Newly Established Militias to the Armies of the Old Type ……………………………... 238
9. International instead of National Organization of the Militia ………………………………………………. 238
10. The Army of Cromwell: A Historical Precedent for the Militia Here Proposed ……………………………..239
11. Methods and Principles of Warfare Conducted by the Militia ………………………………………………. 240

     11/1 Introduction : Why Must Peace Lovers Arm and Train themselves and Prepare for the
          Conduct of a War? ……………………………………………………………………………………… 240
     11/2 General Principle of the Militia for Conducting War ………………………………………………….. 241
     11/3 What Actions Must not Be Committed by Militia Men? ………………………………………………. 241

        a) Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 241
        b) Treatment of all Soldiers, Officers and other Subjects of the Enemy Regime as Enemies ……… 241
        c) Raids against Civilians and Constructions Serving mainly Civil Purposes ………………………… 241


        d) The Taking and Punishment of Hostages …………………………………………………………... 242
        e) Blockades ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 242
        f) Wrongful Siege Measures …………………………………………………………………………… 242
        g) Use of Mass Extermination Devices ………………………………………………………………… 242
        h) Confiscation of Foreign Investments ………………………………………………………………… 242
        i) Plunder, Requisitioning or Payment with Inferior Means of Payment ……………………………….. 243
        j) Cruelties, Rapes, Arson ……………………………………………………………………………… 243
       k) Scorched Earth Measures ……………………………………………………………………………. 243
        l) Sabotage Acts (indiscriminate ones!) ………………………………………………………………... 243
       m) Military Police ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 243
       n) Compulsory Identity Cards in Occupied Territories ………………………………………………… 243

11/4 Warfare as Conducted by the Militia A Kind of Military Jiu Jitsu ………………………………………… 244

     a) Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 244
     b) Initiation of Military Insurrections and Revolutions against the Enemy Dictator ………………………. 244
     c) Appeal to Desert, Directed to the Soldiers and Civilian Subject of the Dictator ………………………… 244
       d) Special Negotiations with Officers on the other Side to Achieve their Cooperation …………………… 249
       e) Separate Peace Treaties with whole Military Units of the Dictatorship …………………………………. 249
       f) Establishment of Governments-in-Exile and Conclusion of Peace Treaties with them ………………….. 250
       g) Details on the Proper Treatment of Deserters and Captured Conscripts ………………………………... 251
       h) Employment and Accommodation for Deserters ……………………………………………………….. 251
       i) Promotion of Exterritorial and Autonomous Communities formed by Defectors etc. ………………….. 252
       j) Language Instruction in all Languages Prevailing in Dictatorial Countries …………………………….. 252
       k) Food Drops instead of Bomb Raids ……………………………………………………………………. 252
       l) Proclamation of Rightful War Aims …………………………………………………………………….. 253
     m) One-Sided Peace Declaration ……………………………………………………………………………. 256
      n) Timely Publication of the Programme of the Militia ……………………………………………………. 258
      o) Tyrannicide ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 258
      p) Observance of International Law and the International Law on Warfare, especially of the Hague
          Convention, to the extent that they rest upon the recognition of Human Rights ………………………… 261
      q) What Should Be Done instead of Taking Hostages? ……………………………………………………. 263
      r) Action towards Nationalistic Terrorists ………………………………………………………………… 264
      s) Treatment of Prisoners of War in the Old Sense ………………………………………………………… 265
      t) To what Extent Would the Militia Use Destruction as a Military Means? ………………………………. 266
     u) Measures to Prevent Rapes ………………………………………………………………………………. 269
     v) Public Appeals as Weapons ……………………………………………………………………………… 270

11/5 Some Remarks on the Financing of the Warfare of the Militia …………………………………………… 272



SPREAD IN THE DEMOCRATIC STATES? ………………………………………………………………….. 277

1. Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………... 278
2. Discussion Centres to Promote the Free Exchange of Opinions ……………………………………………... 278

  2/1 The Right of Men and Citizens to Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Information ………………          278
  2/2 What Is Required to Promote the Free Exchange of Opinions? ………………………………………….                      278
  2/3 How Should Discussions in a Discussion Centre be organised to Facilitate Opinion Exchanges? ………   279
  2/4 Some Advantages of such Discussion Centres ……………………………………………………………                                280
  2/5 Some Details on these Centres …………………………………………………………………………….                                      281
  2/6 How Could the First Discussion Centre in a Large Town Be Established? ………………………………                281

3. Meeting Centres in the Open Air ……………………………………………………………………………. 282

     3/1   The Basic Proposal ………………………………………………………………………………………. 282
     3/2   What Advantages Are Offered by such Places? ……………………………………………………… 282
     3/3   On the Importance of such Meeting Places …………………………………………………………….. 283
     3/4   Details on these Institutions and their Equipment ………………………………………………………. 284
     3/5   Some Remarks on their Establishment …………………………………………………………………. 285

4. Magazines for the Free Exchange of Opinions ……………………………………………………………….. 285

     4/1 For Whom Should such Magazines Be Published and what Is their Aim? ……………………………. 285
     4/2 Why Are such Magazines Necessary? ………………………………………………………………….. 286
     4/3 Are they Made Superfluous by the Fact that many Magazines Have Letters to the Editor? … ………… 287
     4/4 Why Have such Magazines not yet Been Established? …………………………………………………. 287
     4/5 Subjects for the Proposed Magazines …………………………………………………………………… 287
     4/6 What Kind of Contributions Should these Magazines Publish Preferentially,
         according to their Discretion?…………………………………………………………………………….. 288
     4/7 Principles and Conditions for the Publication of Contributions Made by the Readers …………………. 288
     4/8 Solution of the Problems Arising from the Limited Space Available for Contributions ………………. 289
     4/9 Periodical Meetings of Readers …………………………………………………………………………. 290
     4/10 How Should such Magazines Be Distributed? ………………………………………………………….. 290
     4/11 Some Suggestions for the Establishment of such Magazines ………………………………………….. 291
     4/12 Proposals on how to Finance them ……………………………………………………………………… 292
     4/13 Some Characteristics of these Magazines which Will Facilitate their Financing ………………………. 293

5. Magazines for the Timely and Sufficient Announcement of all Lecture and Discussion Events at which
   Guests Are Welcome (Meeting Calendars) …………………………………………………………………… 293
6. Archive of Social Reform Ideas and the Addresses of Social Reformers …………………………………… 294

     6/1   The Importance of Social Reform Ideas …………………………………………………………………. 294
     6/2   What Obstacles Exist for the Realisation of Social Reform Ideas? ……………………………………… 295
     6/3   What Should Be Done to Facilitate the Realisation of Social Reform Ideas? …………………………. 298
     6/4   What Particular Advantages Would this Archive Have to Offer? ……………………………………… 298
     6/5   Principles and Conditions of the Archive ………………………………………………………………. 300


     6/6 How Could this Archive Be Established? ………………………………………………………………… 300
     6/7 The Archive here Proposed Is merely Part of a General Archive for Ideas and Talents ………………… 301

7. An Encyclopaedia of Wide-Spread Prejudices, Errors and Fallacies - which Obstruct Social Progress - together
with the Best Refutations so far Found: for Use in all Discussions on Economic, Social & Political Problems. 301

     7/1 On the Spread of Prejudices …………………………………………………………………………… 301
     7/2 On the Importance of Prejudices ……………………………………………………………………….. 302
     7/3 On the Ease of Accepting and Spreading Prejudices, Errors and Fallacies …………………………… 303
     7/4 On the Difficulties of Attempts to Refute Prejudices, Errors and Fallacies …………………………… 304
     7/5 What Is Required to Fight Prejudices? ………………………………………………………………….. 308
     7/6 Proposal: Compilation and Publication of an Encyclopaedia of Wide-Spread Prejudices, Errors and Wrong
         Conclusions together with their Best Refutations ……………………………………………………… 309
     7/7 What Advantages would this Encyclopaedia Offer? …………………………………………………… 310
     7/8 How Should It Be Established? …………………………………………………………………………. 312
     7/9 How, Where, When and What For Should this Encyclopaedia Be Used? ……………………………… 313
     7/10 Some Technical Details of this Planned Encyclopaedia ……………………………………………….. 313
     7/11 Would this Encyclopaedia Render the above Discussed Tolerance & Experimental Freedom
          Superfluous or vice versa? ……………………………………………………………………………… 314

8. Flow-Chart Discussions ……………………………………………………………………………………… 314

     8/1 What Is a Flow-Chart Discussion? ……………………………………………………………………. 314
     8/2 What Advantages Does it Offer? ………………………………………………………………………. 315
     8/3 How Can it Be Carried Out? …………………………………………………………………………….. 316

9. Programme for a Genuinely Cultural Revolution ……………………………………………………………. 317

10. Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 328

                              A P P E N D I X:                     ………………………………………… 329

I.    Draft of a New Declaration of those Human Rights and Natural Rights of Rational Beings
      - which Were so far Discovered …………………………………………………………………………. 330

II. Some Contributions to Explain the Proposal to Establish Exterritorial and Autonomous Communities
     of Volunteers - in Order to Achieve World Peace …………………………………………………………… 350

1. Johann Gottlieb Fichte: "Beitrag zur Berichtigung der Urteile des Publikums ueber die Franzoesische
   Revolution" (Contribution to Rectify Public Opinion on the French Revolution ), 1793,
   Extract from Book 1, chapter 3. ……………………………………………………………………………… 350

2. P. E. DePuydt: "Panarchie" (Panarchy), Revue Trimestrielle, Brussels, 1860. ……………………………… 358
   For updated French, German, Italian, English & Spanish texts see:

3. Herbert Spencer: Social Contract, 1850, Extract from chapters XIX and XXI. ……………………………… 369

4. Werner Ackermann, Appeal to Establish a Cosmopolitan Union, 1931, …………………………………….. 374

5. Ulrich von Beckerath: Draft for the next Peace Treaty with Russia, July 1933 ……………………………… 375

6. Edward Gibbon: The Laws of the Barbarians, an extract from vol. 4, chapter 38 of his famous work. ……… 379

7. Comparison of Anarchism with the New Social System Proposed in this Book ……………………………                          380


III. Has Passive Resistance a Chance for Success? ……………………………………………………………                                         382

IV. Some Remarks on the Theory that the Security of the "Free World" could be guaranteed by the deterrent
    effect of Nuclear Weapons ………………………………………………………………………………… 386

V. A Summary of the Main Points of this Book ………………………………………………………………. 390

VI. Alphabetical Index ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 393



1.) LIBERTARIANS FOR LIFE: The Abortion Debate from the Libertarian Pro-Life Perspective, 16pp ……. 448
    The articles are listed on page 448.

2.) Edwin Vieira, Jr., The "Right of Abortion": A Dogma in Search of a Rationale. A response to Murray Rothbard,
    Tibor Machan & Walter Block, n.d., 8 pages ………………………………………………………………… 464

     There is a connection between abortion and warn in the readiness to kill innocents under all kinds of excuses,
     but I will not try to elaborate on this connection here and now, having dealt with the subject at some length
     elsewhere before, in my PEACE PLANS series. - J.Z., 7.12.08.

3.) LIBERTARIAN MICROFICHE PUBLISHING, Alphabetical Author Listing, MARCH 1982, 12 pp ……. 472
    Added here because it was added to PEACE PLANS 61-63. Four other items, that were fiched in PP 61-65,
    are still omitted here. They are listed on page 447. I have probably microfilmed them somewhere else.
    J.Z., 7.12.02.

Another self-advertising which followed the above Contents list in PP 61-63: (The figures then given are naturally
dated by now:

non-exclusive microfiche publishing.

I charge for this at present $ 25 per 98 pages. For this you get 25 "free" copies and can at any time order more, per
ordinary mail, at $ 25 per 100.
 All other kinds of libertarian material, previously published but out of print or in low impressions only - and not
under copyrights restrictions, at least for this publishing - is also wanted, under the same conditions.

Sponsor your favourite libertarian literature as cheaply. Help to make it available in this form upon demand and
prevent it from every getting out of print again.

A 52 page introductory booklet to micrographics, written especially for libertarians, offset: "GONE FICHING -
FOR LIBERTY", will be sent by ordinary mail for $ 1.

PEACE PLANS No. 46, on fiche, listing in detail the contents of PEACE PLANS Nos. 1-45 and also the
publishing programme of Libertarian Microfiche Publishing, will be sent free, upon request, by ordinary mail.

Microfiche publishing, through me or others, offers you a very cheap opportunity for the self-publishing of books,
pamphlets and magazines. ALL YOU NEED, or anyone else, to read all such material, is a CHEAP microfiche
(All the rest con be done for you by one of the numerous micrographic agencies, fast, well and compared with
printing, very cheap. ENQUIRE!)

You CAN GET A GOOD ENOUGH MICROFICHE READER, either an outdated model or a second-hand
machine, from as low as $ 45 onwards. Look around. E.g. Gordon Enterprises, 'Microfilm Division, P.O. Box 3914
North Hollywood, Cal. 91 609, specialise on reconditioned machines and offer a comprehensive catalog which is
almost as good as the market survey by the National Micrographics Association.

MY "Gone Fiching for Liberty" lists cheap and small readers and literature on fiche or film that is of interest to
libertarians. These lists will be expanded in future PEACE PLANS.

Upon large literature orders some firms even offer you free microfiche readers. What are you waiting for?

On microfiche all libertarian thoughts, ideas, proposals and discoveries, all addresses and connections you need,
can soon become available to you and all others, very cheaply - with your cooperation.

Be With It! For Freedom In Our Time!


25 A

                                            PART ONE:
                                               A) PRINCIPLES

                                                  SECTION I:

                             IN ALL CONSTITUTIONS?

       "Right is thus: The reasonable peaceful order of a human society in its external relations with others
       and towards property." - Prof. Dr. Felix Dahn: "Deutsches Rechtsbuch" (A German Book on Rights)
       "Creation alone: that such a species of corrupt beings should exist on Earth, is apparently indefensible
       by any religious teachings - if we presume that mankind neither will nor can improve. We will,
       inevitably, be driven to such desperate conclusions unless we suppose that pure moral principles have
       objective reality, i.e., they can be realised and must be acted upon by the people in a State and by the
       States among themselves, no matter what objections empirical politics might raise. True politics cannot
       take a single step without humbling itself before morality and although politics by itself is a very difficult
       art, its combination with morality simplifies matters, for morality cuts, the knot which politics cannot
       unravel - whenever the two contradict each other.
       Right must be held supreme by man, no matter how many sacrifices this requires of the ruling powers.
       One cannot go half-way here and devise a compromise between a pragmatically conditioned right
       (between morality and utility). Instead, politics must bow its knees before morality.
       As a result it may hope to rise - though only slowly - to a stage where it will shine persistently."
                                Immanuel Kant in "ETERNAL PEACE", 1795.

       "One has attempted so many things. When will one finally try the most simple solution, Liberty? Liberty
       for all actions not infringing justice. The liberty to live, to develop oneself, to perfect oneself. The liberty
       for the free use of all talents, the liberty for the unrestrained exchange of all services?"
                                Frederic Bastiat: "ECONOMIC HARMONIES"

      "Human rights declarations were never complete and, forseeably, will never be complete."
                                       Prof. Arnold J. Lien

25 B

According to their very nature, most human rights are suitable only for rational beings. Thus nobody can
unconditionally claim them who is so irrational as to persistently and significantly offend against any human right.

When human rights are conceded to tyrants and their henchmen, world peace remains threatened. When members
of totalitarian groups are conceded the "right" to bear arms, the human rights of all others are endangered. The
practice of a human right would thus endanger human rights. Such a contradiction can only be solved by
recognition that most human rights apply only to adult and rational human beings and not to irrational ones.

As irrational one would have to consider everyone from whom one would have to expect, judging by his past
actions, that he would continue to offend against human rights - at least in the persons of others (in cases of people
claiming certain rights for themselves).                           1

In some theories this idea has already been expressed - although the general conclusion has only been rarely drawn,
due to the prevailing egalitarian bias and the tendency to make unjustified generalisations. Thus article 30 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10/12/48 states:

       "Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to
       engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set
       forth herein."

In practice, this limited applicability of human rights, i.e. to rational beings only, has been largely realized by the
outlawry of national socialists in many countries and by condemning criminals (i.e., people who had offended
against the rights to life, physical inviolability and property ) to some kind of slave existence for a certain period,
also by depriving children and madmen of certain rights.
The human rights draft in the appendix (and previously published in Peace Plans No. 4) tried to distinguish
between human rights for all human beings and natural rights of rational beings. (It was again reproduced, together
with about 100 other private human rights drafts in PEACE PLANS 589 & 590. - J.Z., 8.12.02.)

In recent years Ayn Rand has repeatedly expressed similar ideas. So far, alas, she considered it unnecessary to base
a new code of natural law on this idea. I hope that some of her admirers will go beyond her in this, perhaps using
my draft in Peace Plans No. 4 as a basis for discussion.

Every rational being may freely do anything at his own expense and risk - not only in his private but also in his
social, economic and political life - that does not infringe the human and natural rights of other persons.

Nobody may rightly be forced to adjust his life according to the dictates of a temporarily predominating theory.
Thus, for instance, the State is not authorised to interfere, by means of old or new laws, with scientific and volun-
tarily conducted experiments of a social, juridical, economic or political kind - as long as by such experiments only
the life, health, property and liberty of the participating people could be endangered.

This principle is almost axiomatic. It follows from the idea of "rights" and was, in another form, already expressed
in many codifications of human rights. Instances :

French Constitution of 3/9/1791, Article 4:

       "Freedom consists in the authority to do everything that is not harmful to others. Thus the exercise of the
       natural rights of man has no other limits than those which assure all other members of society the practice
       of the same rights."

Irrational people can hardly be considered as full members of society.

The idea of imposed classes and second-class citizenship has nothing to do with this natural and inherent


Similarly (but with the important distinction between harm & wrong!), the French Constitution of 24/6/1793 states
in article 6:

       "Freedom is the authority of everybody to do everything that does not infringe the rights of others ...."

Likewise, article 2 of the 1946 Constitution of Hessen:

       "Man is free. He may do or fail to do whatever does not infringe the rights of others ..."

The Bill of Rights of the German Federal Republic, of 1949, also states in Article 2/1:

       "Everyone has the right to freely develop his personality, provided, he does not injure the rights of others
       and does not offend against the constitutional order or the moral law."

Many more such instances could be given. Usually some statist & territorialist qualifications are added. I have no
intention to discuss these here, while stating the pure principle.

Realisation of this expanded principle of tolerance, or rather expanded understanding of tolerance, would help to
establish and preserve world peace for a variety of reasons. The main reason is that most ideologies would soon
lose their aggressiveness if they could already now be applied by minority groups, practising for, to and among
themselves the new system, while living peacefully among and with the majority which, for itself, would practise
its own preferred system.
Liberation wars and revolutionary struggle would, obviously, become unjustified and unnecessary where this
principle is thoroughly practised. No obviously rational and just motives for war or revolution would remain. The
power urge of minorities would be exhausted in the struggle to apply their own ideals in practice and the power
urge of individuals could be effectively countered in such a society.

The power addicts would, moreover, most likely be deposed before too long, by some of their own followers, who
would no longer be satisfied with promises for the far future but would, instead, insist upon results, upon obvious
successes there and then, and there would be no excuses for not supplying them - and, mostly, like all other
politicians, they could not.

This extended principle of tolerance could be realized by the recognition of the right of individuals to secede
from States like from a church and to form exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers.


                          Definition of the Right of Individuals to Secede from a State

Every rational being has the right to secede from every unnatural coercive association, including unions, parties,
armies and the State itself - without thereby losing a single human right or natural right of rational beings.

Those who seceded have the right to form new and autonomous associations everywhere, even within and on the
territory so far exclusively claimed by the State they have left or by other States, excluding only the private
property of the members of other associations, provided that their own associations are also voluntary, i.e. that they
themselves respect the right to secede, and that, consequently, they pass and apply only exterritorial or personal
laws among themselves and fully respect the human rights and natural rights of the members of the remaining State
authority and those of the members of other exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers.

I hold that the "social contract", properly interpreted, forms one "association" one cannot rightly secede from. I
believe that it is not a contract concluded voluntarily and explicitly between individuals but, instead, one
automatically, naturally and inevitably formed by association, one into which every rational being is "forced" by
his very nature: A tacit agreement to mutually assist each other in case of a threat to their human or natural rights.

Some have over-simplified, over-generalised or over-extended it by calling it "duty", "solidarity" or "loyalty".
(Discussion of these alternatives must be left to some other time and place.) In the above sense the "social contract"
is more than a mere herd instinct (by being based on moral sense and moral judgement).


It is also less formal than a written constitutional obligation, yet, I believe, it is morally more binding than the
latter. It does not require self-sacrifice as a duty. Nevertheless, in some cases, it requires some readiness to risk
one's life, liberty and property in the defence of basic rights.

I only state this position here as comment to the above. Explanation and defence of this idea of a "social contract"
must be left to some other essay. (Obviously, no one has as yet formally signed such a contract. That should not
keep us from pondering its optimal wording. - J.Z., 8.12.02.)

As unnatural and coercive associations I would classify all those whose dissolution or reduction by means of the
repeal of their compulsory membership would in no way infringe the human rights or natural rights of rational

After the recognition and realisation of the right of individuals to secede, these unnatural and coercive associations
would gradually disappear or be dissolved, at least to a large extent. Although their name and formal structure
might remain, their unnatural and coercive nature would disappear completely. What would remain of them in
future would, in essence, be no different from that of any of the new volunteer communities: They would also be
reduced to being (or advance to being) exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers, retained by the
consensus of those who did not desire any changes for themselves but wanted to keep all the old laws and
institutions. One of the differences would be that now these consenting victims would have to bear the costs and
risks of their decisions exclusively themselves. There would be no faster way to teach them! Moreover, they
would, more than the other and new communities, be inclined to remain organised along the old national lines,
crossing them only when there are national minorities across the former State borders.

States, unions and armed forces would then be reduced to associations of volunteers. They could no longer force
institutions and services upon dissenters - who would have left them. The seceded people would either organise
such services for themselves or would find it profitable to do without them.

Even in case of war and especially in case of a war, no coercion may be used, in any form and under any pretext, to
induce people to retain their membership in any State or exterritorial and autonomous community. (The attempt
would provoke the enmity of all other such communities in the world.)

In case some individuals or minority groups not only remained neutral but actively supported an enemy regime,
then they would, naturally, have to expect to be treated according to the international laws of war. Fortunately, for
a variety of reasons stated below, these cases will become extremely rare.

                Exterritorial and Autonomous Communities of Volunteers as Peace Promoters

In the relatively free Western countries, the right to secede could be realised peacefully, e.g. by referendums, but in
countries like the Soviet Union only by a revolution.

In Western countries all enemies of nuclear weapons would be likely to secede from States armed with nuclear
weapons or involved with such allies. As soon as most citizens are sufficiently enlightened on the immorality and
the dangers, not only of the aggressive or defensive but also of the deterrent use of nuclear weapons, moreover,
also on the possibilities of defending oneself without nuclear destructive devices against an enemy armed with
them, the majority of the citizens would be likely to secede. Then, in referendums among all the inhabitants of
large territories (seeing that everyone's rights would be involved), the destruction of the nuclear devices of the
remaining States would be resolved upon.

This "interference with the internal affairs" of these States would be justified because one would have to expect
that, in case of war, these atomic weapons would attract the enemy's atomic weapons like super-strong magnets
and could thus lead to the incidental murder of all or most people in these territories. Thus the right of individuals
to secede would lead to the - if necessary -


unilateral destruction of nuclear weapons in the West.

In the Soviet Union, the declaration of secession, by individuals constituting the majority of the population, or at
least by a decisive minority, could only take place during a revolution. Indeed, it would be an important part of a
rightful revolution.

The declaration of secession of the first 10,000 Russian soldiers and officers, e.g. of a division of the Red Army,
and the possibilities it opens up for the future for a free development of all Russian minorities and of the majority,
would most likely, provided only a detailed and rational revolutionary programme has previously been well
publicised, lead to further such declarations of secession in form of a chain reaction. By practising secession and by
publicising the number and the different kinds of secessions, the revolution could spread more rapidly. The Soviet
Union would soon find itself deserted by most of its former subjects and would, most likely, be unable to defend its
former wrongful power with the remaining citizens and soldiers. (At the some time, its remaining rightful
authority, over voluntary members only, would become the concern of all other exterritorial and autonomous
associations in the world, who should not hesitate to offer their recognition and trade and assistance, should they be
required. If it would not exceed this limited rightful authority, the former enemy of all rational beings would
become, if not the friend of all, at least recognized as a neutral community, that would only try to spread by
persuasion and demonstration of its ideals.)
The subversion of the nuclear strength philosophy brought about by the ideology of tolerant exterritorial and
autonomous organization of volunteers, would also extend to those persons supposed to guard and use nuclear
devices. The remaining few fanatics would not be likely to have sufficient time, opportunity or convincing military
strength left to successfully guard a dictatorial regime's nuclear weapons against destruction by the secessionists.
Against revolutionaries in the own country, a regime can hardly use these weapons successfully, i.e., without
endangering itself. Moreover, the revolution in the own country would prevent it from attacking external enemies,
particularly when these, due to certain actions in these other countries, have rather become friends and allies to the
majority of one's former subjects and when there is an honourable and safe way out. "Build your enemy golden
bridges!" (Compare the proposals below on revolution, disarmament, tyrannicide, resistance and outlawry
combined with amnesty offers.

        Experimental Freedom for Social, Economic and Political Experiments Would Prevent Wars

This experimental freedom would reduce ideological tensions and conflicts of economic interests between
antagonistic power blocks. State capitalists (Bolsheviks of Soviets) for instance, would no longer be able to
condemn private capitalism completely once the latter permitted tolerant State capitalistic experiments.

Capitalism, on the other hand, would hardly blame the Soviets in the economic sphere, if the Soviets permitted
tolerant private capitalistic experiments.

Whosoever can realize his programme already in this way would not find followers for an attempt to usurp State
power - or only relatively few. Thus he would not acquire a degree of power which might enable him to attempt to
forcefully impose his programme upon other States or communities.

Adolf Damaschke defended the experimental approach in his "Geschichte der Nationaloekonomie" (History of
National Economy), vol. II, p. 10, in a comment on Considerant:

       "His 'Manifest' of 1841 characterises the essence of utopism by making the last decision on the value or
       worthlessness of a utopia dependent upon the result of an experiment:
       'Every theory of social progress must permit a test of its rightness by local experiments, even when it may
       be called nonsensical, immoral or anti-social. It must be capable to move mankind towards a general
       practical realisation of the new system by means of voluntary imitation.' "


                                      The Arms Race Would Come to an End

In accordance with the old saying "If you want peace, prepare for war!", every State participates in the arms race
and thereby, and almost inevitably, brings about war in the long run. (The war preparations discussed in this book
are of quite a different kind, as the reader will see later.) Only in a few cases have arms races not led to war in the
end: In no more than 1% of the cases recorded!
Otto Lehmann Russbuelt, in: "Wie Gewinnen Wir den Frieden?" (How Can We Win Peace?) brought a statistic on

       "Of 4,711 peace treaties within 3,500 years - 4,697 were broken and of 1,656 arms races since 650 B.C.,
       1,640 led to war."

Exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers could do without the "safeguard" provided by arms races.
They do not have to be afraid of each other. If their case is right then they will finally win, without weapons,
through the free choice of their "customers", who will demand and get the standards they like for their dealings.
This is probably the most important form of "consumer sovereignty" for our time.

Moreover, they would not be headed by "sovereign" governments which could initiate a war at any time. Thus no
one would have to be under arms against them. Neither do they possess any serious reasons or motives for wanting
to make war against each other. (Compare the corresponding sections below.)

Furthermore, in a society based upon such communities, hardly anyone would get a chance to acquire genuinely
dictatorial powers. In case these societies would have to fight a dictator, in exceptional cases, then (seeing that they
are not States without a programme, which can only rely on the superior force of their conscripts and weapons)
they would possess, by their very nature, an attractive liberation and peace programme. With this they would not
have to beat a dictator in an arms race but could turn his own forces against him and could, thereby, defeat him.
(Compare the sections below on Military Jiu Jitsu, Military Strength and Desertion.)

                              A Rational Disarmament Would Become Practicable

       "Nobody can expect the people to prepare themselves, with a polite bow towards the helpless governments
       of the world, for their end, which is possible now at any hour. On the contrary, the people must now be
       authorised (they already possess the right) to organise themselves in exterritorial and autonomous
       communities and to invite the subjects of all governments as members. The most important purpose of these
       protective associations would be to render all those war material harmless which offend against
       international law, especially nuclear weapons." - Ulrich von Beckerath, 1882-1969.

Today's governments are unable to carry out a sufficient nuclear (etc.) disarmament and to control it effectively. A
complete nuclear disarmament would presuppose that not a single person would remain in power who believes that
nuclear weapons offer strength to his nation and thereby security. (Compare, for instance how much this belief
prevails still even among libertarians!)

As long as sovereign States continue, they will rightly fear each other. This means that more than one such person
will be among those in power. Any ruler, in any State, has sufficient opportunities to hide a number of atomic
weapons "to prevent his fatherland becoming defenceless". No controller or control authority or army of inspectors,
could prevent that. A relatively light and small device, containing a few pounds of heavy metal, can be much easier
hidden in the territory of any State than the proverbial needle in a haystack. As everyone in power knows that, none
of them disarms seriously or takes at least the own disarmament proposals serious.

As long as governments of the present type continue to exist, they must be armed to protect themselves from each
other - for the same reason that beasts of prey need sharp teeth and claws against each other. What is needed is not
voluntarily given up.

Even if a government seriously tried to achieve disarmament: its army of public servants would be all too small
compared with the magnitude this task, regardless how excessive their numbers otherwise are.


It could not control every corner of its national territory in this way.
Only the alerted, motivated and properly equipped people themselves could cope with this task.

Exterritorial and autonomous organizations of volunteers, once they may be freely set up, would enable and
motivate them to undertake this task. At first, the abolition of motives for war would lead to a stand-still of the
arms race. This would be further guaranteed by the impossibility to finance a further arms race. No one would pay
for it voluntarily, under the new circumstances.

Moreover, no one would want to remain the subject of a government which would turn its subjects into attractive
targets for nuclear weapons - by keeping such weapons itself.

Another aspect is that today the governments still possess a monopoly for measures like disarmament. Due to the
weapons monopoly, in combination with the monopoly for armed organizations, the nuclear weapons stores and
the manufacturing facilities for nuclear weapons (including "peaceful" nuclear power stations and nuclear research
reactors) can today be "protected" against ten-thousands of unarmed citizens. At the same time, the governments
cannot offer their citizens sufficient protection against the own atomic weapons and those of enemy regimes. Such
a defence is altogether impossible according to the state of science today.

Thus anti-people weapons are under armed protection against the people and the people are not under protection
but under constant threats, even extermination threats, which may be carried out with the "most modern means".
(Cheap, instant and "scientific" extermination camp packages!) Consequently, the citizens will have to arm and
organise themselves properly, that is, with rightful means, in military organizations for the protection of human
rights, in militias and exterritorial and autonomous organizations of volunteers - in order to be able to take nuclear
disarmament and any other important disarmament into their own hands. (Compare Peace Plans 16-18, especially
appendix. 20 & 21.)

                The Secret Production of Nuclear Weapons Would Be Made Nearly Impossible

To secretly prepare nuclear armaments is possible only for territorial States. Only they have the power to
completely screen large areas from the outer world and the financial resources (due to taxation) to build and
maintain nuclear arms factories in them.

Exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers, on the other hand, would not possess this kind of power.
Moreover, their establishment would do away with secret military zones for nuclear armament purposes. Thus such
establishments could hardly be kept secret.

Moreover, their members would live intermixed within the same territory and thus neither would want to nor could
keep such preparations secret from each other or would want to engage in them at all. If an attempt were made, it
could easily be defeated by an armed citizenry jealous of its rights and concerned for its security and survival.

That once, in future, when present nuclear developments are allowed to proceed unhindered, even private people,
with little efforts and costs, could produce nuclear devices, does not refute the above statements. Such a
development presupposes that the State, initially and forcefully, pushed nuclear arms and promoted nuclear
research and nuclear power development. Moreover, the mere existence of States of the present type "forced"
people to think along the present lines.
Territorial, coercive, compulsory and centralised collectivism leads automatically to mass extermination devices.
Once the kind of "progress" has been achieved, after which even schoolboys, one afternoon, could construct an
atomic weapon, we will be lost anyhow. Any immature, irresponsible, criminal or mad person could then start the
holocaust. There are always all too many such persons amongst us, in all positions and in all professions. The
present Statist system and the present nuclear science developments play right into their hands. Our hope lies only
in this stage never being reached, in nuclear devices being so expensive and laborious to construct and deliver that
only criminals in government can afford them. Then we can get rid of these devices together with the criminal


Under the political system resulting from unrestricted individual secessions, and presuming that the construction
and delivery of mass extermination devices would still require considerable costs and efforts, the attempts to
produce such devices would soon be found out and considered and treated as the criminal attempts against the
people of the world, which they are. Such madmen would stand out like heretics did in former centuries, e.g.
among pious Catholics or like religious ratbags among enlightened atheists.

Public opinion would no longer welcome or tolerate nuclear and similar arms as necessary evils but regard them
instead as the unmitigated evils and senseless devices which they are. This would have far-reaching effects -
because then the public would no longer be confined to mere protest actions but could easily mobilise an effective,
even armed and military resistance (with conventional means - against aspiring mass murderers).

But we have to be aware that to prevent development and "progress" of science towards a day when nuclear
destructive devices will be within the reach of e.g., schoolboys, it will not be sufficient merely to destroy nuclear
bomb factories and nuclear reactors and official military nuclear research. Until the danger is abolished (if ever) all
nuclear and corresponding chemical and biological research will have to be interdicted. The survival of man
depends on that.
Or would you rather want to kill off all people with violent inclinations and strong power urges at a tender age,
before they could do serious harm? Do you defend the right of toddlers to have free access to hand- weapons in
their cots and playpens? Do you believe that all "scientific" efforts ought to be unrestrained, even those concerned
with mass torture, mass destruction and mass murder? If that is the case, just carry on as you do now. I am not
sorry for being emotional and using strong language on such subjects.

                                  Atomic Weapons Would Be Obviously Useless
No "enemy territory" would any longer exist which one could attack with atomic or other mass murder devices.
The members of any exterritorial and autonomous association of volunteers would live distributed over the whole
world. Thus mass extermination devices, if one would use them, would always kill at least some of the own
members. Moreover, one would hit not only enemies but sympathisers or neutrals whose associates thereafter
would automatically become fierce enemies of whosoever used a mass extermination device.

In this respect one has to remember that the avenues opened up by individual secessionism for former enemies to
live peacefully next door to each other (and yet independent and legally and juridically and in their life style
separated), would also break down emigration and immigration barriers, so that people would more and more live
intermixed with each other, like they do already, to a large extent, in cosmopolitan cities.
Moreover, the defensive advantage obtained by "enemies" living next door (but merely doing their things to and
for themselves) might lead to a complete reversal of present policies: Aliens and foreigners, rather than being
excluded, restricted and persecuted, would be more likely welcomed and even invited and sponsored - as a security

While it is true that many dictators would not hesitate to kill some of their own subjects, also (Compare the ca.
10,000 Christians in Hiroshima and the 1,000 soldiers of the Allies in German P.O.W. camps, wiped out by the
'Dam Busters'), dictators would hardly exist any longer under the new conditions. (See below.) Moreover, if they
did exist, they would no longer have easy access to nuclear devices. Furthermore, they could hardly overlook that
their use of mass murder devices anywhere in the world, where the members of many different groups live
intermingled, and yet legally separated, in independent volunteer communities, would rally not only the survivors
of the former enemies against them but practically the whole world. Thus they would have hardly any chance to
"win". This knowledge would help to prevent such mass murder actions. Today's territorial nationalism hasn't got
this inbuilt safety factor.

Moreover, most citizens would no longer recognise any motive for the possession of nuclear devices as rightful.
Thus they would see to it that no one could any longer dispose of nuclear weapons. Everyone could then easily see
that his ideal social, political and economic order could be realised anywhere without any fight, without conquering
power first - although initially only


among his followers and, later on, only among the additional converts. Everyone could always entertain the hope
that, if he becomes successful with his experiments, then, one day, the majority would follow his lead. Thus neither
the leaders nor the followers would see or could justify a "need" for mass-destruction and mass-murder devices.
Under these conditions any violent attempts would become self-defeating, more than ever before.

One should also take into consideration that in future no State could, by means of conscription and taxation, put so
many divisions into the field against us or anyone that, according to the ruling opinion - one could defeat such a
host only by mass murderous devices like nuclear weapons.

             There Would no Longer Remain an Enemy Territory or a Territory to be Defended

There would no longer be any government territory whose "territorial integrity" is to be defended nor any external
enemies against whom a military defence would be required. There would not be any enemy territory, either, which
one could attack.
The exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers are personal law associations and not territorial

Moreover, even in the transitional stage, during defensive and liberation wars or uprising against territorial and
totalitarian States, the tolerant practice of exterritorial autonomy on the own side (and the intelligent application of
the opportunities thereby offered in times of wars & revolutions), would constitute an attractive peace, liberation,
revolution and war programme, attractive even for the soldiers of the enemy regime, so that such wars could be
rapidly brought to a victorious end, with very little bloodshed. More on this below.

If one looks closely at past and threatening wars, one will have to come to the conclusion that the danger of war
continues largely because of the division of the Earth's surface among several areas where these territorial States
have exclusive legislative, juridical and tax-gathering powers.
Only the authority of the government of a territory to dispose of it, its resources and its citizens, allows the
concentration of power required to conduct a modern war. If one imagines a condition where nowhere any
territorial State survived, or only a single World State (or several exterritorial World Federations!), then and under
these special conditions no national war could any longer be imagined but at most a civil war. And even the danger
of these would be greatly reduced, as we will see later on. (Individual secessionism makes "one man revolutions"
or self-help in all spheres possible and with them peaceful and gradualist reformism in any desired direction of
"doing one's own thing" to and for oneself.)

                           Frontiers and thereby all Frontier Wars Would Disappear

Another aspect of the same present territorial political "reality" are the "frontiers". After exterritorial and
autonomous communities of volunteers have been introduced all over the world, no "frontiers" in the old political
and military sense would any longer "exist", not even as lines on maps.

Without frontiers to delineate military establishments, encircling tax-gathering and juridical areas monopolised by
power groups, a war can hardly be imagined.
Why would the frontiers fall? Simply because the new communities are, like churches, personal law associations,
not tied to any particular territory, with members everywhere. (They only "territory" they would possess would be
the private real estate of their voluntary members, as long as such private property is still widely recognized as
exclusive. More on this below.)

The inhabitants of any section of this globe would then no longer be subjected to any particular government
imposed juridical system, to any particular national "sovereignty" which, supposedly, has to be protected by
military borders and defence preparations. Why should a border be guarded any longer and against whom, when
legal uniformity (laws equally applicable to all in a territory) is no longer the ideal, when it has been replaced by a
moral or ethical order, within a frame work set by individual human rights, an order which, according to the nature
of the organisations involved, is peaceful, harmonious and self-perpetuating without preventing any genuine
progress, when everyone can live, undisturbed, under the own or self-chosen laws, anywhere, anytime?


                                      Civil Wars Would Become Very Rare

Civil wars would become a rare occurrence because the choice would no longer merely be between either
domination or submission.
Only on a voluntary basis would this kind of relationship still persist, as in some marriages, while they last.
In question would be only the toleration of the independent and tolerant activities of still another one among
numerous diverse groupings and this at a time when the practice and science of tolerance for tolerant actions has
been highly developed and most people have already realised its benefits in their daily private and social lives.

The future tolerant social system, by its very nature, offers the possibility of a lasting peaceful coexistence between
the most varied social systems. The more absurd the system practised by any of the numerous minorities - or by a
majority in an area - would be, the more the people involved would be hard at work striving to turn it into a success
(until they have learned their lesson). Consequently, all the less energies they would have left for attempts to
impose it upon others.
On the other hand, if they are very successful, then they would hardly have to advertise their successes. The people
among whom they live could hardly help noticing the advantages of their new system and would join in droves,
moving away from all less successful systems. Again, the participants would be disinclined to impose their system
upon others.
They would be too busy showing the ropes to the newcomers. They could also hope that everyone in the world who
would sympathise with their system would ultimately join up with them, anyhow. Just like the various religious
groups still seem to believe that finally all others would join them.

Revolution as well as terrorist acts are only last desperate attempts of people who see no chances for success at all
in the existing peaceful alternatives. Libertarians in the West, who were engaged for a while in political struggles,
will understand their frustrations. The party, election and parliamentary representative process is tied to the views
of a relatively unenlightened majority whose opinions can only be slowly changed and rarely for the better. The
chances offered in this way are indeed legitimate but too small, too small for many who want to see certain reforms
or liberties within their lifetime. These institutions are suitable for conservation of whatever is desired by some or
many but unsuitable for rapid reforms and radical changes. Moreover, it would not be wise to practise the latter
immediately among the majority, particularly when there are volunteers who want to take whatever risks and costs
are involved. Thus the discontent of potential revolutionaries and terrorists can be directed into constructive
channels. Their creative energies would also be released and thereby they would be pacified, enlightened, or given
their chance to enlighten the majority, which would rarely ever be persuaded by mere theories but is capable of
imitating successful actions.

Common sense should have told us long ago that in the social sciences as well as in the natural ones and in tech-
nology, no progress or experiment should be made dependent upon a majority vote - whenever the human and
natural rights of the majority are not threatened. After all, every progress so far was conceived by individuals and
promoted initially only by minorities. People who are not only free to talk and listen, write and read, but also free
to act, tolerantly, are very unlikely to become rebels or terrorists. As Friedrich Schiller once said:

       "Beware of the man who is breaking his chains but do not be afraid of a free Man."

                   The Communist World Revolution Would Become Difficult to Impossible

Communists of the Soviet type threaten us with world revolution because they realize that by propaganda for their
system, on its own, they cannot win. At the same time, they do have a chance today for their combined propaganda
and coercion system because all their practical failures can well be hidden behind national frontiers from most of
the voters in democracies.

The inclination of communists towards subversion, sabotage, terrorism and revolution or military conquest and
domination would be reduced if we permitted them (They would have the natural right to do so only if they were
rational beings and thus recognised and respected the human and natural rights of others!) to conduct, at their own
expense and risk, any kind of communist experiment among themselves, of a social, economic and political type, in
the West, in the form of exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers.


This would also deprive them of any pretence that they would have to resort to arms in order to fight down our
opposition. Their own followers would ask: Why should we fight the capitalists when they invite us to live as
communists? What better refutation could there be for the class warfare doctrine?
For those communists who initially could not cope with this kind of opportunity, being misled into believing that
their kind of system has to be conducted by large-scale territorial bureaucracies, we could even set up some
advisory services. (This reminds me of the stoic emperor Marcus Aurelius, who advised to set up advisory services
for suicide candidates which would offer information on the most painless methods of doing away with oneself.)

Indeed, the West has so far hardly ever fought against the communist ideology as such. (On the contrary, its
governments have copied all too much from it.) Its opposition was mainly reserved to the threat of a communist
dictatorship (exerted by other governments) against the "own" nationals. (At the same time they were all too
tolerant of communist dictatorships across national borders.)
The rightful part of this tolerance of the West ought merely to be extended. Thus the Western societies should
presently offer to communists, and similarly ignorant and misled social re-formers, unlimited opportunities to
enlighten themselves by the application of their nonsensical beliefs among themselves. Even fanatics will finally
learn from experience - as long as they are not opposed in their tolerant actions and thus turned into martyrs for lost
causes. Presently, the Western governments almost "force" the left-wing radicals to consider violent "solutions"
and promote such attempts by the very efforts used to repress them. Exterritorial and autonomous communities of
communist volunteers, based upon individual secessionism, would act as safety valves.
Moreover, their experiments would enlighten those who would otherwise fall victims to communist propaganda.
Their failures would reduce their numbers so much that they would tend to become a harmless minority, even if
they remained addicted to violence, as long as they have no longer access to mass extermination devices. (This is a
problem largely solved by the same system of voluntarism. See above and below.)

                                  Imperialist Wars Would no Longer Threaten
The domineering and expansionist tendency and practice of States has been called imperialism. Some people's
hunger for power is as insatiable as the hunger of others for material possessions. The mere existence of power
centres attracts the power hungry individuals and makes the further concentration of power relatively easy. How
could a. boxer become a world champion if he had not only to fight and defeat the other champions but, instead,
every man in the world?

The existing powers of States allow them to conduct wars of conquest against weaker States. Afterwards, the
subjected people, sooner or later, alone or in association with others, try to regain their independence in revolutions
and liberation wars.

Merely for this reason are territorial States frequently at war with each other. (There are many other motives and
we have to remove them one by one or at least consider them one by one.)

Once the people are everywhere separated merely into exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers,
then they could no longer organise for and conduct aggressive wars nor would they have the least wish to do so.
All of them would have all the self-rule they desire.
Moreover, they would have the chance for an unlimited expansion of their favourite system, in a completely
peaceful way, by means of individuals freely leaving their old associations and joining those they believe to be
more successful.

Naturally, seeing that all the participants are still only human beings, there would not be perfect peace and
harmony as a result. For instance, some slander, intrigues, fraud, and loud arguments would remain, even some
violence on an individual level, leading to some police and court actions. But even they would be reduced in
number because there would be many less frustrations. More important is that the large-scale, enforced, organized
and collectivist violence of national and imperialist wars would be avoided or rendered impracticable.
Only in the dreams of some of the power-hungry ones would it still continue. But even these would have more
chances than they have now, to become top dogs or cocks on a dung hill, in one or the other volunteer community.
While there they would do their jobs as well as is expected from them, they would find much more loyalty and
obedience among their members than they could rightfully hope for now, anywhere else or among any other
people. To that extent the "great leaders" would be liberated as well.


Under these new conditions nobody would any longer be able to be a "man in power" in today's sense. (See e.g.
under dictatorship and decision on war and peace.)

No exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers could arm against the others without this fact being
very soon noticed and all such attempts being stopped. People who live next door to them, or even in the same
house or flat, could hardly fail to notice their irrational preparations. They would be the potential victims of such
preparations, seeing that they are members of other communities, and would regard and treat the perpetrators as the
madmen they are.

If the preparations could reach the stage where taxation and conscription might threaten the members of such a
community, its taxpayers and young men would secede in large numbers.

One should also keep in mind that motives for conquests would disappear in a situation where no nation could any
longer lay any exclusive claim to any territory, a claim now generally recognized as authorising it to prevent others
from using "its" territory. Whatever armed forces such a community would still have, would desert it in large
numbers and rather ally themselves with those about to be attacked. They would not be prepared to sacrifice their
lives for senseless purposes. National interests, reasonably defined, would not be harmed by their secession and
desertion but, on the contrary, would rather be safeguarded.

In short, the system would offer full freedom for every anti-imperialist and no chances for the imperialist and
would in this be very different from the present one.

                                            Militarism Would also End
Militarism (excessive stress of the tasks and institutions of the armed forces, especially the application of their
organisational forms and methods to other institutions of the State and the people, also: the excessive influence of
the armed forces upon politics) would, as a result of the introduction of exterritorial and autonomous communities
of volunteers, merely enrich the collection of outdated isms. Nobody would any longer pay taxes for the upkeep of
a military machine or the present type. (See under voluntary taxation.) An absolute obedience can no longer be
enforced among militia men who are only part-time soldiers, elect and can recall their officers and are sworn to
uphold and fight for nothing but human rights and natural rights of rational beings. (See below.)
Moreover, there would no longer be any powerful external enemy regimes whose existence might serve to justify
the continuance of large standing armies. Furthermore, anyone becoming dissatisfied with any government which
in his opinion would be too militaristic, could easily withdraw his support from it by seceding from this
community. All these old notions are merely the symptoms of the present type of territorial and coercive States and
would disappear with this disease.

               Instances of the Conventional Abuse of the Principle of Collective Responsibility
                                        Would Become Less Frequent

The replacement of States by exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers (peacefully, by means of
individual secessionism) would prevent the continued wrongful application of the principle of collective
responsibility in many cases. Its wrong application has frequently led to wars or rendered them unnecessarily
severe. For instance, the Second World War became a World War only by the Allies wrongly holding all Germans
responsible for the crimes of the Hitler Regime, for instance by bombing the German civilian population, by not
coming to any agreement with the opposition against Hitler, by not recognising a German government-in-exile and
by treating all prisoners, although most of them had been conscripts, as enemies. (One of the most absurd instances
was the internment of German refugees from the Nazis in England - instead of recruiting them for a war of
History and the conduct of national wars is overloaded with such examples.

The U.S. are largely armed with nuclear "weapons" only because most Americans consider all "Russians" as
communists. How otherwise could one conceive the idea and persist in it to arm with weapons of which a single
one, if used, could possibly kill millions of subjugated Russians (and other subjugated nationals, over a hundred
different ones in almost any area), among them ten-thousands of fanatical enemies of the Soviet-Regime and only a
few thousand convinced communists? If the facts were otherwise, the Soviet dictators would not


have to suppress liberty of speech, press, association and assembly in order to remain in power and the members of
the Communist Party would not only constitute a small minority. National genocidal policies are here based on the
unfounded beliefs of the most uninformed section of the population, the majority among the electorate.

To hold the many innocent sections of a nation equally or even preferentially responsible for the actions of a guilty
government and its voluntary supporters, a disastrous vice quite commonly practised, would no longer be possible
in the future:
Only then would the people have always only the government they deserve, wanted and voluntarily supported and
no longer a government which was forced upon dissenting minorities or even upon a dissenting majority. Only then
could the principle of collective responsibility be applied against the members of such a volunteer community with
considerable justification and only then would one avoid the mistake of resorting to indiscriminate mass
extermination devices in order to hit here and there someone who is living within a crowd of people who are not
involved in his crimes but are rather the natural allies against him.
(Our "national security experts" act like a "police force" would that engaged bank robbers in street battles with
tanks, artillery and heavy bombers, regardless of the thus resulting numerous losses of innocent non-combatants.
Obviously, they have not or not properly defined who their enemy really is. - J.Z., 8.12.02.)

The principle of collectivist responsibility would be applicable - and then only with individualist means -
exclusively in cases where the leadership of an exterritorial and autonomous community of volunteers would act
criminally aggressive and would, nevertheless, not be immediately resisted, deposed and punished by the members,
although the victims would call for such an action.
Let us suppose, that the majority of the voluntary members supported the criminal actions of their leaders and that
the dissenting minorities seceded. Then, and only then, could the principle of collective responsibility be rightly
applied against all members remaining with this association, provided they are adults and rational enough to be
held responsible for their actions.
What kind of measures ought to be applied then will be discussed later. ABC weapons are, obviously, out.

As a rule the members of autonomous and exterritorial associations of volunteers would themselves arrest and
prosecute or hand over for prosecution, any of their leaders who committed criminal acts. Should those leaders
have become, in spite of the inherent safeguards of these associations, so powerful that they could not be legally
prosecuted, and should outlawry and tyrannicide attempts fail, then the innocent members would secede from this
community and ask the members of other communities to assist them against these criminals. Thus measures based
upon collective responsibility would have a strong tendency to be applied only against guilty people.

Frequently the public and the present decision makers do not even "think" in terms of guilt and personal
responsibility for one's actions but merely consider, as a consequence of the unlimited power of many States to
dispose of their citizens, their lives, liberties and properties as they please, i.e., these citizens merely as property or
adjuncts of their governments. Based upon this "idea", one then merely wants to harm or exert pressure upon the
criminal government by "treating" or threatening the subjugated population in these States with mass extermination
devices. Such opinions are rarely ever openly proclaimed and most people are not even fully aware of them.
Nevertheless, they usually act in accordance with such ideas, e.g. when proposing an "economic" blockade, be it
against the Soviet Union or Rhodesia, in order to exert some pressure upon a government. Morally this is no better
than trying to pacify an aggressive neighbour by beating up his children - and in practice it is even less peace-

If one were to ask all those acting unconsciously in accordance with the idea of collective responsibility, whether
they consider the subjects of a foreign government as its property or as equally guilty for its actions, they would
deny such an absurdity. Nevertheless, in any new concrete case which they would "judge" subsequently, they will
be inclined to impetuously consider the subjects of the foreign government as its property or as equally responsible
followers - and they will make corresponding proposals, some of them even genocidal ones. An idea hammered
into subjects for thousands of years, by warring governments, in the interests of these governments (Hitler
explicitly ordered an inhuman treatment for Russian prisoners of war so that the Soviets would not treat German
prisoners well and thus induce them to desert!) cannot be easily eradicated, no even by its worst consequence, the
threat of nuclear war. It has come too close to being an "inborn" idea. At most we can hope to destroy its breeding
grounds - by abolishing territorial rule.


Territorial States with compulsory membership are the main breeding grounds for collective responsibility notions
and mass murder actions or preparations and oppression & exploitation on a vast scale and as such they must be
destroyed - if possible without spilling any blood and destroying any property. This is less utopian than it sounds as
we will see below.

After the realisation of the right of individuals to secede and to establish or join exterritorial and autonomous
communities of volunteers, the common errors in applying the principle of collective responsibility will be better
than ever before exposed. Enlightenment on this subject will then be very much facilitated and abuses of this
principle will gradually become as rare as (or rarer than) coercive sexual acts are now in truly civilised societies.

Those who have seceded from a dictatorship and allied themselves with the liberal-democratic States and
panarchistic exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers, can no longer by any flight of fancy be
considered as fully subjected to the disposal orders of dictators or fully responsible for the actions of a dictatorial
regime. They are no longer "nationalize" "property" or slaves, quite obviously, even if they ever had been to some
extent. Members of exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers would, as customers, rather own and
rule their governments than be owned or ruled by them. Most of the old terms on social relations would no longer
apply to them.

                              Nationalism. in its New Form, Would Cease to Disturb Peace

By artificial enclosures for nationalities and second-class treatment of members of other nations as foreigners and
aliens (e.g., by emigration and immigration restrictions) does every territorial State promote chauvinistic feelings
and contributes thus to wars. The more stress is put by a government on "national interest, security, honour,
prestige and unity" the more it becomes actually a cover-up for a wide diversity of and even antagonism of
interests, for dishonourable acts of rulers against the own subjects and foreigners and for an imposed order which
has nothing to do with a chosen one. As a rule, the national sentiment for a large State or State Federation, is also
drummed up to overpower or cover-up whatever diverse and genuine national sentiment still exists among
numerous minorities. As Caroline Chisholm once said:

       "Nothing but what is voluntary is deserving the name of national."

Nationalism, as practised today, also serves to divert the attention of many dissatisfied subjects from many
unsolved problems which remain, which governments do not know how to solve, cannot solve or have caused in
the first place, maintained and enlarged. This will often even induce rulers to involve "their nation" in another war.

Some major flaws of present nationalism are perhaps best summarised by the following quotations:

       "Nationalism is a chronic state of Fashism."
       "Nationalism is a form of blank cheque racism." - Both are sayings by T.F. in "St. John's Bread".

       "Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real estate above principles."
       - George Jean Nathan: Testament of a Critic.

       "The folly of forcing people together who would rather live apart."
       - Ken Martin, "The New Conservative", October 1969.

       "Throughout recorded history, men have been told that they have no right to live their own lives but must
       surrender their minds and bodies to emperors, kings, mythical deities, priests, witch doctors, tribes,
       communities and nation-states." - Stan Lehr and Louis Rossetto Jr., THE NEW YORK TIMES
       MAGAZINE, Jan. 10th., 1971.

       "For what precise and definite object are all the citizens today to be stamped, like the coinage, with the
       same image?... On what basis would they be cast into the same mold? And who will possess the mold? A
       terrible question, which should give us pause. Who will possess the mold?... Is it not simpler to break this
       fatal mold and honestly proclaim freedom?" - Frederic Bastiat, quoted in G. Roche III's book on Bastiat, p.

       "We must stop talking about the American Dream and start listening to the dreams of Americans."
       - G. R. Askew, quoted by L. J. Peter in "The Peter Plan", p. 189.

The right of individuals to secede would prevent the unfavourable and oppressive treatment of the genuine, i.e.
voluntaristic, national groups and would dissolve the present coercive national conglomerates. At the same time, it
would be no obstacle to continent-wide and even world-wide citizenship - on a voluntary basis. Every nation, tribe
or national minority would then have the opportunity and the right to conduct


its own affairs, undisturbed, by excluding itself from the mother-country or the father-land in form of an
exterritorial and autonomous community of volunteers.

"The" Germans, for instance, would hardly have conducted a national war of liberation against Napoleon I - if he
had given them this option. And without the nationalistic fervour bred by the Napoleonic wars - where would
nationalism be now?

After this reform has been realized in the whole world, one would no longer have to be afraid of an aggression
from abroad by a territorial and coercive State, with subsequent and undesired foreign rule and the inevitable
further clashes this would lead to. The toleration of differences is obviously more peace promoting than the
imposition of a single system.

Moreover, nationalism would lose one of its usually overlooked major supports: the hatred against foreign
competitors, be they workers or businessmen. By removing the barriers for autonomous and exterritorial
communities of volunteers and as a result of the subsequent complete freedom for tolerant experiments in the social
and economic sphere, the long existing solutions of social problems like unemployment, housing-shortage and
sales difficulties, could be practically demonstrated by minority groups and thus made generally known.
Consequently, the hatred against foreign competitors would finally replaced by the insight that every additional and
economically used labour and business would increase general wealth by a further division of labour.

                                          Racial Strife Would Be Reduced

Racial hatred and the danger of war which accompanies it, would largely be abolished because members of
different races would no longer be forced to use the same institutions and live under the same laws. No racial
minority would have to be afraid of any racial majority - as long as it could secede. No racial majority would
remain subjected to any racial minority. Members of different races might live in the same localities, same streets
and houses even, but could, nevertheless, live legally and juridically, as well as socially, as far apart from each
other and as differently as they like. The fear of foreign competitors, which so easily becomes transformed into
hatred, would also cease. (Due to the above hinted at and below described economic liberty.) The existence of the
right to secede would render in vain any endeavours of any race to achieve any pre-eminent position not based on
abilities, knowledge and consent - and members of any race could obtain any position in accordance with their
abilities and knowledge - at least among alike or sufficiently tolerant people.

No racial group could then complain any longer about being exploited by another. E.g., any racial community
could utilise its own taxes or contributions exclusively for its own purposes.

With many people racial hatreds go so far that they would not even want to ride on the same public transport
vehicles together with them or would not want to use the same hotels, theatres and schools. Very well, they may
use their own - provided they finance them themselves. (Partly with their share in all public assets! See PEACE
PLANS 19 C.) But railways and similar natural monopoly institutions will probably have to be "socialised" or
rendered into "open cooperatives", as proposed by Theodor Hertzka (see below) and this would naturally preclude
the exclusion of any race.

In the long run, racial hatreds will probably be overcome not by the "purists" organised along racial lines, but by
the peaceful and harmonious example of those communities which draw no racial distinctions at all. They are
likely to form the majority, at least after some interval, and are based on the fact that unmixed races do no longer
exist, anyhow, and would, in the long run, lead to a further biological integration of the different types. The more
the purists of whatever skin colour would stress their "racial purity" the more they would tend to exclude really
intelligent and capable people, the more they would, consequently, degenerate, as a group! I also imagine that,
especially after the sexual revolution, parents will have some difficulties in prescribing the race of sexual partners
for their children. The less force is used in this sphere, the less racial prejudice is blocked, the faster will racism be
finally overcome.

       "Of course, there are no races left. Not even the Jews have kept their blood unmingled. Successful crossings
       have often promoted the energy and beauty of a nation. Race! It is a feeling, not a reality. National pride
       has no need for the delirium of race." - Mussolini, according to C. Bingham: Men & Affairs, 381.
       (Antisemitism under Mussolini was much less atrocious & mass murderous than under the Nazis in

       "Europe is a continent of energetic mongrels." - H. A. L. Fisher, quoted in the above.


                                              Trade Wars Would Cease

No government would any longer be able to restrict the free exchange of goods and services. In other words, trade
wars would cease and no State could any longer, at the expense of the standard of living of its subjects, arrange for
a degree of autarchy - in preparation for another war. For himself almost every individual discovers, sooner or
later, the disadvantages of the "protectionist" policy (even the theoretical defenders of protectionist policies "to
protect national industries", tend to smuggle, if they can get away with it) and thus, sooner or later everyone will
secede from protectionist communities.
During the period of transition, those who have chosen protectionism for themselves, will find difficulties in
upholding the tariff barriers which they have set for themselves, against the smuggling attempts of their own
members. They are not authorised to interfere with the movements of goods and services of the Free Traders, who
do not want to be "protected" by them. Neither can they demand that others subject themselves to such irrational
policies merely to facilitate for them the levy of this special tax against (or other restrictions on) international

Moreover, the protectionists will have to bear all the costs of restricting their own trading themselves. In Germany,
at least for some years, the custom duties collected just sufficed to pay the salaries of the collectors. Thus it was not
even a revenue raising but just a penal and wasteful measure reducing the standard of living.

The independence of the new communities from the present legislation on money, currency, credit and foreign
exchange, would also allow them to use payment methods which will make protectionist measures superfluous,
even in the eyes of the protectionists, by achieving an automatic balance of trade and payments, quite obviously.
(See below.)

         A Wide-Spread Understanding between People of Different Nations Would Become Possible

Today only governments may make binding promises towards other nations. (Although they "honour" these more
by breaking than by keeping them.) Their treaties, pacts and agreements are not trusted, neither by the foreign
governments nor the foreign peoples. This only does them justice for they deserve distrust.

History has shown, over and over again, that governments do not always keep their word. Experience showed that
the rule is rather that they will break their word or written commitment, sooner or later, often merely to gain a
small and temporary advantage or to make some concession to some prejudice. As they cannot be held responsible
in cases of breach of contract, they do this frequently without any immediate risk for themselves. Admittedly,
dictatorial governments break treaties etc. more often than other governments do: According to Dr. K. Adenauer
the Soviet Union had broken, ofinternational treaties it had signed, more than a hundred.

But in many cases a government is in a dilemma which more or less forces its hands. If it were to keep a certain
contract and thereby renounced a certain advantage, it would arouse the ire of many of the own nationalistic
subjects. It would be accused of weakness, lack of energy and resolution, neglect of the national interest etc. Is
there any government which is willing to risk such accusations very often?
Thus, if any government promised not to attack another government, if it declared rightful war aims in case of a
defensive war, if it promised to treat all those who fled or deserted or were taken prisoner and who declared that
they were only forced to fight against it, not as enemies but as neutral guests or allies, who could and would rely on
such a promise of a government? Thus, such promises, made by governments, would often not be relied upon, i.e.,
they would not achieve their purpose as defensive and preventive measures.

In all truly important cases, promises of governments and treaties between them are almost valueless. For instance,
almost all governments signed the international Briand-Kellog Pact on the outlawing of war, in the year 1928!

From the initiative and the treaties of governments among themselves, one could not have expected a better world
federation than the League of Nations and the United Nations. They just showed most of the vices of present
governments in exaggeration.


 Why would promises and treaties of exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers be different? Why
would they deserve trust and find it?
In such treaties the will of the members, all volunteers, can be truly expressed. In other words, then the will of the
people is expressed. The members, or the (self-selected) people themselves decide e.g. upon war and peace,
armament and disarmament. (See below) A Reasonably enlightened people (all kinds of educational energies will
then also be released!) has never any interest in becoming involved in an unjust war. It knows that its burdens
would outweigh its possible advantages by far and that it would have to carry all the burdens and make all the
sacrifices itself. (Those with "fighting spirit" could practise it e.g. on football fields, in boxing rings or in non-
contact sports or by splattering each other with paint or by playing peaceful computerised war games.)
Nor would a volunteer community, people or nation as a whole break its word so easily, even if some of its
members should have a change of mind.

Moreover, any citizen of another nation or exterritorial and autonomous community of volunteers could, in future,
check the trustworthiness of the promises of members of other communities himself, by conversing with them to
make sure that the promises they made, together with their other members, were genuine and not made under any
coercion. To make such a check, a future voluntary citizen may not even have to cross a street but just might have
to knock next door. Nay, members of the other communities might even be found within his own family. As
Edward Gibbon reported, in chapter 38 of his famous work, reproduced in the appendix, it happened that up to 5
different personal law associations were represented in a single family.

Originally, the promises and treaties of these volunteers, people or citizens, will be made publicly, in town
meetings and large meetings in the open air - to which many members of other communities will be invited as
witnesses. A nation, people or citizens, thus free to witness and check treaties offered to it by other nations, people
or volunteer citizens, cannot be deceived. They would all soon find out that their promises and treaties can be
trusted and this would bring about a vast change in international relations. (Compare the section under "Trust" in
Peace Plans 16-18.)

                              The Number of Motives for Wars Would Be Reduced

Although rulers had never sufficient reasons or cause for war, they were never short of motives for beginning one.
(National unity for Abraham Lincoln meant, in practice, unity UNDER his rule.) After the introduction of
exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers most of these motives will disappear, usually with the
rulers of the old type.

Wars of conquest are no longer making any sense under these new conditions and thus one will no longer have to
be afraid of and prepared against them. There would no longer be any property rights of a government or the
leaders of one of the new communities towards the assets and lives of citizens in any section of this world's surface
- unless such rights have been voluntarily and individually transferred, while this suits the voluntary members.

National minorities could no longer be oppressed, thus would not be motivated to look for aid from abroad or to
begin a civil war.

The peaceful coexistence of members of different communities in the same territory would also lead to a much
greater mutual understanding and finally to a gradual and voluntaristic integration and merger of different systems
- without stopping the rise of new progressive varieties, trying to be pioneers in one or the other sphere. Perhaps
most important in this age of ideologies: The forced realisation and imposition of a new system upon dissenters
will no longer be necessary or somewhat justified, not even in the eyes of the adherents of this system. There is,
after all, in human beings, at least the rational tendency to follow the lines of least resistance. Competition by
foreign immigrants, which made a large contribution to the rise of nationalistic and exclusive sentiments (compare
the attitude of modern unionists to "scabs"!), would no longer be feared as soon as some of the exterritorial and
autonomous communities of volunteers put into operation effective employment programmes, which would
inevitably happen due to the experimental freedom involved, even if such programmes would not already exist, just
waiting for their chance: the removal of government-imposed obstructions.

Quite obviously, once the system is seen in operation, foreign markets would no longer have to be conquered or
monopolised, in order to obtain sales - once international clearing will no longer be obstructed by governments - at
least no longer for those communities which have learned to handle such clearing operations efficiently. Dictators
would disappear and with them the motive to obtain foreign policy and military successes - just in order to keep
them in the saddle, seeing the numerous failures of their internal "policies".


(If those in power were able and willing to learn from history then they would no longer confidently engage in
foreign adventures, either. The Soviet government, for instance, would then remember that the last Czar could not
save himself in this way and the Russian-Japanese war of 1904-1905 and the involvement of Russia in the First
World War did rather speed up than prevent the revolutions of 1905 and 1917.)
Separatistic regional efforts would then no longer lead to Secessionist or Civil Wars but merely to the
establishment of some more exterritorial communities practising their own personal laws, wherever they used to
live before.

The matter of national prestige would also be very different. The prestige of an exterritorial and autonomous
community of volunteers would primarily consist in the successful conduct of its own social, economic and
political experiments, in the successes of its constitutional and legal reforms (i.e., in the satisfactions of its
customers or consumers), and not at all in the power to be able to successfully defend any particular area with arms
or to be feared as a potential aggressor or as an oppressor of the own subjects.
(Territorial States would be turned into competitive private or cooperative corporations, nation- or world-wide,
without any legalized privileges towards non-members, i.e., they would have to satisfy their members, investors,
suppliers, customers and clients. No one would be compelled to be a member, to invest or work in them or to buy
their products or services. Everyone would be free to boycott any of those he disliked. - J.Z., 8.12.02.)

Under voluntary taxation no government could hope to obtain more tax slaves by means of foreign conquests. On
the contrary, such expensive expeditions would tend to lead to a tax strike of the own members or to massive
secessions or disobedience ,at least to re-call attempts.

                 The Decisions on War and Peace Would Be Made by the Peoples themselves

       "Every State in which the citizens themselves may not decide upon war and peace is a dictatorship."
                                                                       Ulrich von Beckerath

At present no government permits its people to decide themselves about war and peace - although the people would
here make, as a rule, better decisions than the governments. The German people were sick of war at least by 1917
and 1943. Nevertheless, their government forced them to carry on.

Even for democratic governments the following assertion has become something like a religious dogma which is
no longer doubted at all :
"Only the government may make decisions on war and peace."

Thus even democratic governments do not conceive or understand the possibility of making peace and
disarmament proposals - not to oppressive governments (which are the main obstacle for peace and the destruction
of moss extermination devices) but, instead, to the oppressed peoples themselves, who are the natural, although due
to their position necessarily silent, allies of all free people anywhere.
(As an oppressed people is to be considered any minority group that feels itself oppressed or disadvantaged,
although it has not committed any crimes with victims. - J.Z., 8.12.02.)
This monopoly for making as important decisions does lead to war whenever the decisive men happen to belong to
a warlike minority.
The corruptive influence of excessive power upon the character and the maxims of these decision makers worsens
the situation. Rulers do not, like their subjects, risk their lives., liberty, health and property in a war. Thus they
often all too easily decide upon one. For them it is a spectator blood sport. Moreover, they could not possibly bear
the responsibility for a wrong decision, even if trials of war criminals became the rule and were always fair: Their
single life cannot possibly balance the lives of millions of war victims.
(And is there any power more absolute and corrupting than the constitutional and legal or usurped power to make
life and death decisions for millions of other human beings? - Nevertheless, this power is rarely even questioned,
far less systematically resisted and abolished. - J.Z., 8.12.02.)

The development of mass extermination devices has turned the authority of governments, to decide upon war and
peace, into the "right" of a handful of people to decide about the continuance of mankind. No government was ever
intentionally authorised by its subjects with such powers. Even if such powers had been at one stage individually
transferred, it would no more bind the subjects than a "contract" by which a man sold himself into slavery. Such
contract, putting all advantages on one side and all disadvantages on the other, is by its very nature not obligatory
for the disadvantaged and gives the advantaged no extra rights.

The governments have also repeatedly declared that they are unable to destroy all nuclear and other mass murder
devices. (Their own powers being the greatest obstacle to such an endeavour!) This alone is already a sufficient
justification for taking their present powers for decision making on war and peace, armament and disarmament,
altogether away from them.

The whole burden of wars falls on citizens, i.e. those on whose fate the governments may make wrong decisions.
Thus, already in 1795, Immanuel Kant demanded clearly in his famous essay: "Eternal Peace", the right for the
people to decide upon war and peace for themselves and alone.
(Contrary to his and other people's republicanism and democracy, this cannot be realized "representatively" but
only via direct democracy for every voluntary community and, especially, for its members who are armed, trained
and organized to defend individual rights and nothing else. - J.Z., 8.12.02.)


After the introduction of exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers, this old peace proposal could be
easily realized: Whoever opposed a particular war could, if there were still no referendum or similar decision
making process for such decisions permitted or if he disagreed with the majority, simply secede from the State or
the community involved. If the majority of the citizens seceded, then the remaining minority could, as a rule, no
longer conduct the intended war or may no longer want to. Naturally, as a rule, this extreme measure would not be
required. It would suffice that it could be taken at any time in order to realize the right of the people to decide upon
questions of war and peace themselves.

The leadership of an exterritorial and autonomous community of volunteers would be directly dependent upon the
will of its members. Thus it could hardly determine upon its own the initiation of another war. I cannot imagine
that there would be many such communities which would transfer such powers to their leaders.
If there were, those threatened by such arrangements, all other communities, would in my opinion be entitled to
tyrannicide. Public opinion on such matters and under such circumstances would be so different from today that the
outlawry and execution of such elected Caesars would take place soon.

We should also take into consideration that the new social system permits the armament of all peaceful people who
love liberty and a consensual decision-making where it cannot be avoided. Armed peace and freedom lovers can
hardly be herded into a war against their will, particularly if they are organized in volunteer militias of the type
described below.

As a consequence of individual secessionism there would no longer any large-scale absolute obedience. Thus the
soldiers of armies sent against each other, by leaders who tell them, in essence: "We have no better use for you! Go
ahead and slaughter each other for our benefit!", could easily, and over the heads of their generals and their rulers,
come to a mutually attractive separate peace agreement.

                            Militias Would Be Established to Guarantee World Peace

Standing armies of professional volunteers or of conscripted soldiers can too easily be turned into tools of
militaristic and imperialistic rulers. Therefore they must be dissolved as soon as possible.

It can be safely predicted that after the realisation of the right of individuals to secede, local militias would soon be
formed by volunteers to protect human rights and the rights of rational beings in their areas, also, to undertake any
further forceful measures required to preserve world peace. For this purpose they would soon form federations,
even across former national boundaries. Finally, and in a natural process, these militias are likely to replace all
standing armies.

The weapons monopoly would no longer exist and with it would fall the prohibitions against private military
organizations of a non-criminal type.

The right to secede from an army would soon bring an end to abuses in military establishments. (Abuses continue
in the conscript army of "liberated" Russia, so that instances of suicides and desertion are rampant. - J.Z., 8.12.02.)

In the long run only a military organization could remain which is so rightfully and sensibly organised that it would
always find sufficient volunteers, volunteers who are even prepared to pay for their own training and equipment in
peace time.
An international federation of the local militias would be required to carry out larger military operations which,
sometimes, might still be required, e.g. against intolerant new religious sects. (Compare e.g. the wars resulting
from Mohammed's inspirations.) The mere existence of such an international military force would, in most cases,
prevent large scale offences against human rights, like the genocide of European Jews by the Nazi regime, in the
same way as the existence of a still rather imperfect militia or national guard in Switzerland and in the U.S. does
there prevent any open conquests of State powers by coups, or any brash dictatorship. If a coup occurred in such a
country, then within a few hours hundred-thousands of militia men would, militarily organized and armed, be on
the move against the praetorian guards in the capital, to restore the constitutional order existing before. Knowledge
of this prevents the coups and the beginnings of new imperialistic attempts.
(Fear of such a resistance has led in the U.S. to more and more nationalisation and State control of its "national
guard", leading it far away from its original militia traditions and from an ideal militia for the protection of
individual rights. - J.Z., 8.12.02.)


                              World Federations Would Become Easy to Establish

Without a subdivision of the Earth's surface among several States wars cannot be conceived. To that extent the
world federalists and world statists are right. But instead of abolishing the coercive, sovereign and exclusive
powers of States, characterised by territorial rule, most of them just want to establish a territorial super power to
lord it over the States. Without ever having found a sufficient justification for the numerous activities of national
States, they now want to assign numerous activities exclusively to a World State or World Federation. Moreover,
they strongly disagree on whether it is to be a World State or a World Federation and what kind of either it should

At the same time there is, indeed, sometimes, a need for one or the other world-wide agreement, be it on postal
services, time zones, the provision of satellites, standards of measurements etc. But nobody has ever proven that
only a government could provide such services. Nevertheless, the belief exists and is hard to defeat by mere
theoretical arguments. Thus, to pacify all world statists and world federalists, the simplest solution would be to let
them go ahead and organise themselves, to their hearts content, in as many and as many different World States and
World Federations as they desire for themselves. There is room for all of them - if they are organised on an
exterritorial and not on a territorial basis. Indeed, all exterritorial and autonomous associations of volunteers,
established in the future, seeing they do not claim any country exclusively for themselves and do not limit their
activities to any one country, as a rule, but tend to be rather cosmopolitan, signing like-minded members up
anywhere, all of them could very well also be considered as world federations.
At the same time, by their very nature, not one of them would be any real threat to any dissenters anywhere.
Should, after the establishment of individual sovereignty, through individual secession and voluntary associations,
some people still see some need for any special world-wide organizations, no one would be able to hinder them or
would want to prevent them from setting them up, as long as the membership of these new associations would
remain voluntary.

In the transition stage, a special type of international federation would often occur. When governments of the old
type would attempt to force their subjects to fight each other, they would often prefer to establish some kind of
federation between them, one which would establish peace between them while allying them against their former
governments. Moreover, they would invite as many people as possible to join their resistance organisation &
actions against such aggressive governments.

Now let us presume that there would be such a thing like an ideal world federation, in the same way as many
libertarians believe that there could be such a thing as an ideal limited government. There is no better way to
achieve either aim, if it can be achieved at all, then to throw this aim open to free competition, to free experi-
mentation with many forms and systems, all with the best possible selection of personnel, to achieve the best
possible results: namely volunteers firmly believing in their particular ideals. If the aim could be achieved, one or
the other of these freely and peacefully competing groups would sooner or later find the road towards it. In the
meantime we should set our sights on more limited federations, e.g. federations between local militia units and,
perhaps, federations of minority groups now almost subjugated by two or more States in whose present areas they
If, moreover, not only particular minorities thus united or federated, ignoring any of the present borders, but all
minority groups that are presently disadvantaged, anywhere on Earth, were to set up some form of defensive
alliance between them, as they would have the perfect right to do, then I consider it quite possible that merely by
numbers they would constitute the largest group on Earth.
The programme which could unite them to the extent necessary for defensive common efforts could be expressed
in two words: mutual tolerance. Perhaps such a world-wide organisation would be the best vehicle to spread the
ideas of individual secessionism and personal law world-wide. Naturally, once such an organization had achieved
its objective: the demolition of every dictatorial system on this planet, it might well dissolve itself or become
automatically dissolved by the secession of its members. But some of its institutions might survive: an international
defence organization, for instance, rather limited, because there would be few enemies left and not many new ones
arising, and some kind of international arbitration system. Even these would not have to be organized along World
State lines.


                  International Law Would, Subsequently, Rest Securely upon Human Rights

Between States of the present type there is no one or no organization which could guarantee a condition of justice.
Thus, between these States, as long as they exist, wars will continue again and again - unless they succeed in
wiping all of us out.
They are warfare organizations against external and internal enemies and as such tend to perpetuate their warlike
characteristics, each being rightly afraid of all the others. Consequently, whatever international law was so far
developed and recognised, is largely only a law of warfare or at least of power struggles, even if sometimes only
carried out by diplomats at the front. It is not based on the recognition of human rights, as a rule, but rather permits
them to suppress or disregard human rights.

There are exceptions, but they are also honoured more by breach than by fulfilment.

The Hague Convention on the conduct of land warfare does as least make some attempts to protect the rights of
combatants and non-combatants.

Only mutual respect of human rights, at least in the members of other exterritorial and autonomous institutions, in
case one does not claim certain human rights for oneself, within one's community, will be able to keep the peace
between the members of the different exterritorial communities. They are themselves based on what is perhaps the
most important human right, that of individual sovereignty. Consequently, the international law developing to
regulate their relations with each other, will largely be based on the recognition of human rights and the natural
rights of rational beings. These will form the basic legal code for the international arbitration court systems they
will set up and will form the guidelines for the international federation of local militias for the protection of human
rights. Most of the volunteer communities, the militia forces and the court systems will insist upon that every
member will be sworn in to uphold the human rights, expressed in a common declaration, at least in the persons of
those communities which respect these rights internally and externally, even when those giving the oath have, for
the time being and for their own lives and community renounced particular rights. For instance, communists would
have to swear not to interfere with the private property rights of members of capitalistic communities whilst
capitalists would have to swear not to interfere with the various collectivist property arrangements in communistic
or socialistic communities. On that basis agreement between them appears possible.

It can be foreseen that the international militia will have to mobilise itself only very rarely to restore peace,
precisely because the various groups will all be free to run their own affairs as they please. At least to that extent
the exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers are designed for peaceful and tolerant coexistence.
Between territorial warfare States it is hardly possible, at least not in the long run. (Even the democratic or
republican ones among them, relatively peaceful, but not sufficiently peace-promoting or defensively and
liberatingly strong towards dictatorships, can be turned, as happened all too often, into dictatorships, and thus can
become a threat to peace for the world. - J.Z., 8.12.02.)

     The Timely Declaration of Rightful War and Peace Aims Would either Prevent or Rapidly End Wars

States do only rarely declare clear war aims in case they are attacked or are themselves attacking. This omission
leads then both sides to believe that they are really fighting for their national existence, their very survival, at least
for their "national interest". The subject is not even thrown up for discussion. There is no distinct bone of
contention, yet the dogfight goes on. Wars are thus unnecessarily prolonged and conducted with all the greater
cruelty and destructiveness and bloodshed.

Compare how late any war aims at all were declared during the last two World Wars - and then how one-sided and
imperfect even these declarations were - and how little reason the people on either side had to trust such promises.

What induces States to engage in as irrational and bloodthirsty conduct, comparable at best to drunken brawlers in
a pub or on the footpath next to it? Kant had this to say on the subject, in "Eternal Peace":

       "All actions relating to the rights of other people are wrong when the principle upon which they are based
       cannot stand publicity."

There are many good reasons for believing that most of the secret war aims (at least one must presume that they
have such and that wars are not merely the results of drugged dreams the decision makers had) of today's States are
wrongful, thus would not stand publicity and thus are kept secret.


All too often do States merely act in accordance with the so-called "Right of the Strongest". In practice this merely
means: We will take and keep whatever we can grab! (On the presumed "right" of the strongest see the still
excellent refutation in J. J. Rousseau's Social Contract, chapter 3.)

Moreover, according to the prevailing opinion, it would infringe the "sovereignty" of a State if it obliged itself, by
means of a declaration of rightful war aims, towards any foreign country. Most nationalists want to retain what
they skilfully misnamed: "freedom of action".
No State of the present type can free itself sufficiently from all kinds of nationalistic, imperialistic, militaristic and
collectivistic notions, myths and prejudices or the "principles" of what has been misnamed "practical" or "realistic"
politics. (Realpolitik)

Exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers, on the other hand, have nothing to hide. Their maxims
are rightful and can thus, to their own great advantage, be publicised in time in order to help them win in any
political or military clashes.

On this Kant said, likewise in "Eternal Peace":

"All principles which require publicity in order to fulfil their purpose, do agree with both, right and politics."

A State of the present type can very well exist without recognising human rights, nay, even by their suppression.
(Some would say, that they even exist merely due to the fact that they have repressed certain human rights
successfully, rights like those discussed in this book. I do largely agree with them.) But for exterritorial and
autonomous communities of volunteers the knowledge of and respect for human rights - and the natural rights of
rational beings - are preconditions for their very existence. (This in spite of the fact that some of them might
renounce some of these rights for their internal relations.) For their external relations and for their very birth they
are absolutely dependent on the recognition of certain basic rights.

Consequently, the exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers will publicly and with sufficient
publicity and repeatedly declare, years before it would come to any clashes with others, what their aims are in case
it would come to war. Among other points they would declare the following:

a) No reparations, no conquests, no forced labour.
(However, liberation cost claims will be laid against the nationalised assets of a former despotism as well as against
the private properties of its guilty leaders. - J.Z., 8.12.02.
b) We will not force anyone to embrace any particular social or economic or political system.
c) Aim of our defensive efforts will be to protect and restore the rule of human rights, at least for our interrela-
tionships, especially the right of self-determination, even for minorities, a right which can best be realised by
individual secession and the organization of exterritorial and autonomous volunteer organizations.

                              Prisoners of War and Deserters Would Become Allies
No government today is sufficiently and in advance concerned with the problem of prisoners of war and deserters
and their proper treatment during a war, in accordance with international law, the requirements of morality and the
enlightened self-interest. Instead, when it comes to war, emotions run high, myths prevail and are fostered, they
treat even those soldiers of the enemy regime, who were conscripted or even deserted, as enemies. The treatment is
usually of a kind that the enemy's soldiers, although not enamoured with their own government, often prefer to
fight to the last, even for a cause known to be unjust, rather than surrender and being severely mistreated as
prisoners of war. Particularly in our times, when most wars are fought on both sides with conscripts, wars are
thereby prolonged and made much more severe.

What happens, in other words, is that governments, in thoughtless reaction to the opening of hostilities, and
wrongly applying the principle of collective responsibility, consider all former enemy subjects as true believers,
fully responsible for their government's crimes and thus to be dealt with punitively or at least with extreme
prejudice, suspicion and security measures.

How, on the other hand, would exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers act in this situation?
Fundamentally, when conducting a war against a government which has not yet recognised the right of individuals
to secede, they would distinguish between the voluntary and the involuntary subjects of that government, especial-
ly seeing that the introduction of the right to secede would be one of their primary rightful war aims, declared long
in advance of any hostilities and brought to the attention of all foreign subjects.


Consequently, they would also declare, long in advance, and finally act upon this declaration, that they would treat
all those prisoners, refugees and deserters, who declare that they were forced to fight or work against them, not as
enemies, as prisoners of war, as internees or conquered people, but, instead, either as neutral guests or even as
allies, if they can agree upon mutually attractive conditions.

They would be fully aware that the persons concerned are largely people who were only hindered by their
circumstances to become members of freedom-loving exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers of
one or the other type.

Today, if at all, States usually call for deserters from the other side only in the middle of a war, when, due to
cruelties and crimes on both sides, whatever mutual trust still remained, has been further minimised. Thus it is not
surprising that, as a rule, only a small number respond to such appeals, especially when nothing better is offered to
them than "good treatment" as prisoners of war and when the war aim appears to be rather "unconditional
surrender" than any rightful war aim, like, e.g., liberation for everyone according to his ideals.
Exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers would act otherwise because they are based upon the
recognition that subjects and rulers often have opposite interests, so that the subjects, when there is no legal or
revolutionary way out for them, will attempt to escape their oppressors and exploiters by fleeing or deserting to the
other side, the enemy of their regime. Thus these communities would declare, many years in advance, how they
would act in such a situation. They would announce their readiness to accept neutrals and allies from the other side,
as guests or as armed comrades. They would even offer them payment for the arms they would bring over with
them. They would assure them jobs and accommodation and, if desired, immediate return to their home area as
soon as it is liberated and would assure for them the introduction of the right to secede in their area of the world,
for individuals, for minorities, for the majority.

Consequently, much of the fighting that would otherwise take place would be replaced by the publication of such
appeals and the inevitable effects they would have upon the armed forces and other subjects of dictatorships. The
few soldiers remaining loyal to the enemy regime would be demoralised by mass desertions of their comrades and
would mostly surrender, giving their cause up as hopeless. If not, they could easily be overwhelmed, especially
with the help of the new allies. Moreover, the exterritorial autonomy offer would also apply to them. They would
become free to realize all their ideals for themselves. This would apply e.g. to the numerous dissenting communist
and socialist groupings within the two major Red Empires.

     Governments-in-Exile Could Be More Easily Established and Would Help to End Wars More Rapidly
After the realisation of exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers, at first in the democratic countries
of the West, governments-in-exile could be rapidly formed in opposition to every existing dictatorship. Should it
come to war with any of the dictatorships, then the patriotic soldiers and officers of the oppressive government will
be willing to desert to or join and support their own rightful government, the government-in-exile on the other side,
our ally, much more readily than they would join us. They would also, most likely, do it in much larger numbers
than would happen otherwise, especially when they become convinced (and we can achieve that conviction! See
below!) that this rightful government is not just a puppet regime we have set up - but that it represents whatever
voluntary members it already has and is likely to gain in the country subjected to the dictatorship it opposes.

We must overcome the notion that we should oppose a dictatorship only with a single government-in-exile.
Instead, all centrifugal and decentralist forces under the regime should be liberated and utilised, for their own and
our independence. A single alternative regime would all too often not be an attractive enough proposition. Nume-
rous minorities would not agree with it. At the same time, an All-Russia or All-China government-in-exile could
also be set up to satisfy all of the conventional nationalists on the other side. (Naturally, their "united" empires
would only be empires of volunteers. As such they can be tolerated by non-members. - J.Z., 8.12.02.)

No government on our side could raise any objections against such governments-in-exile, as soon as the right to
secede is realized. It would also apply to these dissenting groups, formed by political exiles, refugees and peace
time deserters. Moreover, these "foreign" governments or "States within States" would be as autonomous, on an
exterritorial and voluntary basis, as all the other diverse communities.


Towards our own governments of the present type, the soldiers and civilians on the other side entertain a justified
distrust. All too often they plan not only to overthrow the existing dictatorial regime but to replace it by another
one which might be almost or just as bad and certainly will not satisfy all minorities. "The devil you know... " The
own government may also plan annexations, reparations and other impositions and would not even tell the own
subjects about such plans. So why should foreigners trust it? Our organizations and aims must be so just and the
facts must be so trustworthily communicated that the subjects on the other side would rather believe us and act in
accordance with us than obey their own governments.

Such an objective would be hard to impossible to achieve for any conventional government - but it would almost
be child's play for the new social organizations proposed. It would be their speciality. No government could beat
them at their own special game.

                                       Peace Treaties Would Be Facilitated

States are unsuitable organizations for concluding peace or preventing war. Almost all chapters in this section of
this book confirm this point. One cannot rightly assert the same for exterritorial and autonomous communities of

States have become giant bureaucratic machines involved in so many activities that they can hardly spare any time
or interest for the establishment and preservation of a lasting peace. Instead, they send a few of their public
servants to conferences with the officials of other States. Those functionaries have no direct interest in achieving a
lasting peace treaty and no knowledge of how it could be brought about, other than as a mere formality. During all
those negotiations, lasting sometimes for years, and in-between, they are on high salaries and expense accounts.
Moreover, they stand in the centre of public attention, of a public kept in ignorance of foreign affairs (other than as
power politics). Thus they have as a rule only a public servant's interest in the comfort and continuance of their
posts. If they fulfilled their task (and provided public servants could fulfil such tasks - some-thing that is denied in
this book, even if they had the best of will) then they would render themselves superfluous. Few in the public
service are inclined towards such a self-sacrificing public service.

Paradoxically, precisely by these supposed servants of ours, who belong to the master class, losing their privileged
position regarding negotiations and decisions on war and peace, armament and disarmament and international
treaties and representations, by seeing to it that the people themselves, in one way or the other, but, anyhow, much
more directly, take over these tasks and, moreover, by assuring that almost all individuals work on the task to
establish world peace, largely by claiming their human rights and natural rights of rational beings, especially the
right of individuals to secede, can the tasks of these diplomats and foreign ministers and prime ministers be solved
at all! Those who can do the job are presently not allowed to do it. Those who cannot do the job have been given a
monopoly for doing it!
Khrushchev is supposed to have said something similar in 1959:

       "If the government representatives again cannot agree during the next peace conference, then the people
       themselves should take over their task."

Most likely, he had a world revolution of the communist type in mind when he said that and overlooked that the
Russian and other people, suppressed by him, needed only a good revolutionary programme to apply this idea
against himself.
Compare also the related remark Dwight D. Eisenhower made once, as President of the U.S. - which is quoted on
page 3.

But generally politicians do not think along such lines. The rather accept the role of the arrogant practitioner:
"There will always be wars!" (This is a self-fulfilling prophecy: So far, with all their "principles", actions, policies
and programmes, moreover, by their very existence as power holders, they have made very sure that there will be
wars.) They look down on the mere theoreticians of peace, although only due to their wrong and false theories and
actions could a practice of peace not develop so far. In reality, they are not even very practical men in their power
politics and in open warfare.

For instance, in their prejudices and ignorance rulers treat prisoners of war so badly that the enemies' soldiers often
rather fight to the last than let themselves be taken prisoners. Peace promises of such cruel masters are, naturally,
not believed, either.

It just does not come natural, to territorial governments (because they demand more or less absolute obedience
from their own subjects), to attempt to overthrow the enemy


regime or to defeat it rapidly - by inviting the subjects of this regime to disobey their rulers and rather ally
themselves to a foreign government at war with their own, or with a rightful government in exile.

In short, governments, in many ways and unintentionally, prevent or delay peace. Exterritorial and autonomous
communities of volunteers would act differently, simply because they would be based on respect for individual
human rights and natural rights of rational beings.

                                  Separate Peace Treaties Would Shorten Wars

States prohibit individual citizens, associations and, naturally, especially their armed forces and individual military
units, to conclude any separate peace treaties. Moreover, they severely prosecute such endeavours as treason or
high treason.

At the same time, the governments, as stated above, find it difficult to conclude peace or, if they have allies, at least
an honourable separate peace for themselves. Mostly they succeed in achieving peace only when both sides are
already that exhausted by their efforts that they could hardly continue with the war, anyhow.

Prohibitions of separate peace treaties would be justified only in a society which recognises all human rights and
natural rights of rational beings and for any fights it might have with a dictatorial or totalitarian regime. Even then,
one should endeavour to achieve separate treaties - not with the enemy regime but with its subjects.

Such a rightful society would, through recognition of the right of individuals to secede, be nothing more than an
exterritorial and autonomous community of volunteers. To conclude a separate peace treaty directed against such a
society would indeed be treason - against reason and human rights!

Separate peace treaties between the troops of a Hitler and a Stalin would be quite a different matter. To conclude
such treaties would, according to moral principles, not only not be treasonous (except in the eyes of the two
governments involved) but instead dutiful! Such signatories should not have worried about the complaints and
accusations of their former oppressors and exploiters. Instead, they should have formed themselves into
exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers, re-arranged themselves into militia units for the
protection of human rights and the defence of their volunteer communities, and should have invited all other
German and Russian soldiers to revolt likewise or to desert and to fraternise with them - in order to liberate
themselves in the same way. From the point of view of human rights is was high treason that, as a rule, they did not
act in this way.

We would still have another kind of case if a relatively free and democratic State, e.g. England or the United
States, were at war with the Soviet Union and peace would not be rapidly achieved by the democratic West. (I am
well aware how inaccurate this short-hand term is.) Then one could perceive and facilitate the performance of the
duty of every military unit of the Soviets to use every opportunity for concluding separate peace treaties with the
democratic countries. One could and should, for instance, draft and publicise sufficiently, standard contracts for
such peace treaties. They would contain nothing but rightful war aims and guarantees for them. Then the members
of the Soviet's military forces would have very good reasons for wanting to sign such separate peace treaties for
themselves and would not feel like traitors towards anything that is good in their countries and in their
countrymen's aspirations.

On the other hand, a military unit of a democratic country would act criminally, or commit high treason, if it were
to betray its own side, which defends a however imperfect declaration of human rights and however incomplete
freedom tradition, and were to conclude a separate peace with the Red Army or the Soviet Regime - on the terms
provided by the Soviet Regime so far. No government that has some sense should have any objections if its armies
or units concluded peace treaties with armies or units on the other side - provided only these are concluded on the
foundation of human rights.

It would be interesting to see two opposing governments actively pursuing this policy, attempting to outdo each
other with just peace offers towards the subjects on the other side. This is, admittedly, a very hypothetical case. To
adopt such a common ,policy both sides would already have to be exterritorial and autonomous communities of


volunteers - and, both sides having largely just and therefore overlapping war aims, they would soon come to a
peace agreement, anyhow.

Exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers would certainly use every opportunity for concluding
separate peace treaties, at least with the subjects of the opposing regimes. Moreover, they would appeal to their
own troops and authorise them to sign such agreements on the spot, whenever possible. Naturally, these agree-
ments would apply only to those signing them or approving the signature of some of their spokesmen by their
actions. The exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers will point out to every soldier on the other
side, with whom they can somehow communicate, that by means of desertion or secession he can practically realise
a separate peace for himself.

Many different separate peace treaties combined, all with rather similar, because just contents, would finally lead to
the end of a war because the enemy regime would be deserted by almost all its soldiers.

               The Preparation and Conduct of Wrongful Wars Would Become More Difficult

       "War is a condition not between man and man but between State and State." - J. J. Rousseau

Sovereign States are according to their very nature unable, in the long run, to coexist with each other peacefully
and tolerantly. Exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers, on the other hand, are by their very nature
designed for a tolerant coexistence. Not only that, they can only exist on the basis of human rights and the natural
rights of rational beings. They are among the most important practical expressions of these rights.

Territorial States are indeed suitable for preparing unjust wars, to enlarge them, to prolong them, to make them
more severe. But they are very bad institutions for concluding a just peace, rapidly, or to prevent wars. Exterritorial
associations would possess none of these flaws.
States require a strong armament and many trained soldiers - because every State realises that the other States are
capable and willing to make strong military preparations and that there is, under the existing conditions, no more
they can do about this than ordinary citizens can do now.
For the proposed communities, on the other hand, a secret military preparation for attacks against others would be
as impossible as an open one. Moreover, for them any extensive defensive preparations would no longer be
required. Whatever military protection would still be required could and would most likely, be provided by the
proposed militia organizations.

Not even States know the arms preparations of others States sufficiently. In all States all military preparations that
take place are considered as State secrets. These secrets are seen by only the eyes of a few, guarded by many
security measures and penal clauses, especially by subordination in the armed forces and by the laws on treason.
States are inclined to use all opportunities for keeping such secrets. Speaking generally, the main opportunity for
keeping secrets of this type consists in the power to seal off whole areas and enterprises from all but very selected
people and by successful make-believe propaganda that secrecy for all armament preparations would be dutiful.
Thus even the own citizens remain largely unaware of their government's military preparations - and approve of

Today's espionage cannot sufficiently annul this secrecy. Spies can only be carefully and at great danger and in
small numbers infiltrated. Thus, as a rule, they cannot sufficiently or in time inform their own government of the
war preparations of the other. Military expenditures in budgets can be hushed up in the published reports.

Even if a government were well informed on the preparations of another government - this would only serve to
continue and perhaps speed up the arms race between them, and might all the faster lead to war.

Compare this situation with that which would prevail among exterritorial and autonomous communities of
volunteers: Every member would be a spy towards all other such communities - with regard to any war
preparations they might make. Espionage would then no longer be a despicable profession but rather an attractive
and honourable one.


Thus the majority of citizens would act as controllers to prevent war preparations of any minority group, much in
the some way as they do or could keep crime of the ordinary type in check now. (Presently, the State's police and
courts do not invite and facilitate this participatory fighting of ordinary crime sufficiently, perhaps simply because
they are bureaucratic institutions.)

How and where could exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers arm secretly? There would no
longer be guarded military areas. Armament, exercises and training of the militia would be quite public. Most adult
and rational citizens would belong to these forces. They would also, as citizens, enjoy full freedom of speech,
press, association and assembly. Thus hardly any preparations for a military aggression could be kept secret from

Taxes or contributions would only be paid for certain stated purposes and not for any secret armaments. Diversion
of funds for military purposes, even if it could be kept secret, would make membership in such an association non-
competitive with regard to the services it provides for its premiums (the stated and open ones). Thus it would lose
many of its members fast. Moreover, the members are not motivated to keep such secrets (There is no situation
which creates a self-perpetuating chauvinism.) and because of the right to secede they could not be held to secrecy

Today States can provide standing armies by means of conscription or taxation. These options would no longer
exist. Today they build already in peace-time various institutions not for economic but for military reasons, like
strategic railway lines, air ports and roads and the taxpayers have no option but to go along. They cannot direct
their own funds according to their own priorities.

Secret diplomacy of States leads to acute war situations even before the public becomes aware what is happening
and could do anything to prevent it. Thus President Wilson proposed in point I of his peace programme:
       "Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international
       understandings of any kind, but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view."

Whatever war aims there are, are usually so wrong that they are kept secret and every State consequently acts as if
any other State might involve it in a total war.

(Those who doubt this should consult the contingency war plans and war games conducted at their military
academies and by the highest military staff, if they were allowed access, beforehand.) This all-round preparedness
leads frequently to acute arms races and these, with 99% certainty, lead to wars.

The penal clauses of today's military code (in combination with propaganda, taxation, conscription and the
existence of other militaristic monstrosities) enable States to conduct wars even against the will of most of their
soldiers and citizens. The individual has only the choice of going along with it or be penalised for disobedience,
desertion or rebellion, with rather severe penalties which might even extend to members of his family. This is
possible as long as the main requirement for a successful resistance is not fulfilled.

Immanuel Kant spoke of it in "Eternal Peace" as the transition from the distributed unity of the will of all (where
all say to themselves: I do not want war but am alone and therefore unable to prevent it) to the collected unity of
the united will of all (where all say: We do not want another war and will therefore immediately proceed against
the war mongers, in such and such a way.).

In many instances this transition becomes possible only by numerous acts of individual and minority group
secessions and by military insurrections.

By means of war propaganda and large-scale suppression of freedom of speech, press, information, association and
assembly, especially among soldiers, States often succeed in convincing a large number of their subjects that a
certain war would be necessary and justified. The right to secede and the protection of this and other rights by
volunteer militias, would frustrate such efforts. Then, more than ever before, the old principle would apply that one
can deceive some people all the time, a number of people for a length of time but not all people for any length of

The State policy of alliances, which includes even alliances for unjustified aggressive wars (under defensive
pretences), has the tendency to widen local military


conflicts, might even turn the into world wars. The situation between exterritorial and autonomous communities of
volunteers would be different. For one, not masses of conscripted soldiers and taxpayers would be involved but
only volunteers. The only war aim would be protection and preservation of human rights. Mostly this could be
done fast, by local militias, wherever the offences occur. But in case a group mobilised and overpowered local
militia forces, then, if necessary, the whole militia forces of the world could and would act against such an
aggressor. Thus there might be many participants but only few armed clashes, because the small number of
offenders against human rights could be rapidly and easily defeated in this way. This certainty would prevent the
need for many such international "police actions".

States prolong wars by reserving to governments a monopoly for concluding peace treaties. Thus they can force
their subjects to continue wars against their will. This becomes obvious e.g. in cases of decimation of troop units
which mutinied and were disarmed. They may also prolong wars by propaganda inciting hatreds and giving orders
like: "No Pardon!" which create or increase mutual hatred.

They also make armed conflicts more severe by various escalating measures of retaliation, all in wrongful
application of the principle of collective responsibility and in disregard for human rights and the natural rights of
rational beings - until both governments finally conduct a total war - not so much against each other but, instead -
against their subjects.

As we will see below, the armed forces of exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers, in the few
cases where it would still come to wars, would conduct a very different kind of war in a very different way.
               World Peace Would also Be Promoted by an Extension of Freedom of Movement

The introduction of exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers would, among other things, lead to
unlimited freedom of movement for all persons and their possessions and would thereby also contribute to preserve
peace. No such community would possess a territory from which it could exclude immigrants, refugees and
deserters (apart from the private property of its members). Today, all State constitutions authorise the territorial
governments to arbitrarily restrict immigration, under the pretence that public interest would require this. As the
States cannot cope with the problem of jobs and accommodations for immigrants (or, rather, because they brought
about a situation, by a variety of economic interventions, where jobs and accommodation are short), they have
made extensive use of these powers. Consequently (not only because of the barriers put up by the dictatorships
against escapes), the subjects of dictatorships have few chances to flee to and settle in freer countries. Thus most of
them stay where they are and form finally the vast army and forces of the enemy regime which, supposedly, can
only be kept in check with nuclear destructive devices.

                         The War Promoting Weapons Monopoly Would Be Abolished

The weapons monopoly of the police and the army can no longer be upheld when one can withdraw from the
corresponding laws by means of individual secession. Then, contrary to prejudice, not a war of all against all would
result but, instead, internal as well as external peace would be strengthened. (Compare especially Section VI.)
Today, peace and freedom loving honest citizens are usually not armed or not well enough armed, because they are
not legally permitted to arm themselves, e.g. with hand guns. But at the same time, criminals, terrorists and
totalitarian revolutionaries are armed. Consequently, communist and fascist dictatorships can be much easier
established and embroil the world in more wars.

After the abolition of the weapons monopoly, neither a police state nor a military dictatorship could arise any
longer. Police and army can easily suppress an unarmed population but not an armed one. (Especially not when it is
organized, trained and motivated as an ideal militia would be of volunteers for the protection of individual rights. -
J.Z., 9.12.02.) Police and army officers can be bribed or put under pressure and abused as tools to gain power
(compare e.g. the coup of Napoleon III) but a whole armed and enlightened population could not be misled and
ruled in this way.

Today nuclear weapons stores and nuclear weapons factories can be protected by a handful of policemen against
ten-thousands of unarmed citizens while the citizens are given no protection against such "weapons", no chance to
fight back and protect their rights and interests.


It should be obvious that the repeal of the weapons monopoly here proposed is not an open invitation to all to use
mass-extermination devices like nuclear weapons or chemical or biological weapons. On the contrary, no one
should be authorised to apply such weapons or keep them in readiness or manufacture them.

In future, the rightfully armed and trained and organized citizens could and would see to it, if necessary after using
rightful arms against the defenders of anti-people "weapons".
Arms whose effect can be limited to the combatants are rightful but weapons which are inevitably indiscriminate,
are wrongful or anti-people weapons and do not even deserve the term "weapons".
The militia forces for the protection of individual rights would assure that all nuclear weapons as well as biological
and chemical weapons are disarmed and all atomic bomb factories, and installations like nuclear reactors, which
can be used for the manufacture of nuclear destructive devices, are destroyed and can no longer be constructed in
the future.
Seeing that at least some governments have repeatedly declared that they would like to see all nuclear weapons
destroyed but are for various reasons unable to carry this nuclear disarmament out, they should be the last ones to
complain and to resist such a measure, when effectively undertaken by the people themselves.
(How much enlightenment has still to be spread in this sphere was demonstrated by reports that people danced
joyfully in the streets of cities in Pakistan when its government finally acquired nuclear anti-people "weapons" as
well. Apparently, they did not see themselves as targets but gleefully contemplated the destruction of "enemy"
cities! Government schooling hasn't enlightened them in this respect, either, nor have their churches or sects. -
There are still too many killer-apes among us! - J.Z., 9.12.02.)
A government, with the police and other armed professional or conscript forces on its side, can declare and carry
on a war even against the majority of the citizens, i.e., today, of the unarmed subjects. But armed citizens, trained,
organized and properly motivated, would not let themselves be deprived of their chance, of their duty, to make as
important decisions for themselves.

                                   Conscription Could no Longer Be Practised

The right of individuals to secede from an army or State, like from a church, would make it impossible to carry out
the modern method of temporarily enslaving men which is called conscription. Conscription has been the backbone
of most modern wars and probably would be, for the future. Only a territorial State has the power required to put
compulsory recruitment, also misnamed "selective service" into effect. It is also one of the pillars of the power of
the State.
(When looking back into history, e.g. at the times when the Royal Navy press-ganged most of its sailors, one finds
that men who had been pressed themselves were often willing and efficient members of future press gangs. Power
does also corrupt the powerless and those who believe themselves to be powerless.)
Even the "free and democratic States of the West" are usually not so free and democratic that they believe to be
able to find enough volunteers for their armed forces, at least not during war time.

Conscripted soldiers are given no option but to guard ABC weapons against dissenters among the own citizens,
who are not protected from the nuclear war danger - which the mere existence of such devices inevitably brings
In future, it would be much harder to find voluntary replacements for such conscripts. They could not be bribed
into such jobs at the expense of the taxpayers, either. Most important of all, in the new situation few people would
believe that these devices would be necessary for the preservation of peace. (See the appendix on the deterrence

Since everyone would, then, have the ultimate escape from a government which tries to pressurise him to act
contrary to his will: since everyone would be free to secede, only those States or communities could still conduct
wars which rule so well and stand for as just war aims that they could find sufficient volunteers.

                               Dictators Could Be Much More Easily Overthrown

Dictatorships are among the most common causes of war and it is today relatively easy to establish them and
relatively hard to overthrow them - once they are established. Once a dictatorship exists and is armed with nuclear
destructive devices, then, at least in the long run, and conditions remaining otherwise unchanged, nuclear war is
inevitable. Thus at least such dictatorships must be abolished in time.
States may also be considered as dictatorships when only the government may make war and peace decisions and
the citizens are altogether disenfranchised in this respect. Without any dictatorships, the States in which the citizens
themselves decide about war and peace, armament and disarmament would probably not acquire any nuclear arms
in the first place or destroy the ones they have.
Moreover, really free societies would make it easy to resist the beginnings of a dictatorship and hard to establish
and maintain them. It would lastly come to the problem of one


man attempting to impose his will on all others while the others are in no way dependent upon him and could
secede from any organization he might set up. The many could then much easier organise to defend themselves
against a few aggressive people and groups. Today's institutions facilitate criminal one-against-all games while
hindering self-defends methods. Tomorrow's free institutions would facilitate just all-against-one defence efforts -
while not obstructing any creative activities of individuals or individual self-defence efforts.

To establish a dictatorship is difficult only in an exterritorial and autonomous community of volunteers but not in
any of today's "democratic" States in which the people are disarmed and already in many other ways likewise
disarmed or dis-franchised. To overthrow, under today's conditions, any dictator, once he has himself established,
might cost the lives and property of millions. Terror is effective against unarmed citizens, particularly when they
do have no revolutionary programme and organization. In a segregated State territory, people can be kept captive
almost as if in a cage and any kind of domination can be imposed upon them in such a situation. Hitler come to
power largely using the existing democratic and already largely centralist and monopolistic institutions. Remember
what it took to overthrow him once he was in charge of the State's machinery. He could not have risen to such
dangerous and destructive powers as a mere leader of an exterritorial and autonomous community of volunteers, no
matter how right-wing radical his internal programme would have been. Most of his early followers would have
experienced him fully, close up, noticed the failures much earlier and they could not have gone scape-goat hunting,
seeing that they would enjoy full autonomy. Most of them would soon have become disappointed and disillusioned
with him. He would just have been another "ratbag" or raving madman, at best a deterrent example to more rational
(Moreover, experimental freedom would have prevented or rapidly ended the Great Inflation as well as the Great
Depression, both of which occurred under "democracy", not under the German emperors, and helped to recruit
millions to support another "great leader". Each of these events did cost Germany economically as much as did
WW I. - That WW I was caused by imperialistic territorialism and protectionism, under a semi-mad German
Kaiser, also by a formerly peace-loving Czar, and a war-loving clique around the Austrian emperor, and escalated
by "defensive" alliances, was conveniently forgotten by the followers of a new "great leader". - J.Z., 9.12.02.)

To usurp a State's power it is sufficient to win over the police and other armed forces and to change a few of the
top positions in a State - while relying on the political, social and economical immaturity and ignorance of most
people under the camouflage of some catch phrases. Today, all government posts, whose powers could be abused,
are inevitably also accessible to those who would abuse them, who are attracted to them as moths are to light. As
badly organized as defence is today, in most States, some generals need only bad intentions and become conscious
of their powers and they could, with the help of the subordinated armed forces, conduct a successful coup. Not the
institutions but merely public opinion, shared by these officers, prevents this from happening in some of the
Western countries. But look at the numerous instances of other countries!

Modern States, by reserving most socially important activities to themselves, strengthen or multiply statism and
thereby facilitate the task of anyone aspiring to dictatorship. He has no longer to defeat most citizens, jealous of
their liberties and independence, but has, primarily only to replace those who presently possess already large
powers in a State. Once he is elected or has usurped power without this camouflage, he becomes hard to get rid of
again, at least for several years and is likely to be displaced only by other "leadership types" or despots. From an
elected position to one of usurped despotism only a short distance need nowadays be crossed.

A right to resist a government, which has offended against human rights, is today recognized only by very few
governments and even there largely only on paper. Hardly any government concedes its subjects the means to carry
out a successful resistance, i.e. weapons and military organization.

The situation would be very different in future. With the programme: freedom for exterritorial and autonomous of
volunteers, any dictatorship could be relatively easily and with a minimum of bloodshed overthrown. New
dictatorships could then no longer be established easily. With this kind of aim, the various opposition groups,
instead of engaging mainly in in-fighting, could then use their combined forces against the dictatorship. No group
would any longer have to be afraid that it would, afterwards, be dominated by one of the other competing groups.
All of them could become exterritorially autonomous - to the extent that they would desire this.

The armies of the dictatorship would desert and perhaps likewise establish, at least temporarily, exterritorial and
autonomous communities of volunteers - or their members would join, the existing ones. Why should they fight? A
conquest of their native country would no longer threaten - because of the prevailing exterritorial and personal law


associations. Between them, they could realize any of their ideals without having to fight down any enemy first -
except their own dictatorial government. Consequently, the dictatorship will in vain appeal to nationalistic
On the contrary, the revolutionaries and external enemies of a dictatorship could successfully appeal to such
sentiments, especially by appealing to the suppressed national minorities and offering them full autonomy.

The weapons monopoly, one of the mainstays of dictatorships, will also be undermined. Firstly, by the example of
free societies made up of armed citizens, then by the appeal of the free societies to the conscripts of dictatorships,
to join the free societies, while staying under arms and adopting whatever personal laws they like, further by the
revolutionary programmes, especially programmes for military insurrections, spread by the free societies, then by
suppressed civilians arming themselves and inviting the soldiers to join them against the oppressive regime.
The internationally federated local militias in all countries would be the natural enemies of all dictatorships and
together they would form the greatest military defensive power - and liberating power - this world has ever seen.
Dictators are characterised by their suppression of human rights and the militias would be the ultimate defenders of
human rights. These militias would be formed soon after the introduction of the right of individuals to secede and
once established could easily defeat all present and future dictatorships or even prevent their establishment, if they
organise and proceed as described in Sections V and VI of this book.

                    Disobedience towards the Orders of War Criminals Would Be Promoted

Today's social order is based on the principle of subordination. Among its disadvantages are: The obedient soldier
does not desert, not even from the army of a Hitler or a Stalin. The obedient citizen follows the instructions even of
a dictator, works for him and pays him taxes and accepts his inflated paper money. Today the subordination of the
prospective victims to the holders of atomic weapons means, in the long run, with almost 100% certainty, the end
of mankind.

Since territorial States are built upon subordination it is quite foreign to their nature, seeing they expect absolute
obedience from the own subjects, to attempt to defeat a foreign government mainly by appealing to its citizens and
soldiers to disobey it and to undertake all the measures required to achieve this disobedience. In a framework of
exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers, on the other hand, a dictatorship could exist at most only
for a few days - because it would not be elected and if it were, it would be recallable and, most importantly, every
dissenter could easily withdraw from it by individual secession and would also have the physical means to resist it
in protection of his rights- and almost all the world would be his ally in this. Such free communities would, quite in
accordance with their nature, appeal to conscripts of dictatorships to join the rightful governments or communities
of their own individual choice rather than fighting for an imposed regime.

                    General Strikes Would Become Obviously Superfluous to Achieve Peace

The aim of general strikes, which they generally do not achieve, against dictatorships and warmongering
governments, can easily be achieved by means of the right of individuals to secede. Formally one is no longer
subjected to the constitution, laws, rules, administration etc. of the dictatorial regime, thus it would be senseless to
strike against it. One condemns the regime to powerlessness by ceasing to be its subject. One increases the number
of its enemies by joining their exterritorial and autonomous communities or by establishing new and independent
ones as alternatives to the dictatorship. To the extent that such resistance is also non-violent, production and
exchange are not interfered with at all, i.e., the economic support of the revolutionaries and the general population
is not endangered and no new enemies are made to the revolutionary cause. This measure harms exclusively the
dictatorship and not, like the general strike, the fellow citizens.

Against the supporters of a general strike, soldiers can almost always be found who are prepared to shoot at these
striking men. If, instead of striking the resistance consisted out of tolerant secessions, the soldiers would rather join
the secessionists than shoot at them. Through certain measures, described below, one could almost make certain


that they would fraternise with the self-liberating resistance groups.

Most advocates of the General Strikes have also managed to overlook that a truly general strike would include
both: a strike of the government's soldiers and a strike of the taxpayers. Either of these could already achieve what
is aimed at with a general strike. Combine these two measures with individual secessionism, the arming and
military organization of citizens in volunteer militias for the protection of human rights and with a better and freer
organization of production and exchange than is the case now, then all the rightful objectives of general strikes can
be easily achieved while avoiding the wrongful and senseless aspects.

General strikes could and should be replaced by much more effective citizen strikes.

                 Wrongful Wars Could No Longer Be Financed Against the Will of the People
Only a territorial State can acquire the means to conduct a wrongful war against the will of the people - by means
of taxation, forced loans and the issue of forced currency.

Only a territorial State can uphold a money monopoly and thereby enforce armament by allocating its monopolistic
means of payment predominantly to armament factories and refusing them largely to the consumer goods industry.

As subject to a territorial State one cannot carry out an effective tax strike or resist a forced loan or the forced
currency or direct requisitioning of the government. Neither can one easily resist, as long as one remains a subject,
moreover, an unarmed and unorganised one, the imposition of maximum prices and delivery quotas. The
acceptance of inferior State paper money (inferior because of the "financing" of war expenditures with the note
printing press, i.e. the issue of legal tender money) cannot be simply refused when such actions are penalised with
death, as happened during the Red Terror of the French Revolution. (Most of the guillotine executions during this
period took place as a result of people, in one way or the other, decrying the inferior paper money, the Assignats,
and asking for honest currency or market prices instead. This made them automatically, in the eyes of the
revolutionary regime, "enemies of the republic".)

This refusal to accept a regime's paper money at all or at par with its nominal value, cannot be easily carried out
when there are neither private alternative means of payment available, which one could prefer to those of the
government, nor alternative standards of value in use. Obviously, then one cannot sue before any government court
against the imposition of governmental means of payment and its paper standard for the payment of any debt.

In the proposed exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers tax payment would also be voluntary, i.e.
it would take place exclusively for desired services, supplied competitively at free market prices. This would,
obviously, make the financing of anti-people weapons and of a war, against the will of the people, impossible. Who
would voluntarily remain in an exterritorial and autonomous community of volunteers which would take up forced
loans or would give its tax foundation money a monopoly position and legal tender in order to gain the means to
finance a war?

             Tax Strikes against Governments Preparing an Unjust War Would Become Feasible

Although the leadership of exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers might, formally, levy taxes or
compulsory contributions from all its members, these would not be coercive taxes in today's meaning. As the
membership is voluntary these taxes would also be voluntary. People would not join, in sufficient numbers, those
associations which would levy contributions for foreign adventures. They would leave communities attempting to
raise war funds by taxes or begin effective tax strikes. Governments of the present type, on the other hand, can
always suppress tax strikes which are not accompanied by successful insurrectionist attempts - as experience has
shown many times.

       The Sovereignty of Governments, to the Extent that It Can Lead to Wars, Would Be Abolished

A completely unrestrained sovereignty is the ideal of every territorial government. This does not only, mostly,
prevent the international organizations and understandings required to eliminate war but does also actively promote
many conflicts and even wars.


Recognition of the principle of sovereignty leads inevitably to a policy of non-intervention with the so-called
"internal affairs" or "territorial integrity" of another State. Consequently, dictatorships can develop in many States
undisturbed until they are finally powerful enough to attack neighbouring countries. Compare the development of
the Nazi regime. Non-recognition of any judge or arbitrator above oneself belongs also to this concept of territorial,
collective and centralist sovereignty. Without such a mediator between territorial States, one with enforcement
means for his just decisions, it will often be impossible to settle conflicts between such States in a peaceful way.

According to the ruling theory the decision making power over war and peace is just part of the sovereign authority
of a government. We have already mentioned that this power is war promoting. The same applies for instance to
the power to make laws on money and finance, laws outlawing e.g. freedom of note issue and free choice of value
How could or would these advantages be avoided by the proposed communities? They would not possess
sovereignty in the present sense, which is largely a territorial sovereignty of governments as opposed to a
sovereignty among a more or less uniform people, constituted in a voluntary protective community that is
exterritorially autonomous.

Due to voluntary membership, sovereignty in these new communities would remain with the people. All their
institutions would be truly representative. Unity would not only be presumed to exist or imposed but would be real.
These communities would be based on individual human rights.

Their leaders would be recallable, formally, or in practice - the latter due to the voluntary membership. They would
have only voluntary followers thus could not secure any large privileges for themselves.

Sovereignty of the old type would be excluded by clauses in the constitutions of these communities which are
similar to the Article 27 of the French Constitution of 1793:

           "Every individual that usurps sovereignty shall immediately be put to death by the free men."

Sovereignty in the present meaning permits the legalized but essentially arbitrary restriction of human rights. It
institutionalises a situation in which and that no one can be held responsible for official wrongful actions.
The rightful militia, which would, inevitably, be formed under individual secessionism, in order to protect
individual human rights and natural rights of rational beings, would no longer tolerate any sovereign ruler, not even
a sovereign parliament - whenever either attempted to impose their will upon members of other communities.

The autonomy of exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers would be limited by the human rights
and natural rights of rational beings claimed by the own members or by members of other communities.

                                              Summary of Section 1/3

       "Nuclear weapons have created a situation that is unprecedented in world history:
       Less than a dozen people can now decide whether mankind may continue to exist - or not."
                                                                                         - Ulrich von Beckerath

The danger of war arises out of the mere existence of States of the present type (territorial States) and cannot be
abolished by them. The conduct of wrongful wars is possible only through the concentration of power in the hands
of governments and parliaments. Originally at least some States may have been established with the intention to
protect with them the lives and the property of their citizens. By now they are certainly no longer able to protect the
lives and property of their subjects. On the contrary: Even the democratic territorial States constitute,
unintentionally, a great danger for the own citizens and the subjects of all other States - if they provided themselves
with nuclear weapons (or similar devices) or permit allies to keep them in readiness.
Any area in which nuclear weapons are stored or in which nuclear power plants exist, will attract the enemy
government's nuclear destructive devices. As deterrents the own nuclear devices are insufficient and for defence
they are unsuitable and their victims are not served by retaliatory strikes with them.
Every government which keeps nuclear or other mass extermination devices in readiness threatens thereby - and
also through the risk of an unintentional initiation of a nuclear war - the own subjects (not only foreign ones) with
complete annihilation.
(To that extent the protection contract between citizens and governments has been broken by governments and is
therefore no longer binding upon the citizens. They owe no longer obedience to a government that threatens their
very survival merely by its existence & its military policies. - J.Z., 9.12.02.)


Governments which neither possess nuclear weapons nor were targeted themselves are also unable to protect their
subjects from the indirect effects of a general and large scale exchange of nuclear (and similar) devices for mass
murder and mass destruction. Radioactive pollution would only assure them a later and slower death.

Consequently, all governments have by now broken the most important precondition for the validity of the citizen-
government contract: Safeguarding the citizens and their liberties, lives and property, in return for the
subordination and tax payments of the citizens. They have become altogether unable to keep this contract, much
more obviously and seriously than ever before. By this breach, failure, omission or incapacity, they have dissolved,
one-sidedly, the relationship between rulers and ruled, governments and subjects. Neither are the governments any
longer bound, as a consequence, to attempt to supply these or any other services, nor are the former citizens. The
relationship between them has been annulled by the governments - regardless whether and to what extent the
participants have realized this so far. A state of nature exists between them, again, actually, and morally - not yet
according to the prevailing beliefs. But this will follow.
Those who were so far rulers and representatives have thus become reduced in their position to ordinary citizens
and possess only their rights and responsibilities. As they largely merely shared the prejudices and ignorance of
their subjects and voters in this respect, they can hardly be singled out and held responsible for having brought us
into the present dangerous situation. At most they were only the high priests of the predominant faith on social,
political, economic and military affairs.

The most important right and the supreme duty of every rational being in the present situation is to cooperate in the
establishment of a lasting world peace and therefore in the realisation of a just society - largely by the removal of
all artificial barriers and obstacles against it. This follows from the fact that no place in this world is any longer
safe from nuclear rockets, the fact that no safe retreat remains for any peace loving citizen.

In this situation only the possibility to establish and live in exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers
offers a way out. They cannot seriously endanger the lives of their members and far less the existence of mankind.
On the contrary: they would be our only guaranties for survival.

This case has been stated in more details in my handbook: An ABC Against Nuclear War, in PEACE PLANS 16-
18. (Later in PEACE PLANS No 16 & 17, which is for the time being also available digitised, through e-mail in
RTF, upon request, at no charge. - J.Z., 9.12.02.)


       • "If some peoples pretend that history of geography gives them the right to subjugate other races, nations,
       or peoples, there can be no peace." - Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government, p. 15.

       • The readings of history and anthropology in general give us no reason to believe that societies have
       built-in self-preservative systems. And therefore we can't say that man will be sensible enough not to
       destroy himself. He never has been sensible enough not to destroy himself, but he lived in small groups so
       that when he destroyed himself he didn't destroy everybody. So the necessity for new inventions, for the
       conduct of the world cannot possibly be over-emphasised."
            - Margaret Mead, Conversations with Henry Brandon, NEW REPUBLIC, June 23, 1959.

       • "Man has not succeeded in developing political and economic forms of organisation which would
       guarantee the peaceful co-existence of the nations of the world."
                                                               Albert Einstein, A Message to Intellectuals, 1948.

        "... we will not operate on the basis that half the population, or three quarters of it, is expendable. Leaders
        with such notions are criminally irresponsible."
                                                                      - A. E. Van Vogt, The Wizard of Linn, p. 91.
       "We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we in agreement." - Bible, Isaiah.

       "For honourable members opposite the deterrent is a phallic symbol. It convinces them that they are men."
                                                   S. Silverman, 1895-1968. ( A. Andrews, Quotations, p. 400.)

       "Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants." - General Omar Bradley

       "Better active than radioactive." - Demonstration banner shown in Sydney Morning Herald, 6/8/1977.


                                         RIGHT AND DUTY TO RESIST
                               "Bring the tyrant down, that man-eating monster,
                               Overthrow him, however you can! No god will blame you."
                                                                - Theognis Collection, 1181/2

Every rational being has the right and duty to resist all attacks on human rights, to help in the realisation and
preservation of these rights and to render tyrants harmless.

This right can be deduced from all other human rights and from the general idea of rights which associates rights
with the authority to enforce them.

The right to life and physical inviolability as well as any military or other obligation to obey, find here their limits.
Everything done within the framework of this right and duty is not to be considered as breach of an oath, or as
treason, espionage, sabotage or desertion.

As tyrant is to be considered any person in power who does not recognize human rights and gives orders or
prepares measures whose execution would offend against these rights on any large scale.

Would this right help to introduce and preserve peace?
Wars result largely from the power hunger of dictators like Hitler. A tyrant continuously infringes the rights to life
and property of his subjects. He has still less regard for the rights of the citizens of other States or communities. As
soon as he sees an opportunity he tends to engage in wars of conquest. Thus the execution of a tyrant by
tyrannicide can prevent or end wars.

Even the suppression of some human rights can already lead to war. For instance: Napoleon I suppressed freedom
of speech and press. Thus even he remained unaware of the war-weariness of his soldiers and citizens, unaware
that of his 600,000 soldiers already 60,000 had deserted and many more were inclined to do so. Thus he risked the
continuation of the war in ignorance of his own weakness.

The still stricter suppression of freedom of speech, press, association and assembly by the Nazi regime, did bring
about a situation where many of the German people got wrong notions on the conditions in other countries and
even in the own country. Thus all too many became or remained followers of the Nazis or at least tolerated them.
For instance, it remained unknown to most Germans that the number of unemployed fell faster in many other
countries than in Germany, without the introduction of forced labour and conscription. Facts like the mass murder
of Jewish people, even Jewish children, by the thousands and later millions, and of political opponents or suspects
by the hundred-thousands, became known to many only at a stage where they themselves were already too
terrorised to feel like doing something about it. Moreover, they were disarmed and disorganized.

Even the inmates of the Warsaw ghetto were not fully convinced of what was happening - until already 9/10th of
them had been transported to the extermination camps and murdered. Only then did they rise in desperation and at
least died resisting this genocide. Very few managed to escape. Even today it remains unknown to most Germans,
as a result of Hitler's propaganda, that the great economic crisis, which began in 1929, was overcome faster in other
countries than in Germany.

Moreover, the people outside of Germany, due to the suppression of basic rights in Germany, did also receive false
impressions on Germany and Nazism. Consequently, they and their rulers considered all Germans, including
members of the German opposition, as Nazis. They did this e.g., by interning, imprisoning or bombing them.
What they achieved by such measures could have been foreseen: A stronger resistance against themselves and
consequently a prolongation of the war and an increase of the losses on the own side.

The suppression of the right to supply oneself with work without taking it from anybody - by issuing, alone or in
association with others, money tokens, in denominations like money, typified and standardised but without legal
tender, certificates that are valuable because they are accepted like cash in the sale of one's goods or services - does
finally lead to the growth of an army of millions of desperate unemployed which is ready to believe almost any
promises of future dictators and war mongers. Compare the rise of the Hitler regime. The insurrection and war in
Algeria began only when already 800,000 native Algerians were unemployed. Family members included, about
every third Algerian was involved. (Official French policy was not to give any of them a job until the last French
unemployed had obtained one. So they rebelled and atrocities were committed by both sides. - J.Z., 9.12.02.)

By means of the trustee acts governments expropriate the accumulated funds of insurance companies and pension
funds and thereby infringe the right of all citizens to make provisions for old age, invalidity, sickness and
accidents. Moreover, they gain thereby huge funds which they can abuse for military purposes. (In Germany,
before World War II, the Nazi regime thus confiscated from a single body alone, the insurance company for
clerical workers, no less than 20,000 million gold marks. Much of these funds was invested in German re-
armament and thus helped to bring about World War II. Nevertheless, the same kind of trustee acts persist even
today in all countries. (As long as statists are not given an individual choice they will almost never learn from

The consequences of the suppression of the right of individuals to secede - were described above.

The especially severe restriction of the rights of members of the armed forces, e.g. the absolute obedience required
of them by most military codes, does also make it possible for dictators (or men with powers over war and peace
decisions in "democratic" countries) to conduct a wrongful aggressive war against the will of most soldiers and

One can already see from these few examples that one can hardly do more to introduce world peace than by
protecting human rights everywhere - even by opposing the main offenders in an organized and military way,
before they are powerful enough to engage in large-scale military actions. Since, initially, these offenders against
human rights represent only minority groups, such resistance and protective measures could hardly ever widen into
large military operations or just defensive wars. More or less they would only be just police actions.
(It should not be forgotten that some of these aggressive minorities are frustrated and desperate due to denial of
autonomy for them! Given the chances of exterritorial autonomy most of these rebellions, aggressions and terrorist
actions would cease!)

                                             RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

Every rational being has the right to bear arms for the exercise of the right of the right to resist, arms which are not
already by their very nature offensive to human rights. He may use them, if necessary, for the protection of human
Perhaps it was sometimes necessary, at a barbaric stage of human development, to disarm the majority of citizens
and to entrust weapons only to especially trained and selected citizens, who were given the task to protect the rights
of all. (This may have been the original good intention in many cases.) But at least during the last decades
experience has shown that the majority of citizens is already so peaceful, or in this respect mature, that merely the
possession of arms would not, in most cases, induce them to commit acts of violence, even if their ancestors had
this inclination - which is doubted by many. The Swiss people are, I believe, basically no different and better
citizens than the citizens in other civilised countries - and yet they have all access to arms and cases of weapons
abuse are rare.

At least one can rightly say that all those citizens, who are prepared to proclaim their belief in individual rights and
swear to uphold them and if necessary to risk their lives for them, could be armed with rightful weapons without
this armament involving any additional risk.

Today's weapons monopoly of the police and military forces is not respected by ordinary criminals and political
terrorists - and the disarmed citizens are frequently exposed to both types of criminals without effective protection.
These criminals, ignoring restrictive and penal laws, acquire illegal weapons in many ways, often even by stealing
them from the armed forces of the State. To disarm these elements and to pursue, towards them, still some kind of
weapons monopoly, would be one of the tasks of an ideal militia force.

Can a non-violent resistance be successful, can one resist effectively without weapons? More or less we have, in
cases of the so-called "non-violent resistance", only instances of a resistance which does not resist: Not actions but
demonstrations and other protests, surrender to prosecution rather than resistance, marches, mass meetings,
chanting and passive submissions to force. The presumably non-aggressive general strike can only be realized by
force and even then only for a short time and is equal to a stage of siege against all citizens. Gandhi's method -
disobedience towards bureaucratic instructions - can have some successes - but only towards relatively humane
governments like the English, but cannot be successfully applied e.g., against Nazis and Soviets ( except perhaps to


a limited extent and under very special circumstances, unless the people involved, usually a minority, are prepared
to let themselves become exterminated. All too many Jews had, in my opinion, accepted this kind of non-resisting
resistance and it did lead towards their mass-murder.

All too often such non-violent actions have no practical value. Moreover, those who do not fight back with forceful
means, receive respect only among a few and least of all possibly among the soldiers of their prosecutors, who
otherwise might sympathise with them and even ally themselves.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the establishment of the State of Israel - just compare how much more its
fighting citizens are respected as human beings than those who passively submitted even to their own
extermination. You might consider this attitude as barbaric or as a mere sportsman's attitude towards a fighting
opposition. I believe it has more to do with a rightful self-respect and with the duties one has as a rational being
towards one-self and towards others. Most people respect freedom fighters more than people who let themselves be
crucified etc.

Coming back to the case of India: Where are the long-term successes of non-violence there? Its main exponent was
assassinated. Another violent State resulted which often treated its subjects worse than the colonial English
governors did. Large-scale civil and foreign wars occurred and a senseless division of the whole country along
territorial lines. How much more could have been achieved against English rule if only freedom of speech, press,
assembly and association had been used to the fullest extent? To use any kind of resistance, forceful or non-violent,
where the above means are available and where public opinion is or can easily become a real power, is both wrong
and self-defeating.

How would the repeal of the weapons monopoly (with the above-mentioned qualifications) help to preserve or
establish peace? By now it should be known that armies and police have all too often abused their weapons to bring
about a wrongful war and to prolong it. They could not have done this against the will of the population - if the
people had been armed and organized and had sworn to defend their human rights.


Every rational being has the right to organise himself together with others for an effective armed resistance and to
train regularly with rightful arms for such resistance actions.

Without military organization the orderly conduct of military operations would often be impossible. Without
regular training in arms, militia soldiers would be inferior to the professionals and conscripts of a dictatorship, at
least in the beginning of an armed conflict.

From all the other rights it follows that such armed organizations must be based on voluntary membership and also
on the right to leave, that the members must be sworn in on human rights and natural rights of rational beings, that
they must neither use nor possess inherently wrongful weapons (mass extermination and similarly indiscriminate
destructive devices), that they must be free to elect and recall their officers, that obedience towards these officers
would find its limits in the basic rights and that these soldiers even as soldiers should not renounce freedom of
speech, press, assembly and association.

Conscription for such a force would be superfluous and self-defeating. Only rational beings are authorised and
obliged to resist and rational beings would voluntarily join a militia of the type here hinted at. As irrational beings
do not possess the right to engage in armed and organized resistance acts (their rights have to be protected by
rational beings), they may not be rightly conscripted. For a militia force of the type described in this book, they
would rather be a burden than an asset. (Apart from this, the right of individuals to secede would, naturally, annul
efforts to introduce conscription.)

                               FREEDOM OF MIGRATION AND MOVEMENT
Every rational being has the right to move and migrate freely, regardless of territorial borders. This right includes
the unlimited right to immigrate and to settle, work and acquire property and to retain all one's rights everywhere
(as long as one does not infringe the rights of others).


An escape possibility for opponents of the Nazis and for those who simply did not want to become involved in
another war, which they saw coming, in the year 1939 or before, away from Germany and perhaps even Europe, to
some neutral countries, might have made Hitler's further aggressions impossible or might, at least, have weakened
him so much that he could have been defected more rapidly. It would also have destroyed much of the mythology
of "one nation, one people, one leader" which prevailed not only in Germany but in other countries, towards
Germans and other people. Instead, not even the Jewish people in Germany were given a chance to immigrate by
other countries, in large and significant numbers, although for them it was much more obviously a question of life
and death. (At the Evian Conference of 1938, called by President Roosevelt, the Western countries refused to buy
the safety of 400,000 Jews for a pittance of $250 per head - which they could have recovered up to a thousand-fold
from the saved people later on. Those who refused pretended to be men of principle, although they would probably
not have objected at all to a "fee" of $ 250 for permission to immigrate. They were right in condemning the
inhumanity of the Nazis - but what about their own? (A book which is a must-reading on this subject is Hans
Habe's "The Mission", Panther, 1966.)

The same applies now to the Soviet Union and Red China. How many Russians would let themselves be exploited
any longer as workers or abused as soldiers - if they could migrate to the West, with their families and their meagre
possessions (or even without the latter)? Compare how many even surrendered to the Nazis! To expect tenfold that
number, i.e. ca. 10 - 20 million, would probably still far under-estimate this potential. Moreover, what effects
would it have on the number of these refugees if they were welcomed with open arms, as equals or as -
autonomous citizens, if jobs and accommodation would be offered to them within days?

At least the military and economic power of the Soviets would be greatly reduced while that of the West would be
greatly strengthened.

Similarly, freedom of movement for foreigners to and within the Soviet Union, would attract a large number of
tourists and many of them would be propagandists against the Soviets - and be it only by the relative wealth
revealed by their clothing.

The Soviets are so afraid of freedom of movement that they even restricted the movement of their own citizens
within the borders of the Soviet Union.

One can generalise to state that a totalitarian dictatorship can in the long run only be continued by suppressing,
among other rights, the right to move and migrate freely. Under full freedom of movement its subjects would run
away in so large numbers that the regime would be fatally weakened or would even collapse. (Fear of this led to
the erection of the Berlin Wall!)

If the right to secede would also exist or become realized, then, instead of emigrating, they would remain and
establish instead exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers. Both measures could and should be
supported at the same time.

Naturally, to the right to migrate from the USSR and Red China belongs the right to immigrate freely into any
other country, which would require the repeal of a host of restrictive legislation and practices.

Moreover, the right to change one's residence has no large value if one gets no permission to work at the new
location or can do so only under the greatest difficulties. (How one can supply oneself with work and
accommodation without taking them from others, has been described below.)

Any statist centrally planned and regulated economy and the abusive power of a government resting upon it, would
collapse when everyone could freely chose his place of living and working. Extreme instance: The Soviets could
then no longer use up to 20 million slave labourers for militarily important tasks.
Moreover, in the long run and as a consequence of freedom of migration and settlement, the various nations and
ethnic groups would melt more and more together, i.e. nationalism and racism would be reduced, the world would
become a melting pot.
This would happen in a way to cater even to the worst nationalists and racists who, on a voluntary basis, could
continue to keep their notions and practices of race or social life as "pure" as they like. Maybe they would come to
proudly bear segregationist emblems and others would welcome these as indicating people one should not waste
one's time with.

Freedom to migrate from densely to sparsely populated countries would also mean that no demagogue could any
longer assert that "living space" would have to be conquered.
That density of population can be, under freedom, an asset, rather than a burden - is largely shown by the fact that
demagogues have rarely ever (only in times of inflation and price control and then for rather obvious reasons)


appealed to the population of cities to conquer the surrounding countryside in order to assure their food supply. (A
free market supplies a city quite peacefully and plentifully with food which could not be grown within city limits.)

Freedom of movement would have a special meaning for the conscripted soldiers of dictators: they could then
desert at any time to the foreigners attacked or threatened by the own dictatorial regime and could conclude with
them a separate peace safeguarding their rights.

                                             ARBITRATION COURTS

Every rational being has the right to agree with others upon private arbitration courts for all their conflicts which
might arise, in place of the State's juridical system.

Why should people who are so peaceful that they are prepared to renounce partisan self-help and retaliation and to
submit instead to private arbitration - remain submitted to any Statist jurisdiction?

The right to select one's arbitrators can be derived from freedom of contract and the general principle of tolerance
stated above.

Quite obviously, as soon as there were courts for international affairs, associated with the powers required to see
their sentences carried out, none of the contending parties would any longer have to fight to gain its rights.

Exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers would, for reasons inherent in their nature, agree upon
arbitration court systems to settle conflicts between them or their members. If necessary, international militia forces
would enforce the judgements of these courts.

Today this development does not take place, and is widely outlawed, because it is generally assumed (regardless of
all experience to the contrary) that the State alone can uphold rights (actually does so) and that it requires
monopolistic courts, police forces, prisons and armies for achieving this. Consequently, most citizens are
disfranchised and rendered powerless regarding the protection of their rights.
Moreover, wrongful juridical systems persist in whole territories and sooner or later clash with similar systems in
other areas.

The existing international courts and the laws they apply are so faulty and they are so restricted in their procedures
that they are not worth discussing here. They certainly do not and cannot assure justice within and between States
and may at best prevent some brushfire wars that none of the candidates was really interested in.

As we will see later on, the last court of appeal would be the citizens themselves, organised in rightful militias.

What kind of law the international arbitration courts ought to apply will also be discussed later.

                                        ASSEMBLIES IN THE OPEN AIR

Every rational being has the right to assemble with others, even armed and in the open air.
In the open air one can assemble in many instances without incurring any expenditures. No rent is to be paid and
when open air meeting places become permanent then not even advertising is required. Compare the Speakers'
Corner in London's Hyde Park and similar places in many cities. Consequently, anyone who wants to propose how
e.g., a lasting peace or a just society could be established, could there discuss such proposals publicly and spread
them if they are somewhat useful. Without this kind of freedom to assemble, we have freedom of speech only for
organizations like parties, churches, unions and larger movement groups which have enough funds to frequently
rent meeting halls and for some individuals who con afford to do this on their own. All others would be severely
restricted in the number of their listeners.
Experience has also shown that the existing groups, operating in spite of such economic difficulties, are not very
receptive for new ideas. Their present ideas have obviously failed. All progress required towards lasting peace and
a just society will have to come from small and presently unknown minority groups and individuals. These are, at
least for the beginning of their work, dependent on the existence of opportunities like open air free speech centres.
It is easy, in democratic countries, to look down on such places, especially when they are run, as at present and
utilised only by various oddballs, ratbags, fanatics and religious nuts (with few exceptions). History can teach us
that we should take these opportunities more serious: Almost all democratic revolutions began with assemblies of


the people in the open air. Since the revolutionary overthrow of dictatorial governments is one of the major means
to establish a lasting world peace, one can hardly stress the importance of such cost-free meeting centres.
Every dictator & many legislators and bureaucrats are aware how dangerous this right can be for them and
correspondingly restrict this right severely, often as one of the first measures of their rule. On this J. J. Rousseau
said in his "Social Contract", book 3, chapter 18:

       " ... the decemvirs, first elected for one year and then kept on in office for a second, tried to perpetuate their
       power by forbidding the comitia to assemble; and by this easy method every government in the world, one
       clothed with the public power, sooner or later usurps the sovereign authority."

Any government can do this only as long as its soldiers and policemen do not rise against it and realize these rights
and others against its will.

How such institutions can be established or made more effective will be discussed in the appendix.


1979 self-advertisements:

"Gone Fiching - For Liberty!" offet, 52 pp., $ 1 by ordinary mail from: LibertarianMicrofiche Publishing, 7 Oxley
St., Berrima, NSW 2577, Australia, Tel.(048)771436. It is an introduction for libertarians to the opportunities for
self-publishing for all libertarians and indicates what this could mean, if properly used, for the libertarian
movement. The medium offers almost unlimited opportunities and is cheaply accessible to anyone with a normal
work income.

Peace Plans No. 46 lists in detail the contents of Peace Plans Nos. 1-45 and also the publishing programme for
Libertarian Microfiche Publishing. Sent free upon request by ordinary mail. Otherwise, fiche are 60c. by ordinary
mail and $ 1 by air.

Peace Plans No.47 A: Preliminary Bibliography on Longevity-, Life Extension & Immortality Drugs & 2 Papers on
Cryonics. First of a series.

Peace Plans 48-49: Workers Party and Progress Party of Australia, 1975-1979,Some platforms, statements, leaflets
& newsletters.

Peace Plans 50-54: Libertarian Book Lists and Book Sources, a preliminary listing

Peace Plans 55: Some Papers on the Anarchism and Monetary Freedom Views of the School of Living
Peace Plans 56: Some Papers on and by Dr. Ralph Borsodi, 1886-1877, Decentralist, Money and Land Reformer,
Free Trader, Peace Lover, Founder of the School of Living.

Peace Plans 57-60: John Henry Mackay, The Anarchists; Solneman: Mackay the Unique; Dana: Proudhon and his
Bank of the People.


              Through microfiche publishing, sensibly used, all truths can win out - soon!


                                               SECTION II:

                            WHAT ECONOMIC NEW HUMAN RIGHTS

                                      "Try first of all for the kingdom of
                                     pure practical reason and its justice,
                                       then you will obtain its purpose,
                                         the benefit of eternal peace,
                                         without any further efforts."
                                                             Immanuel Kant, Eternal Peace

                             "Through the completely free play of economic forces
                              the greatest possible harmony of economic interests
                                        is achieved quite automatically."

                        The main conclusion of laissez faire or free market economics.


             1. Right to Break Monopolies

             2. Freedom to Issue Standardised and Typified Means of Exchange Without Legal Tender

             3. Freedom to Choose Any Standard of Value

             4. Right to Refuse to Accept Inferior or Suspected Means of Payment

             5. Free Trade

             6. Freedom for and within Cooperative Productive Organisations


                                         Right to Break Monopolies
From the general human rights and the right of rational beings to the full proceeds of their labours (whatever it
would bring on a truly free market), follows the wrongfulness of any legal or constitutional monopoly and the right
of every rational being to either ignore or break all pretended exclusive "rights" (monopolies).

How could the abolition of these monopolies promote world peace? For examples see the sections in this book
under Decision on war and peace, Weapons monopoly, Experimental freedom and Separate peace treaties. Perhaps
most important of all: The monopoly of governments to conduct or prevent reforms which would bring about
internal and external peace. This one will also be broken by the right of individuals to secede from the State. In one
stroke it would break this and all other Statist monopolies.

The note issue monopoly permits the State for finance a war by inflation. The postal monopoly allows it to obstruct
e.g., negotiations between the own citizens and soldiers and those of the opposing government. By means of the
postal monopoly the State can easily carry out a censorship of mail, news restrictions and listen in to private tele-
phone conversations - and can thereby likewise prolong a war. Misled sheep not conscious of their danger, can be
much easier led to the slaughterhouse. Only by means of the government's monopoly on news transmission, during
wartime (and apart from rumours), can a government carry out a successful propaganda campaign, e.g. to induce its
soldiers to go on fighting in hopeless cases and this for wrongful war aims.

Whosoever orders - and has power to order - a news blackout on some matter which concerns the rights and
interests of a whole nation, i.e. whosoever declares all other citizens to be unable to judge facts, should not be
surprised if he is thereupon considered and treated as a tyrant. (If moral people had assassinated J. F. Kennedy then
this might have been a justification of their act. He imposed a news blockade during the Cuba Crisis. We have still
probably not heard all facts on this matter. At one stage the word of a Soviet captain was taken as guaranty that the
missiles from Cuba were on his ship and on the way back to the Soviet Union. Moreover, he helped to bungle the
Bay of Pigs invasion - and during his reign the nuclear arsenal of the US, i.e., his arsenal of anti-people mass
murder "weapons", was doubled.)

The foreign trade monopoly, or the monopolistic restrictions of foreign trade, upheld by the State, can also lead to
the so-called trade wars. (Actually, wars are never conducted for trade but always against free trading. When most
people in England and Germany, during WW I, believed they were fighting their greatest competitor in trade and
industry, what they were both actually fighting was: their own biggest customer. People with prejudices can't be
bothered looking at trade statistics. Admittedly, on both sides there were probably groups looking for trade

The monopoly of governments to conduct full employment measures and their suppression of the right to supply
oneself with work (and all that this implies, e.g. the right to issue one's own means of exchange - subject to a free
market rate and the right to refuse acceptance of inferior and not contracted for means of exchange and value
standards) created whole armies of unemployed who believed the promises of men like Hitler and came to believe
e.g. that unemployment could only be abolished by means of the armament industries. These few hints must suffice

To show the close relationship between anti-monopolism and peace would take at least another book. But many
other sections of this book do also deal with this subject.

           Freedom to Issue Standardised and Typified Means of Exchange without Legal Tender

     "To provide exchange media is no more a sovereign right of governments than to provide nappy exchanges."
                                                                     - Source unknown
Every rational being has the natural right to produce, order or offer in payment any kind of standardised and
typified exchange media, in money denominations, which have neither compulsory acceptance nor forced value
(and thus cannot be inflated like legal tender money), provided these offer an exchange into the goods or services
offered by the issuer or his associates, at their nominal value and at any time, or that they are accepted in clearing,
i.e. in all payments due to the issuer and his associates.

Every rational being has the further right to issue medium and long term securities, including bearer bonds,
provided only all issue details are sufficiently publicised.

These rights follow from the wrongfulness of all legally imposed monopolies, here especially those of the Central
Bank and the Treasury, from freedom of contract, the right to supply oneself with work and from the principle of
tolerance for tolerant actions.

Could this right promote world peace in any way? Monetary freedom would be one of the main means to abolish
unemployment. Employed people are less likely to follow a demagogue or to rebel: The French Revolution began
when of 600,000 Parisians no less than 200,000 were unemployed. During the Congo war unemployment in
Elizabethville reached a record of 80%, in Saigon, during the Vietnam war, it reached 40%, before the riots in
Watts, California, unemployment among Negroes was about 30%.
(While re-reading this, & remembering a recent hint to youth unemployment in Australia, standing at 39%, I
wonder whether there is a link between this very high rate of unemployment and the high rate of vandalist acts
even in this supposedly peaceful country area. - J.Z., 9.12.02.)

While unemployment prevails, one cannot expect e.g., workers in nuclear plants to make themselves unemployed
by leaving their work places and declaring: We will no longer produce weapons which threaten human rights or
keep any nuclear reactors or laboratories going which increase the existing radioactive pollution still further and
might, in case of mishaps or sabotage or war, threaten the lives of ten-thousands of people directly and many more
people later on. Instead we will help to destroy all such weapons and installations and will look for a more useful
and less immoral employment." Under the present interventionist economic system they would then remain
unemployed for a considerable time and this would deter most of them. Once monetary freedom is introduced,
most of them could find other jobs within hours.

Unemployment is caused mainly by a shortage of sound exchange media which can even occur during an
abundance of inferior ones. (This does not deny that there are other factors, more direct restrictions, like
compulsory licensing and prohibitions, minimum wages, civil unrest, sudden changes in the market situation etc.,
restrictions of the capital market - but they are all of relatively minor importance & their abolition would not
abolish all unemployment.)

Such a shortage of exchange media becomes inevitable when money issue is coercive, monpolistic and centralistic.
Only the repeal of legal tender can prevent the over-issue of inferior means of exchange and can, together with the
repeal of the issue monopoly, avoid likewise an under-issue of sound exchange media. Only when legal tender is
repealed will there exist, in the free market rate of means of payment, a reliable indicator of how saturated the
market is with exchange media, whether it is sufficiently supplied or under- or over-supplied. In this the free
market rate for currencies will act like any other free pricing. A premium will indicate the need for further issues.
A discount will suggest a cessation of issues for a while. Both will be achieved by the self-interest of issuers and
acceptors, without any legislative intervention.
Monopolies are as a rule abused by keeping the monopoly goods or services short. The note-issue monopoly will
be broken by the free issue of value tokens without legal tender, wherever, whenever and by whoever this is

A central bank cannot supply a whole country equally with sufficient means of exchange, no more so than a central
bakery could supply it with fresh bread. Free banking or monetary freedom would permit a supply with exchange
media exactly in accordance with local conditions and the cash needs of individuals - to the extent that the latter
can offer goods or services in return.

An over-issue of legal tender means of exchange, i.e. an inflation, has finally the effect that less and less people
want to invest any capital on long terms and thus cause unemployment. Without legal tender no inflation could be
caused - provided only people can freely issue alternative sound exchange media, do issue them and do mark out
their prices, wages etc. in sound value standards. Then, in case of over-issues, only the particular over-issued
exchange medium would suffer a discount but prices, reckoned in sound value standards, would remain the same.
The inferior means would be widely refused, the sound exchange media preferred - and the good money would
drive out the bad. E.g., if you issued an abundance of false cheques and I am, as I am now, free to refuse or
discount them, because they are not legal tender, and if, moreover, I have priced all my goods and services in gold
weight units and accept exchange media other than gold coins only at their gold weight value on the free gold
market, then my gold prices would remain, quite obviously, unaffected by your over-issue of cheques. Your
cheques alone would depreciate. And in spite of their depreciation in the free market for exchange media you
would still have to accept your cheques at face value in all payments due to you. It would go against your self-
interest to issue them at a great discount only to have them presented to you at their nominal value to pay for
whatever is still owed to you. With your issues, not being legal tender, you could not partly expropriate or even
bankrupt your creditors.


Gresham's Law, as commonly understood, applies only in case the bad money possesses legal tender. Otherwise, it
is pushed out of circulation by the good money, the money that voluntary acceptors would prefer.

Goods warrants without legal tender cannot be inflated: Firstly, the issuer will cease further issues as soon as his
certificates suffer a discount, for the simple reason that he has to accept them himself, at their face value, any time,
like his own I.O.U.s. Secondly, under monetary freedom almost no one would accept any longer a suspicious or
deteriorating means of exchange, one which has a discount on a free market, because it is unsuitable for passing on
as a circulating medium. The only ones who would take a limited amount of such certificates would be the debtors
of the issuer - because they could immediately repay their debt with them.

Only under free note issue can all the products produced under division of labour and all the specialised services
offered and desired - be exchanged without friction and at true market prices. Without the resulting unhindered
exchange, production based on division of labour cannot fully function. For exchanges, exchange media are
required in any advanced economy. When these are missing or in short supply then unemployment & other sales
difficulties are the inevitable result because then many of the necessary and desired exchange acts cannot take
place. (A reduction of all prices to adapt to the reduced circulation of exchange media does not take place as fast as
many economists hope for, expect or predict. Moreover, falling prices, very different from fallen prices, do not
encourage buying but deter from it, thus increasing an existing shortage of exchange media still further.)
In form of goods warrants etc. the missing exchange media could be provided at any time, as soon as the
corresponding legal prohibitions are removed or successfully ignored.

Only a large number of wrong assumptions and myths can have obscured the basic relationships so far When as
important a social medium as the exchange medium is monopolised, then shortages of it are inevitable and all
exchanges are interfered with. Moreover, self-correction by means of the competitive issue of sound alternative
exchange media is then interdicted. The legally exclusive exchange medium dominates and ruins all - until quite
extreme conditions are reached, like the extremes of dictatorship, when finally many people rebel - after most of
the possible harm has already been done. Only prejudices can induce people to submit to the arbitrary and coercive
manipulation of one standard of measurement, the standard of value, by means of legal tender and the note issue
monopoly and the outlawry of value preserving clauses. It is absurd to expect a market to be free and function
properly as long as this double flaw prevails. Under monetary freedom the exchange media issued and freely
accepted, and the standards of value agreed upon, would be no longer compulsorily mixed up, as now in our paper
money and the value of each type of competitive exchange medium - and how far it has deviated, if at all, from its
stated nominal value, would be continuously monitored on a free market for all kinds of currencies. Compare the
series of monetary freedom writings already published in this Peace Plans series and planned for future issues.

As soon as freedom of note-issue is realised, many enterprises will be able to grant short term credits in their own
notes for the provision of employment. These will be enterprises which are today rather debtors than creditors and
they will only be too willing to organise themselves for such issues as they could not only guaranty their sales with
such issues but also could make a separate profit by proceeding in this way. I am thinking here especially of the
retail shops for consumer goods, e.g. food and hardware stores etc. By means of freedom for note issue they could,
almost instantly, practically within hours (through using instant printing and local radio stations for
announcements), mobilise the immense wealth they have between them, in the form of ready-for-sale goods and
services, for the purpose of providing employment: They could do this by issuing shop foundation currency to all
existing and prospective employers for wage payments - in return for short-term claims against the manufacturers
and wholesalers, representing goods already produced and sold, on their way to the retailers and consumers. (With
these claims they can later place orders to restock their stores.)

Their notes should be standardised, typified and in money denominations and, preferably, express their value in
gold weight units while all their prices should also be marked in gold weight units. (Or in any other value standard
that they and their customers do prefer.)
As capital to be thus mobilised would count the stocks in the shops, the consumer services offered, e.g. by barbers
and lawyers, the transport capacity of railways, busses, taxis, aircraft etc., even the tax receipts of governments.


 (What value these latter possess is known to anyone who was once victim of forced collection proceedings by a

In this way all employers can be fast, easily and sufficiently supplied with exchange media. The employees will
find them acceptable because they are accepted in the shops. Shops can continue to sell, employers to produce and
workers to work. The exchange process will be restored, even achieve its optimum. No employer will any longer
have to dismiss workers just because he is unable to get sufficient exchange media for wage payments. None of his
customers will be unable, merely for monetary reasons, to place orders with him. (More on the technique of these
issues below and in other writings of this series. For circulation charts see e.g., Peace Plans No. 41.)

In quite general terms, freedom of note issue allows everyone to transform his needs or requirements into demand
supplied with purchasing power, to fulfil his needs and, simultaneously, to establish a demand for his products and
services, to the extent that he has economically useful & wanted goods and services at competitive prices to offer
and that he succeeds to offer them in form of his own exchange media (standardised and typified I.O.U. debt
certificates in money denominations, promising their acceptance at any time at par with the stated value unit) or
similar exchange media which he issues, together with others who are in the same position. A perfected clearing
would return his own notes to him in the same way as his cheques are returned to his bank. Consequently, the
satisfaction of the needs of the unemployed (or of the seller of goods or special professional services) would create
an equivalent demand for his services. His coming-up work or sales would, so to speak, be paid in advance.

In other words: Circulated goods or service warrants, i.e. warrants issued in payment and constituting claims
against the own services or goods, will bring the issuer inevitably work or sales. The proceeds of these are received
and spent in advance.

By means of a continuous repetition of this process a continuous income can be secured by all who offer wanted
goods and services.

When a number of citizens and enterprises associate for the common issue of an exchange medium, then its
capacity to circulate will, naturally, be increased. But a perfect clearing system would even allow individuals to
make such issues - naturally, as a rule, at some discount.

Quite generally, one can say that freedom of note issue abolishes unemployment by making the supply of everyone
with exchange media possible, to the extent that he is willing and able to give goods or services in return.

By means of this monetary freedom not only unemployment and inflation could be abolished: Even revolutionaries
could supply themselves with "full employment" until their job is done, i.e., they could properly finance their
revolution. They could do so e.g. by issuing, during their struggle, their own notes without legal tender which they
would accept in payment of a revolution tax levied by them or of all voluntary taxation or insurance contributions
made to them by all their sympathisers. (See under Cash Payments, Plunder and Tax Foundation Money. A special
study on this subject, Georg Holzhauer's monograph on cash payments in occupied territories, was published in
future PEACE PLANS 428.) - (The liberation war taxes paid could later be transformed into shares in previously
nationalised assets. Compare PEACE PLANS 19 C. - J.Z., 9.12.02.)

Monetary freedom would also help revolutionaries indirectly: Cash circulation and thereby indirectly production,
are largely paralysed during revolutions in all countries with an exclusive and forced currency. But production can
be continued - and its products will thus be available also to the revolutionaries, when shops and shop associations
are free to issue shop currencies.

Some of the costs of a revolution, which are comparable to capital or investment costs, could be covered by the
issue of typified gold loan warrants which after the revolution could be exchanged into gold loan certificates of the
revolutionary government. The finance plan published in Peace Plans No. 19 C for a libertarian party could also be
easily adapted for the financing on long terms of a libertarian revolution. This latter method would help to realize
now the present monetary value of the so far nationalised assets, which will be liberated by the revolution and will
put these funds largely into the hands of the revolutionaries, at least through internal black market transactions and
through open foreign financing deals, before the revolution or during the revolution, so that the revolution can
finance itself out of its achievements.

For illiterate people and all those with a temporarily insurmountable prejudices against all paper means of payment,
revolutionaries should also issue some full weight silver and possibly, some gold coins.


                                   Freedom to Choose Any Standard of Value

Every rational being has the natural right to attempt to invest his capital in a way that would help to preserve its
value and may thus in all debt contracts (including wage, rent, pension and building loan contracts), in all his offers
and searches, and in the issue of any exchange media that he might issue, use any standard of value or value
preserving clause of his choice.

This right follows likewise from the general principle of rights, the principle of tolerance for tolerant actions, from
freedom of contract and in particular, from freedom to exchange.

Together with the right of individuals to refuse to accept inferior or suspicious means of payment, this freedom in
the choice of value standards would repeal the legal tender for the State's paper money and would thus make the
further inflation of this or any other currency impossible. As was experienced all too often before, the victims of
inflations, who usually do not fully realise what has happened to them and how it was possible, follow to easily the
promises of a Napoleon or a Hitler.

This right would also make long term stable investments in housing possible and could thus help to abolish almost
any housing shortage in a short time. Housing shortages, as expressed for instance in some slums, can also help to
worsen ideological, national and racial tensions to a degree where civil and foreign wars are brought closer.
Moreover, this right would protect the pension funds from depreciation and thereby a large number of old people
from impoverishment - which could drive them into the open arms of totalitarian revolutionaries or parties or
would induce them to support military ambitions. (A fully free building market would, admittedly, require more
than this particular economic freedom. But it is an important and all too neglected aspect. - J.Z., 9.12.02.)

                      Right to Refuse to Accept Inferior or Suspected Means of Payment

Everyone has the right, without having to give any reasons, to refuse to accept any exchange media he suspects or
considers inferior, or to accept them only at a lower value, provided only he has not obliged himself by some
contract to accept them, or has issued them himself. This right finds its limit in the obligation to accept a local
currency at par value - as long as it is accepted on the market at par and as long as nothing to the contrary has been
contractually agreed upon.

This right would prevent an inflation which might, otherwise, occur by the over-issue of exchange media and
would thus prevent the method of financing wars - and other excessive government expenditures - which is today
most widely spread.

Utilisation of this possibility of refusal by revolutionaries and towards the paper money of a dictatorial regime,
would finally make this regime unable to pay and thus, lastly, also unable to fight.

                                                     Free Trade

Every rational being has the natural right to trade freely with his labour products, means of exchange, certificates.
goods and services and rightful possessions, or with those of others entrusted to him for this purpose, anywhere and
anytime, not subject to any laws, regulations or other restrictions by any third parties.

This right requires the repeal of all custom duties, foreign exchange control laws, quotas, compulsory licences,
monopolies, economic frontiers, shopping and working hour restrictions etc., etc. It includes the right to freely buy,
store and trade rare metals.
There is one qualification for the protection of human rights though: The trade with poisons, explosives and
weapons may be restricted, i.e. they may freely, as stated above, be sold by and to rational beings only. Moreover,
mass extermination devices, poisons or germs may not be freely produced, stored, sold or bought by anyone, not
even by people who otherwise could be considered as rational beings.

Subsequently, there would no longer be wars under the pretence that exclusive markets must be conquered. To
everyone the world market would be open, be he a producer or a consumer.

Mutual economic dependence would be increased. Governments are less likely to conduct wars against other
countries when they economically depend on their cooperation.

No State could then any longer pursue a policy of autarchy which in some ways would facilitate the preparation of
aggressive wars.


Once the Free Trade system has existed for a few years (a Free Trade including Monetary and Financial Freedom!)
and everyone has experienced its advantages, its opposite, the protectionist, centralist, coercive, monopolistic and
collectivist system prevailing today, could no longer be introduced or maintained for long.

Free Trade would increase the international division of labour and would thus lead to an increased standard of
living for everyone. Thus dictators will find it harder to gather a sufficient number of discontented people who
could be enthused for another war.

Free Trade would include the free transferability of capital into other countries. Investments in other countries are
peace promoting. Especialy so when due to full economic freedom most social problems of an economic nature
have been solved, seeing that at least these investors will strongly oppose any war which might endanger their
investments. (This points out one of the irrational features of the present popular opposition against foreign
investments. The more of them there are, the more assured will peace become, other factors remaining unchanged.)

The freer trade is, the more people do become involved with people from other nations, cultures, races, religions
and ideologies, come to understand and appreciate or at least to tolerate them.

Under Free Trade, no State could any longer direct trade, production and finance in a way that an irresponsibly
high percentage of all incomes is directed into armament efforts by means of various fraudulent or coercive
confiscatory means. Immanuel Kant remarked on this in "Eternal Peace":

       "The interests of trade do not agree with those of war and in all nations, sooner or later, the trade interest
       will finally overcome the war interest."

Trade with nuclear destructive devices, which are contrary to human rights, according to their very nature, can be
compared with the slave trade, and is similarly wrong and to be suppressed. Free Trade does not authorise any
irrational being either, who would want to supply dictators with weapons and other war materials. This would also
be an offence against human rights and the natural rights of rational beings. Such behaviour is morally no better
than the supply of a group of gangsters with firearms and breaking and entering tools.

                                Freedom for and within Productive Cooperatives

Every rational being has the natural right to establish or join productive cooperatives and other partnerships and
proprietorships, with constitutions according to his choice and to produce in them his livelihood, in a process of
division of labour and free exchange, i.e., without being exploited.

Open Cooperatives according to Theodor Hertzka:
Everyone may join enterprises which exploit a natural monopoly (which is in any way socially harmful), at any
time, either as a co-worker or a co-investor with equal rights or merely as an interested person with a vote during
general meetings.
All such enterprises are to be considered as productive cooperatives and conducted as such. Any such open
cooperative has to repay the present owners the full present value of their investment in a form agreeable to both.
The openness hinted at above would prevent injustice to either side.

There is no property right of individuals or groups towards natural monopolies (if these are rationally defined and
limited to harmful privileges). Open cooperatives could no longer exploit such a monopoly, i.e. gain monopoly
profits, as anyone would be free to join them even if this would require, in some instances, a shortening of working
hours. Consumers could also join to bring about a price reduction of the goods and services of this open
cooperative. If the natural advantage of the enterprise is so large that either of these methods is not successful and
if the members would want to prevent a reduction of their working time to extreme lengths, then they could oblige
themselves, for several years in advance, to donate their excess profits due to their natural advantage, to some of
the other foundation.

How could this affect the war and peace situation? The strength of the communist totalitarian systems lies largely
in the dissatisfactions arising out of the employer-employee relationships and the exploitation of natural
monopolies. In a cooperative there are no longer employers and employees. An open cooperative, as proposed, is
no longer a monopoly enterprise in the old sense. Thus the realisation of these rights, even if initially only in the
West, would help to deprive the Soviets and Red Chinese of many of their followers in their and our countries.


The advantages of cooperative production (e.g., abolition of strikes, go-slow work, reduction of theft and waste and
"sickies", a great common interest in rationalisation, a productive engagement of members more in accordance
with their abilities) would increase the standard of living of the members considerably and thereby render them
also more peace-loving. As a rule those are most warlike who have least to lose through a war.

For a brief compilation of general and economic human rights see Appendix No. I.

                                          Some Quotes on Human Rights:

       "The essence of the concept is that there are certain possessions of the individual, such as his own body and
       mind, which no other individual (or group) can justly control without his consent." - Dr. Duncan Yuille

       "Right is the agreement of everybody's unfettered actions with the unfettered actions of everybody else
       according to a general principle of freedom. It is accompanied by the authority to enforce it."
                                                                                     - Free after Immanuel Kant

       "Human rights identify social conditions that are good for people because they are people. Their human
       nature requires them. In this human rights are standards of conduct derived from the nature of man - only
       they pertain to a social context." - Tibor R. Machan, "REASON", May 1973.

       " ... these natural, inherent, inalienable, individual rights are sacred things. They are the only human
       rights. They are the only rights by which any man can protect his own property, liberty, or life against any
       one who may be disposed to take it away. Consequently, they are not things that any set of either
       blockheads or villains, calling themselves a government, can rightfully take into their own hands, and
       dispose of at their pleasure, as they have been accustomed to do in this, and in nearly or quite all other
       countries." - Lysander Spooner, in Letter to Cleveland, 7 .

      "... the fact that human rights begin and end with the individual; that they are not permissions, privileges,
      or conditions granted to men by social institutions, by the law, or by one's neighbors; that institutions
      should only protect and preserve them, and one's neighbors should only respect them."
                                                               Anne Wortham in "THE FREEMAN", July, 1975.

                                                    PART ONE

                                             B) INSTITUTIONS :
                                                    SECTION III

       "The problem of establishing an ideal republic can be solved, hard as it may sound, even for a nation made
       up of devils - if only they are rational. It can be stated thus: To bring order to a number of rational beings,
       all of whom want general rules for their preservation, and each of whom is secretly inclined to make
       exceptions for himself, in such a way that, although they are antagonistic in their private intentions, their
       private intentions do balance each other, with the result that their public behaviour is such that it seems
       that they have no evil intentions...
       We should not expect a good constitution from the prevailing morality but, on the contrary, can expect the
       moral development of a nation only from a good constitution." - Immanuel Kant, Eternal Peace, 1795.

                                          MAIN        SUBDIVISIONS

1. The protective institutions of the old kind have failed.

2. Exterritorial and Autonomous Communities of Volunteers.

3. A new Human Rights Declaration is necessary.

4. International Arbitration Courts.

5. Local Militias and International Militia Federation.

6. What principles of International Law have to be included in the constitutions?

7. Referendums

8. Arbitration Courts.

9. Recall of officers.

10. Police power.

11. Penal institutions.

12. Conclusion


                             The Protective Institutions of the Old Kind Have Failed

Quite obviously, the protective institutions of the old and present kind (territorial States, constitutions, International
Court in Hague, police, armies, alliances, international law, parliamentary representation, State courts, periodical
elections, penal codes and penal institutions) did not and do not suffice to protect rights and thereby preserve peace
and prevent the rise of dictatorships. At least these institutions were never able to achieve this sufficiently and for
long periods and world-wide. This leads to the conclusion that they might have to be replaced or supplemented by
other and better ones.

It is also obvious that many of the old institutions and principles are contrary to individual human rights and natural
rights of rational beings. Thus these must be abolished to realise these rights. That the recognition and the
protection of human rights would guarantee world peace was shown in the previous two sections.

In this and the following section an attempt is made to demonstrate that territorial States which are all, according to
their very nature, militarily and hierarchically organised, should not be retained under the assumption that they
would be necessary for the protection of rights and the regulation of the economy and that the dangers arising from
their military nature and their tendencies towards war are unpleasant traits one should put up with because of the
protective advantages the States would offer.

       "How is it possible to sanction, under the law of equal liberty, the confiscation of a man's earnings to pay
       for protection which he has not sought and does not desire? And, if this is an outrage, what name shall we
       give to such confiscation when the victim is given, instead of bread, a stone, instead of protection,
       oppression? To force a man to pay for the violation of his own liberty is indeed an addition of insult to
       injury. But that is exactly what the State is doing." - B. R. Tucker, Relation of the State to the Individual.

       "If a man wants "protection", he is competent to make his own bargains for it; and nobody has any
       occasion to rob him, in order to "protect" him against his will." - Lysander Spooner

                           Exterritorial and Autonomous Communities of Volunteers

The State is today considered as the foremost institution to protect rights or, rather, legal claims. It is assumed that
only within its framework are other protective associations possible. Those who make such assumptions do
overlook that even today there are some large and powerful exterritorial associations with somewhat voluntary
membership, which protect what they consider to be the rights of their members, sometimes even against
governments: churches, unions and professional associations. One might also add the nobility - but now less, much
less so than in previous centuries. But the military and the public service form similar bodies even with their own
jurisdiction. They, likewise, form "States within States". Admittedly, all of these are based not on human rights or
only on few of them and they all largely share the intolerance of the territorial States and attempt to make
membership compulsory. Nor does anyone of them invite secession of dissenters or welcomes competitive
associations. But they are largely exterritorial and autonomous and do at least pretend to be purely voluntary. Thus
they make full exterritorial and autonomous and voluntary organizations more believable. (Even while they remain
deterrent examples of monopoly-minded power-seekers with territorial aspirations. - J.Z., 9.12.02.)

The personal law associations here proposed will be more clearly and comprehensively based on individual human
rights, interrelate on the basis of these rights and be better able and more willing to protect the individual rights of
their members and even, through federations and protective interventions, the rights of the members of other
communities, seeing they want their own autonomy also protected by others. (Many factors work in this direction
but they cannot all be restated here.)
Their autonomy will be much more comprehensive: They will have the kind of constitution, legislation,
government, jurisdiction and administration which their voluntary members like, including maxi- and mini- and
no-governments. They will have only very few basic laws or principles in common like:
voluntary entry,
individual secession and
respect for the individual rights & internal affairs of members of other communities.
(To the extent that the voluntary members of personal law communities do claim such rights. If there is no claimant
then there is no offence! - At least at this stage of human development anti-abortion communities will not go to war
against pro-abortion communities, i.e., against people who believe in aborting their own children. - J.Z., 9.12.02.)


The territorial States have failed as institutions for the protection of individual rights, even in their best, the
democratic forms, which recognize some of the basic rights to a considerable extent, even when they hedge and
restrict them by numerous laws and wrongful practices. Even if they really protect the rights of the majority - and
at best they are only geared for that, they still and continuously offend against those of many the minorities. This is
inevitable since even they are built on the "ideals" of territorial uniformity, conformity, equality, subordination and
collective decision making.

       "Among the three forms of the State is Democracy. In its proper sense it is really a despotism because it
       establishes an executive power by which all determine on and also against one (who does not consent), by
       which all, who are not all, decide, which is a contradiction of the general will against itself and with
       freedom." - Immanuel Kant, Eternal Peace, 1795.

       "... the merit of the democratic form of government consists solely in this, that it trespasses against the
       smallest number." - Herbert Spencer, Social Statics, 1850, p. 189 of the Schalkenbach edition of 1954.

Only the proposed exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers make an exception here and offer a
way out. Their members do have alike interests. They are associated for this purpose and are thus prepared to
submit to the same rules. Only they cannot offend against the right to self-determination of the individual because
anyone can secede from them. Only in these associations can the freedom and sovereignty of the individual -
within the framework set by human rights and natural rights of rational beings - take the place of the sovereignty of
the State. Only in these protective associations can individuals no longer be arbitrarily handled and used,
as property or tools, as happens nowadays to most citizens and taxpayers of territorial States, especially in times of
war, but also, to an excessive degree, in times of peace, no matter what the supposedly benevolent intention or
pretence is.

The autonomy of the exterritorial and autonomous protective associations of volunteers is nothing but the sum of
the rights and liberties of their members.

It is likely that the various new exterritorial personal law associations resulting from individual secession will form
some sort of federation, at least for some juridical avenues, some common defence purposes and to register
membership and membership changes. As long as the members of such an association defend also the right of
individuals to secede from this international federation, it could not turn into a world dictatorship. Naturally, this
would result in several and competing world federations, as peacefully coexisting as the exterritorial and
autonomous communities of volunteers do or most churches at present.

       "The idea of a constitution which agrees with the natural rights of men: requiring that all those
       subordinated to a law should also and simultaneously be associated for legislative purposes, forms the
       foundation of all the forms of a State. A commonwealth, perceived in accordance with this idea by means of
       pure concepts of reasoning, is not merely a figure of the imagination, called a platonic ideal (respublica
       noumenon), but, instead, the eternal norm for all civil society and it removes all wars. A civil society
       organized in accordance with it, is the realisation of such a society in the world of experience, in
       accordance with the principles of freedom (respublica phaenomenon). It can only be achieved after
       prolonged struggles and wars. But its constitution, once achieved on a large scale, qualifies it, best among
       all, to keep away war (which destroys every-thing that is good). Consequently, it is a duty to enter into such
       a constitution." - Immanuel Kant, Argument among the Faculties.

       "Man has not succeeded in developing political and economic forms of organisation which would
       guarantee the peaceful coexistence of the nations of the world."
                                                             - Albert Einstein, A Message to Intellectuals, 1948.

       "The art of progress is to preserve order amid change and to preserve change amid order."
                                                         - Alfred North Whitehead: FORBES, December 1, 1957.

       "… bondage of the people who were denied the privilege of enacting their own laws." - Patrick Henry.

       "Whenever a government takes an action, there are some who favor that action. They have a right to favour
       it. They simply have no right to favor it at the expense of those who do not favor it ... When a policy is
       favored by some, it is imposed on all." - Robert LeFevre, "OUTLOOK", December 1972.

       "Just as injurious as it would be to an amphibian to cut off its branchiae before its lungs were well
       developed; so injurious must it be to a society to destroy its old institutions before the new have become
       organized enough to take their places." - Herbert Spencer, The Study of Sociology, chapter 16.

We need what Milton Friedman (in "Capitalism and Freedom", p. 23) seems to think impossible:
"Separate legislative enactments for each 'party' represented." One should perhaps add: for "and by each party
represented and at its expense".

                                 A New Human Rights Declaration Is Necessary

Is it really necessary for the protection of human rights to provide an as complete code of human rights and the
natural rights of rational beings as possible?

It is obviously not enough to point out just some human rights in a number of dispersed essays which are not
accessible to everyone and at any time. A complete collection, compilation and wide enough as well as periodical
publication of all human and natural rights that have so far become known, in form of a human rights declaration or
code, becomes necessary:

1. to give everyone at any time a useful basic standard to judge whether an action or an order is fundamentally

2. to enable everyone to become acquainted with all his basic rights,

3. to prevent that human rights, once discovered, will ever again be widely forgotten and

4. to enable everyone to claim a certain human or natural right at any time and anywhere.

This is an essential condition to enable everyone to respect human rights, avoid breaching them and enable him to
associate with others for their protection.
Most of the older human rights declarations realized the value of these codes. For instance, the French Constitution
of 3.9.1791 declares:

       "After the representatives of the people, constituted as National Assembly, considered that ignorance of, the
       forgetting of and the disregard for the rights of men are the sole causes for wide-spread misery and the
       corruption of governments, they have determined to formally declare the natural, inalienable and inviolable
       human rights, in order to make this declaration accessible to all members of society at any time, to
       continuously remind them of their rights and duties, to achieve that the actions of the legislative and
       executive powers will be more respected because they can be compared, at any time, with the final purpose
       of all political constitutions, and to achieve that the claims of the citizens, which in future shall be always
       based upon simple and indisputable principles, shall always aim at the preservation of the constitution and
       the common good."

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the UN of 10.12.1948 runs similarly:

       WHEREAS recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the
       human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
       WHEREAS disregard and contempt of human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged
       the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech
       and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common
       WHEREAS it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion
       against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
       WHEREAS it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations ....
       WHEREAS a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full
       realisation ..." (of human rights and fundamental freedoms)

       "NOW THEREFORE the General Assembly proclaims
       This Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all
       nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in
       mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by
       progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and
       observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories
       under their jurisdiction ..."

                               Are the old human rights codifications insufficient?

The old human rights codes contain so many errors, unnecessary restrictions and misunderstandings and are,
especially in their sections on economic rights, so flawed and incomplete that they have brought the whole concept
of human rights and natural rights of rational beings into disrepute and can hardly serve as foundation for a new
and peaceful social order. The above chapters have offered some proofs for this assertion.

One can even go so far as to state that the various existing and partly contradictory concepts of property, of private
and State monopolies, of the right to exchange one's products, have contributed very much to the rise of
Bolshevism and of other totalitarian movements. One could go further and state that the whole communist ideolo-
gy is but the result of misunderstandings, distortions and ignorance of economic and political basic rights.

It can therefore be assumed that a new, clear and, according to the present state of the science of rights, complete
enumeration of human rights would very much promote the establishment and preservation of world peace. Thus,
in appendix No. I, a first draft of such a declaration is submitted for discussion.
(In PEACE PLANS 589/590 about one hundred PRIVATE drafts of this kind are offered for discussion, a
discussion that, alas, has not yet taken place! - J.Z., 9.12.02.)

       "For we are not concerned here with happiness which could be expected for the subjects from the
       establishment or administration of a republic, but, first of all, merely with the rights that ought to be
       secured for everyone. Right is the supreme principle from which all maxims on public affairs must be
       derived and it is not limited by any other principle. It would be impossible to provide a generally valid
       principle for legislation in order to achieve the former, happiness. The conditions of the times as well as the
       very contradictory and always changing notions which people have on their happiness (where and how they
       could find it no one could prescribe) make all firm principles impossible and renders happiness alone quite
       useless as a principle for legislation. The statement "Salus publica suprema civitatis lex est" (The Common
       Good is the supreme law of society.), remains in undiminished value and fame, but the common good which
       first of all is to be taken into consideration, is precisely that legal constitution which secures freedom to
       everyone by means of Laws. This would not hinder anyone to seek his happiness in any way he likes, if only
       he does not offend against the general lawful freedom, that is, against the rights of his fellow citizens. ...
       The aim must be not to make the people happy against their will but merely to achieve that they can coexist
       in a civil society." - Immanuel Kant in his essay: "On the proverb: 'This might be right in theory but is
       useless in practice.'"

                                         International Arbitration Courts

For the peaceful settlement of any arguments which might arise between exterritorial and autonomous communities
of volunteers and between States and such communities, at least one international arbitration court would be
required. This arbitration court would have to avoid the mistakes of the International Court in Hague, of the League
of Nations and of the United Nations (which might also be considered, in many ways, as international courts). Thus
something like the following rules should be adopted for international arbitration courts:

1. Every exterritorial and autonomous community of volunteers and every State is to be a member of one or the
   other international arbitration system.
   Kant said on this in his work 'Eternal Peace":

       "A man or a people in a condition of nature deprives me of security and injures me already by this
       condition alone. They exist aside me, although not active (facto) but in a lawless condition (statu iniusto),
       whereby I am continuously threatened by them. Thus I may force them either to enter with me into common
       lawful relations or to leave my neighbourhood."
2. None of the members, no matter how powerful, possesses any kind of veto right.

3. The international arbitration court is the decisive authority for all arguments between members which are not
   already settled, within one month, by means of negotiations between those involved or by means of arbitrators
   appointed for this purpose by the disputing parties.


4. The international courts will also decide on the so-called "internal affairs" of a member association - in cases of
   offences against basic human rights which individual members of States and communities have claimed.

5. The basic law for the international arbitration courts is the most complete of the existing human rights codes.

6. They can be appealed to and should especially be appealed to when the survival of a community or a State is at

7. Individuals can appeal to them in class actions, even when their own rights and interests are not directly

8. An international arbitration court can also initiate proceedings by itself.

9. Their executive power will be the international federation of local militias for the protection of human rights.

10. Their judgements may be appealed against. In such cases alternative arbitration courts must be agreed upon.
    In cases of infringements of human rights, appeals may be lodged by anyone and at any time.
    Appeals may also be made by referendums among the contending parties. But then the international courts'
    judgement will only be considered as repealed when the majority of the members of the contesting parties have
    voted against it.
    A judgement of an international arbitration court will also be repealed whenever the international militia
    federation declares itself against its execution with a large majority.

11. These courts will be financed by fees, voluntary contributions and fines imposed by them.

12. To make the judges independent from the governments or representatives of the contending communities, they
    should be neither appointed by them nor recallable. In the beginning they will be elected by all member
    organizations. Later they are to establish a self-maintaining and regulating corporation, like an independent

12. Their courts are to be manned either by arbitrators whose communities are not involved or, equally, with
    arbitrators from all those communities which are contending a case.

The above is only a rough draft and requires much work and discussion before it would be generally acceptable.
But if we left it to government representatives to perfect it then the job might never get done.

When there are competing international arbitration systems then for cases between their members they would,
naturally, have also to appoint in advance some of the other arbitration avenue.

                                Local Militias and International Militia Federation

Among the most important institutions of the future to protect basic rights, and, according to some, the most
important and ultimate sovereign institution., will be the local militias of volunteers for the protection of human
rights. They will be sworn in on human rights, elect and if necessary recall their officers, possess only rightful arms
and owe military obedience only in the framework of human rights and the duty to resist wrongful orders. To
protect world peace these local organizations will internationally federate. No more need be said here as details
will be explained in Section VI.

               What Principles of International Law Have to Be Included in the Constitutions?
                                     a) The Faults of the Old International Law

Some constitutions, e.g. the fundamental law of the Federal Republic of Germany, contain already today a clause
whereby the international law is part of the constitution and is even declared superior to any law passed under the
constitution and even to the constitution itself.

If a good international law system existed, then one could only welcome attempts to establish it in this way.
Otherwise, we would come to the situation where even constitutions which include and stress human rights would
thereby recognize international law principles which directly contradict these rights.


Unfortunately, today's international law exists largely only out of recommendations on the conduct of cold and hot

       "Under the concept of an international law as a right to engage in war, one cannot really think anything.
       For it would be a 'right" to determine what is right, not according to generally valid external laws, which
       limit the arbi-trariness of every individual, but, instead, according to one-sided maxims of coercion - unless
       one assumes that people with such convictions do not wrong each other if they eliminate each other in this
       way..." - Immanuel Kant, Eternal Peace.
       The latter assumption is qualified by him somewhere else by the statement:
       "One of the flaws of war is that it makes more bad people than it eliminates!"

Today's international law is superfluous and even harmful not only because it is pre-dominantly a law on warfare
but also by recognising the sovereignty of territorial States. A critical remark by Immanuel Kant on this will be
quoted later, in Section VI/4/8.

With the unlimited sovereignty of States today's international law acknowledges not only a "right" to engage
arbitrarily in wars but also a "right" to conduct the so-called "own internal affairs" arbitrarily, using the own
subjects as mere property and tools of a government, using them and abusing them as is considered necessary by
the rulers. One of Ulrich von Beckerath's comments on national sovereignty was:

       "One considers nations, i.e. mere concepts, as if they were real individuals. This they are not and thus they
       have not any rights of individuals. To speak of the 'independence' of nations is an abuse of the language."

While it is quite true that the own, inner or private affairs of an individual can hardly infringe the human rights of
others, i.e. that they are as a rule of no concern to anyone else, infringements of rights are rather the rule when the
"nation" or "the people" act. Thus only individuals have a claim to independence. Their independence can most
completely develop in the framework of exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers. Their autonomy
is not independent from that of the individuals constituting them but, due to their voluntary membership, leading to
unanimous consent, is merely the sum of the independence of their voluntary members.

In future, when the concept of "internal affairs" has been properly revised, one will consider as "internal affairs" of
States and exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers only those conditions and actions which do not
infringe the human rights and natural rights of rational beings of the members - unless this is done with their
individual consent. This consent is largely, but not exclusively, achieved by their decision either voluntarily to
remain within or to secede from such an association.

Truman made this distinction during his presidency when he declared, in effect:
Whosoever infringes human rights anywhere in the world does thereby declare war against the whole world and
must not be surprised when thereupon almost all people ally themselves against him and do not consider his actions
as his 'own internal affairs'.

Today's concepts on "independence" and "inner affairs" of "nations" lead to the grotesque situation in which
tyrants, in visits of "heads of States" are given special guards against tyrannicide, attempts are made to come to a
lasting peaceful coexistence with them, and no direct negotiations with the people or nations suppressed by them,
or with as many individuals as possible of them, are attempted at all or even permitted to anyone.
Other, rather obvious disadvantages of today's international law are:

It "protects" artificial frontiers and the "territorial integrity" they enclose, likewise "national waters" , now even
expanding 200 miles into the open seas, and

it considers natural resources, whole countries and their populations as the property of governments.

It permits arbitrary restrictions on the international movement of goods, services and persons and provides for no
effective steps against aggressive and oppressive Great Powers. (Blockades and boycotts harm the subjects much
more than the rulers and fall under Voltaire's old saying: "Even the most miserable and weakest government is
always still strong enough to bear the misery of its subjects with indifferent dignity." )

By infringing in this and other ways quite basic rights, today's international law is one of the causes of war.


                        b) The New International Law, Based Essentially on Human Rights

The new international law must consist of or be based upon human rights and the natural rights of rational beings
and will thus largely be a negation of the whole body of the old international law.

As prejudices on international affairs are deeply ingrained, such a general rule will not suffice. Thus an attempt is
made here to shortly hint at the future lawful order between members of different exterritorial and autonomous
communities and between them and the remaining States (which are then, in reality, due to the right of individuals
to secede, also merely personal law communities of volunteers ):

* States and exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers are in future to be recognized only by the
other communities if their constitution and laws are based on human rights and natural rights of rational beings - at
least to the extent that they recognize a minimum number of rights of the own members, first among these the right
of individuals to secede. Moreover, they must be based on unconditional respect for all the human rights and
natural rights claimed and practised by members of other communities. (This in case where e.g., socialistic
communities have renounced for themselves certain economic rights of individuals.)

* No State or community may realize by force of arms and towards the members of other communities anything
that it claims to be right and proper but which goes outside the sphere of human and natural rights. They may only
protect their own members in such actions among themselves.

* If any State or exterritorial and autonomous community of volunteers should deteriorate to the extent that its
membership would no longer be based on individual consent then any other State or exterritorial and autonomous
community of volunteers is authorised to undertake any measure to protect the fundamental rights of the members
of such associations, the instigation of tyrannicide and revolution included. Such basic rights are, naturally, only to
be protected when they are really suppressed, i.e. not in cases of voluntary renunciation from which individuals
would be free to withdraw if they felt like it.

* No State or exterritorial and autonomous community of volunteers may exclude the members of any other
community from settling and working in any territory and exploiting any natural resources, e.g. by considering
certain continents, countries provinces or districts as its exclusive property. This does not apply to the privately
held real estate of members. Access to natural monopoly goods is to be treated according to the principles of open
cooperatives, which are discussed elsewhere.

* The so-called "prestige" or "honour" of a community is never to be considered as a justification for warlike

* Presidents, ministers for external affairs, ambassadors and special envoys are never to have monopoly positions
for negotiations and treaties with other communities.
* All international treaties are valid only for the signatories and this only if they are publicly concluded and
sufficiently published afterwards. Secret diplomatic agreements are null and void.

* Federations of exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers and of States can only be established
upon referendums. They apply only to those who approve of such federations and can at any time be repealed by
further referendums. Individuals remain free to secede from such federations or join and establish other ones. Each
of these would constitute only a personal law association.

* In all cases of doubt referring to procedure, form and usefulness, all human rights cases excepted, the following
draft of a new international law should be consulted: Jerome Internoscia: New Code of International Law,
International Code Company, N.Y., 1910.

Otherwise one can only hope that an international conference will soon provide a better draft of international law


or that it will be juridically developed by the international arbitration courts agreed upon between the different

c) Whose Laws Are to Apply in Cases of Arguments between Members of Different Protective Associations?

One precondition is that both communities recognize human and natural rights, at least those of the members of
other communities (even if they do not respect all of them internally, with the consent of their voluntary members).

Secondly, as clashes between different court systems can be foreseen, agreements will be made on how to settle
them. These will be somewhat guided by historical precedents. In some of these, the law of the accuser, in others
the law of the defender was applied and in later stages mixed courts were often agreed upon.

E.g., German and French tribes lived, after the fall of the Roman Empire, for a long time in form of autonomous
and exterritorial communities of volunteers, under personal laws, in one and the same territory. Members of up to 5
different legal systems lived peacefully side by side. They acquired their personal law either by birth, by marriage
or by declaration before a judge. Under the Merovingians the law of the accused was applied. (Compare appendix
11/6.) The Ripuarian law declared in favour of the right of the accuser. In Egypt, towards the end of the 19th.
century, mixed courts decided. In Marocco, between the Jewish, Arabic and European communities, until 1955, the
law of the accused was applied.

I believe that the latter procedure has disadvantages. If the law of the accused is taken as decisive then, in case he
acted in accordance with the own laws and only contrary to the laws of the accuser, then the accused, by his own
lights, may not have committed an offence or may not have done so intentionally and the accuser could not sue
him. But the accuser's rights had been infringed by an outsider, maliciously or unintentionally, perhaps only
negligently. Ignorance of the offender with regard to the legal system of the victim of his actions (by the standards
of the accuser) should not altogether excuse the accused. He had no right to presume that everyone else would be
living under the same legal system as he does. Thus, even if he acted without any malicious intent, the charge
against him should not be simply dismissed with reference to his own legal system. At least he is guilty of
negligence by acting towards someone else without that person's consent, without regard to his "nationality" or
"membership". If he had made certain of the other's membership, then the offence against the other's law might not
have taken place. If it had taken place, afterwards, nevertheless, then the accused might also be accused of having
acted in a totalitarian manner and that might be considered by all communities as a very serious offence.

On the other hand, one could say that if always only the law of the accuser would apply (the person whose rights or
interests were infringed ), then all those would escape any penalty who committed an offence against a member of
a community which does not penalise such offences. Would this be an evil if the victim does not feel offended
against and thus does not make any accusation? "Where there is no claim, there is no judge!" In these cases one
could only expect the own community of the offender to charge him with an offence, although not one towards a
member of the own community. They might charge him with having infringed their "Golden Rule". But, quite
obviously, this would no longer be an international case then. The community of the consenting victim (which may
e.g., have more liberal sexual laws) might even invite the offender to join them. Thus it seems advisable to apply
only the law of the accuser regarding actions not considered offensive by another community.
Now, let us assume that both communities involved consider an action criminal and both penalise it but unequally.
In that instance, and in the interest of preserving peace and order between them, they might well come to agree that
the higher penalty ought to be applied in cases between their members.

Instead, these protective volunteer associations or at least some of them might agree in advance upon mixed courts
to decide arguments between their members.

Anyone who has seen how involved, doubtful and lengthy the rules and discussions between lawyers are today, on
which territorial court has jurisdiction, will rather expect a simplification and shortening of the procedure from this


fundamental legal reform than a further complication. Each will tend to get exactly the kind of legal system that he
prefers, not only in internal relations but also in external relations. If one confederation or alliance of exterritorial
and autonomous communities of volunteers would share one set of principles and practices for the settlement of
their own international disputes and another group of such communities had, for their clashes among themselves
adopted another set of principles and practices quite opposed to that of the former group, then, in cases of clashes
between members of these different groups, they might, indeed, have to agree upon some kind of compromise to
achieve juridical settlements, like the one on mixed courts.

There is a long history of consular jurisdiction in foreign countries which should always be consulted in such
instances. Between the different new volunteer "nations" various contracts will be drawn up similar to the old
"capitulations" agreed upon for the same purpose between otherwise sovereign and territorial States. (Compare e.g.
the article on "capitulations" in the Encyclopaedia Britannica.)


                           a) Why Is the Parliamentary Representative System on its own,
                               without the Possibility of Referendums, Insufficient?

Ulrich von Beckerath once said:

       "The abolition of the threat of nuclear war through all concerned means the beginning of a new age,
       a new political order, a new economic order, and even a new religion."

The responsibility for many decisions, for instance those on war and peace and whether nuclear weapons may be
applied or ought to be destroyed, cannot be rightfully transferred.

During election campaigns, the most important issues, on which decisions have to be made after the elections, are
often not mentioned at all or insufficiently discussed. Candidates rely on the short memory of most voters and
catch votes with empty promises. If, later on, they are reminded of their promises then they can usually refer to a
constitutional clause granting them independence from all instructions given them by their voters.

Moreover, due to party discipline, their utterances and actions in parliament are often no more than the reflection
and repetition of those of a handful of party leaders.

The flood of tasks and functions which the parliamentary States have usurped in an almost complete disregard for
human and natural rights, have led, of necessity, to the situation where important decisions are no longer made by
all the 'representatives' of the people but only by some of them sitting in special parliamentary committees. These,
due to their small size, are still more so than parliaments influenced by special interest lobbies. (A whole nation
could not be bribed!)

For a voter it is often more difficult to determine whether a candidate would sufficiently represent his views or
show a clearer understanding of the issues involved than to determine by himself a just settlement of particular
problems. When parliamentary democracies were established, it was wrongly assumed that most voters would
always be too ignorant to discuss and resolve upon just laws. Nevertheless, it was wrongly assumed that at the
same time these same voters would be able and willing to elect representatives who would possess the talents
which they themselves lacked. By now experience has shown that, as a rule, candidates are elected who are only in
written and oral expression superior to their fellow citizens and who, with these gifts, work numerous common
prejudices and errors into coercive laws. Even if, now and then, genuinely intelligent representatives are elected,
they will soon have to bow to popular prejudices in order to have a chance for re-election. In this way we get
enforced, by means of laws, whatever unreasonable citizens want to have realised, for irrational motives, no matter
how much such measures contradict human and natural rights and with these also the "common good" and the
rights and long term interests of the voters themselves. The "common will" in Rousseau's meaning: "that what all
citizens (to the extent that they are reasonable) want", remains under this system a mere fiction.


The parliamentary system (if practised exclusively or territorially) does not provide a way out of this dilemma. It
contributes nothing to the enlightenment of citizens. It only increases their apathy and their statism. Debates in
parliament do not even enlighten the members of parliament sufficiently because they are usually more interested
in preserving and strengthening their position than in solving the problems under debate. The publication of their
arguments through the moss media leads only to a further increase in the flood of misleading slogans, catchwords
and misinterpreted statistics - which appeal to the ignorant majority.

                           b) Why and on what Subjects Should there Be Referendums?

Referendums are as much an aspect of the right to vote as the right to elect a representative into parliament. If
national sovereignty is to be more than an empty or even misleading slogan, then it must include the opportunity
for a people to decide by themselves and directly on their own fate.

Frequently conducted referendums could counteract government powers and could largely prevent their abuse.
They would make it possible to act upon public opinion, even against the will of a government or the leaders of an
exterritorial and autonomous community of volunteers, without having to mobilise the militia or to start a revo-
lution or a large secession.

A referendum should be obligatory for all affairs touching the rights of all citizens, e.g.: decisions on war and
peace, armament and disarmament, constitutional changes, tax increases and the use of large tax funds. They
should also be obligatory on all important subjects not anticipated during the lost elections.

       "The decision whether the defence force is to be armed with nuclear weapons or whether installations for
       the manufacture or use of such weapons should be allowed or whether one should be allied with powers
       armed with nuclear weapons, such decisions are not to be made by a president or prime minister, nor by a
       parliament, but, exclusively, by the people themselves. Such referendums should be carried out as soon as
       possible." - Ulrich von Beckerath

In all other matters referendums should be conducted as soon as a certain minimum number of citizens demand it
(about 1-5 % of the electors). A referendum should, moreover, always be held whenever one fourths of the
members of the local militias ask for it.

Referendums should not be prevented by demanding too large a number of supporters.
It could very well happen that a single citizen has a valuable proposal and few single citizens would have a chance
or the ability to submit their ideas successfully to ten-thousands of their countrymen For this reason, proposals by
single citizens, who were so far unknown, should require a much smaller number of supporters than e.g., proposals
backed by large political movements.

As a result of such a reform, the parliaments of the future would largely be reduced to settling only comparatively
trivial questions or questions where they are in obvious agreement with the overwhelming majority of all citizens.

Naturally, the moral limitations applying to parliamentary legislation, do also apply to referendums:
While a referendum may be rightfully and effectively used to widen the recognized sphere of individual liberty, no
referendum may rightfully pass any law infringing any human right or natural right of rational beings.
The voluntary restriction of one's rights by unanimous consent, within one's volunteer community, is another
The cheapest method to conduct a referendum appears to be the one applied in California. At the periodical
elections, all new legislative proposals or law repeal proposals, are submitted simultaneously to the electors - after
first having been discussed in the press and by other mass media.

It is part of the right to vote in referendums to conduct and participate in open air meetings. Such meetings can be
large, public, and, nevertheless, very inexpensive for the organisers. No police power in the world has the right to
make such popular assemblies or town meetings dependent upon its permission. Local militias would in future also
guarantee this right.


c) How Would the Introduction of Exterritorial and Autonomous Communities of Volunteers Affect Referendums?

With the introduction of exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers and the experimental freedom for
tolerant social, economic and political experiments (which this reform implies), the concepts of a people or a nation
and of a referendum among such a group, would obtain a new meaning. The groups forming on this basis, and
those voluntarily remaining under the old constitutions, would be more homogeneous than today's States or
peoples. The members of each would have largely the same interests (at least, in anarcho-capitalist communities,
the common interest in leaving each other sufficiently alone). Often, they would have a similar background or stan-
dard of education. Their discussions, before they arrive at a majority decision, would therefore tend to be less
antagonistic, more thorough and objective - from their point of view.
There would thus be a much greater likelihood that their decisions would be just and useful for themselves - in
accordance with their own values and standards. Instead of merely arriving at majority votes, they would often
make unanimous decisions on the affairs of their own volunteer community.
In case of wrong decisions, only the voluntary members would have to suffer - and they, like the dissenters in this
community, would remain free to secede from the group, e.g., over the issue decided by a referendum.

By means of the right of individuals to secede from a State (like from a church), the super powers would gradually
be dissolved into smaller communities and this would also make it easier to initiate and carry out a referendum.

The number of new nations is already increasing all the time. But they are all still territorial and not personal law
associations. It is interesting to speculate upon how many independent nations and communities we would have
now if individual secessionism had already been practised by now for several decades.

The experimental freedom resulting from this basic constitutional change would be very instructive - as only the
participants of an experiment would have to bear the costs and risks involved. Consequently, these experimenters
would tend to become rather cautious. At the same time, the successful experiments, introduced first of all only
among a few volunteers, as a result of unanimous referendum decisions among them, would much more rapidly
persuade many of those among whom these volunteers live (legally and voluntarily segregated) than they could be
persuaded even by the best and most logical - but merely theoretical - arguments. One action speaks louder than a
thousand words.

Today and as a rule, wherever referendums are permitted, they are initiated only by parties or governments. Their
slogan mongering doesn't enlighten the voters but confuses them still further. Their referendums do also attempt to
impose a uniform system upon all, even the dissenters and fanatic enemies. Thus they awaken and increase
antagonism. At most a compromise solution can be hoped for under the present conditions which, obviously,
cannot fully satisfy anyone among the contenders. After the introduction of individual secessionism and
exterritorial autonomy most party struggles and most parties would disappear and be replaced by mere propaganda,
by practical demonstrations of alternative institutions by and for those desiring them, and by new and competing
and fully autonomous exterritorial groups and communities of volunteers.

Admittedly, a majority decision against a not yet generally recognized human right could happen - especially in a
community of not very well educated citizens. But such wrong decisions would tend to be less frequent than they
are now and also less harmful. Each new measure would tend to be more discussed than it is now, and it could not
be uniformly applied to non-members living in the same territory. Moreover, seeing that they would have to suffer
the consequences alone and are living surrounded by sceptical neighbours who avoided their mistake, they could
hardly help but learn from it soon and repeal this restriction in another referendum.
In extreme cases the local militias or their federation could be mobilised to protect basic rights of members against
wrongful referendum decisions. Instance: Non-members might, in my opinion rightfully, interfere in favour of a
child's right to life when its parents, as members of a community of Jehovah's Witnesses, would refuse to allow a


blood transfusion to save the life of the child. But in most instances a physical intervention would not be required.
A counter propaganda undertaken by the militia members of other communities, would usually suffice to prevent
extremely wrong decisions or their realisation.

                       d) Are the People too Ignorant to Decide Rightfully in Referendums?

Obviously, in all questions to be decided by scholarship, the people, if they were wise enough, would not decide a
question upon their own knowledge but rather consult some experts. This they do already to a large extent. Here
the problem of disagreeing experts arises and majority decisions between them would not rationally decide a
question, either. This dilemma can only be solved to a sufficient extent when the clients have free choice between
the experts. Apart from this rational approach, all individuals have naturally the right to act upon their own
ignorance and errors as long as they can do so only at their own expense and risk. This restriction would ensure
that they would learn and fast at that.

When experts disagree and the rights and interests of others are involved, then some kind of international
arbitration seems advisable. (Do hair spray cans affect the ozone layer around the earth? Do nuclear power plants
endanger the lives or health of dissenters and their offspring? Does the fluoridation of water supplies endanger or
promote health?) When there are no technological solutions permitting tolerance, then injunctions are in place and
in case of doubt the viewpoints of those who are taking the long-term and more comprehensive view should take
precedence when it comes to making a temporary decision, like an injunction. Most of these cases, which appear
very involved, if one looks only into practical details and pro and con utilitarian arguments, become rather simple
when one defines the basic rights of the parties involved, determines which of these rights are possibly threatened
and then gives precedence to this moral aspect.

I do not believe that ignorance poses too great a problem here. (On the contrary, I see in frequent referendums a
good educational institution!) Would there really be that many people who would want to submit questions which
are lastly to be decided by scholarship and training, to majority decisions! Majorities are then much more likely to
insist upon moratoriums until the questions are scientifically settled to an acceptable extent. I most cases, for
instance, a single objecting voice among the scientists could be ignored - although, in the long run he might turn
out to have been a misunderstood prophet. Perfection cannot be achieved here, either. We can at best only approach

Certainly, it is not an attractive aim to realize the will of an ignorant community. If, e.g., ordinary citizens,
indoctrinated, ignorant, misled and prejudiced as they presently are, on most public affairs, were merely asked,
without an extensive and prior public debate of the issue, for their opinions on a subject or problem, then they
would, indeed, be rather replying on the same level only as their present representatives in parliament would. I
would not expect them to offer answers which are still worse.

Thus we have to get away from mere opinion polls and turn referendums into educational enterprises or campaigns
where every point of view gets a fair hearing. For optimum effects, referendums should take place only after there
has been, for a considerable time, a completely free and public exchange of opinions on the subject in question.
(Note, that some questions are so important, like war aims in a future war, that they ought to be decided by
referendums long before it would ever come to a war!)
Only then can a sufficient exchange and spread of opinions take place. Under this condition alone applies the
saying that individuals may be deceived forever, a few people may be deceived for a long time but all people
cannot be deceived for long. If, and to the extent that this old saying is right, a direct democracy largely operated
by referendums is superior to a representative democracy.

Not only must freedom of expression be unlimited as a right but there must also exist many opportunities for
everyone to utter his opinions, if he wants to, before large audiences, or before specially interested listeners,
without incurring prohibitive expenses. Thus there ought to be established many additional or new institutions of

the following type:

a) meeting places in the open air, similar to the one in Hyde Park, London, in whiche veryone may attempt to
spread his views free of charge,

b) public discussion centres in meeting rooms where every evening a few dozen interested citizens could be found
to discuss political, economic, social or philosophical problems,

c) magazines whose speciality is to publicise proposals of so far unknown reformers and experts and to discuss
them freely,

d) magazines which would advertise all public lectures, readings, discussion events etc. sufficiently well and long
enough in advance, thus giving everyone who believes that he has something important to tell, a chance to reach
almost all in a city who would like to listen to him.

As soon as such institutions - and a number of similar ones (see Section VII) are established, the people would
inevitably enlighten themselves. Only under these conditions would the following remark by Immanuel Kant, in:
"What is Enlightenment?" apply fully:                                                1

       "But it is more nearly possible for a public to enlighten itself: this is even inevitable if only the public is
       given its freedom. For there will always be some people who think for themselves, even among the self-
       appointed guardians of the great mass who, after having thrown off the yoke of immaturity themselves, will
       spread about them the spirit of a reasonable estimate of their own value and of the need for every man to
       think for himself ... All that is required for this enlightenment is freedom; and particularly the least harmful
       of all that may be called freedom, namely, the freedom for man to make public use of his reason in all
       matters ... "

Primarily, the people should decide in all affairs touching on the basic rights of all members. Would they really
need such a high standard of education for this purpose that most of them could not reach it? I assert that most
citizens could obtain the required knowledge of human rights within a few days or at most a few weeks.

A referendum system, as well as a proper jury system (See on the latter Lysander Spooner, "Trial by Jury" and J.
Toulmin Smith, "Local Self-Government and Centralisation", both reproduced in the PEACE PLANS series),
tend to educate citizens by promoting opinion exchanges on acute questions.
The more referendums would take Place, the more would citizens learn to know and appreciate their rights and
how to protect or realize them through further referendums - and other measures.

Machiavelli anticipated many objections against referendums when he said, in his "Discourse on the first Decade
of Titus Livius' Roman History":

       "The demands of free people are rarely dangerous to freedom because they arise either out of oppression
       or out of the fear of it. If such fears are unfounded then freedom of expression is a means against them. Let
       an honest man get up and point the error out to the people. Although the people are, as Tullius says,
       ignorant, nevertheless, they are able to feel the truth and easily give in if a trustworthy man advances it ... If
       one compares the intentions of the aristocrats with those of the common man, one will find in the one a
       great urge to dominate, in the other a larger inclination to remain free ... Thus, if the protection of freedom
       is rather entrusted to the common people, they will be more concerned with preserving it ... "

                          e) Would the People, Unenlightened as they still Are, at Present,
                              Come too Easily under the Influence of Demagogues?

Demagogues could, in future, be defeated by a simple means: All fallacies, distortions, misleading slogans,
prejudices and popular errors on social, political and economic affairs could be collected, together with the best
refutations and replies so far found, and then published, in alphabetical order, in an "Encyclopaedia of Popular
Errors and their Best Refutations". With the aid of such a reference work even an ordinary citizen could , without
special training, tackle the most skilled demagogues and ridicule them publicly. The time for demagogues would
be over. (Details on this project can be found in Section VII.)

Moreover, the experience with referendums on constitutional and other questions, in the USA, Canada and
Australia, most of all in Switzerland (where they take place even on questions of social security and the use of tax


funds for public building projects), has demonstrated that the people are no less mature to decide such questions
than their representatives in parliaments are. The Swiss people have been blamed for not having brought about a
better financial system through referendums and for not showing a larger interest in voting. But, isn't this also
characteristic for most parliamentarians? The party whips may succeed in driving members to vote - but usually
they do not succeed in getting them to listen to and think about the debates. Even if they did - what could they learn
from these, as a rule? (Carlyle somewhere asserted that no parliamentarian ever persuaded another. Perhaps the
only exception to this rule was the successful campaign by Free Traders for the repeal of the Corn Laws? Alas, in
the long run, even it was not successful enough. People, politicians included, tend to fall back into popular
fallacies, errors and prejudices - unless these are systematically and permanently as well as publicly refuted by the
best answers to them that are so far found. - J.Z., 10.12.02.)

Thus it is less the education standard of citizens and more the wording of the constitutions which obstructs the use
of referendums in most "democratic" countries. Moreover, financial decisions need not and should not be made by
formal parliamentary or referendum voting. Wherever the people are free to do so, they do already vote in the best
possible way on such subjects: with their dollars, on the market.

                                 f) Are Referendums Suitable only for Small States?

Postal votes and voting machines make referendums possible, easy and cheap even for large communities.

If this objection were true then it would be just one more reason for transforming excessively large States into
federations of many small and largely independent communities. Judging by the inflation of the bureaucratic
machinery of most States, they have long ago exceeded their optimum size. In each of the new smaller units,
referendums might even be carried out in popular assemblies, like they were in the old-type town meetings.

Moreover, the "States" of the future will be exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers (otherwise
there will be no future for man! See Peace Plans Nos. 16-17) and these could hardly exceed their optimum size due
to the right of individuals to secede.
As for "required" strength: Federations of many small communities can well be much stronger than an oversized
"united" nation. (Compare Section VI/4/6/b.)

            9) Should the Local Militias by themselves or the Whole People Decide on War and Peace?

Any war concerns not only the rights and interests of the members of the militia. Thus it would be wrong to
formally exclude other citizens from making this decision. On the other hand, the militia membership is open to
anyone prepared to defend human rights and, in case of an acute defence crisis, the militia, especially its "On-The-
Minute-Man" section, would be likely to be that important part of the people which would assemble first, be first
among those properly informed on what has happened and would constitute a group of citizens which would have
to make those first decisions which could not be postponed. Later, popular assemblies would be called and take
place but they would be unlikely to differ in their decisions. If they did, they could hardly force the militia to fight
or prevent it from fighting. They could merely use freedom of expression and negotiations and public opinion
pressure to bring about an early armistice - unless they preferred to join the aggressor, a rather unlikely case.

Their move towards early peace negotiations is likely to have been anticipated by ideal militia forces whose only
purpose is the defence of human rights.

Should militia forces ever deteriorate to the extent that they would intentionally fight for the suppression of human
rights (very unlikely if the study of human rights is an important part of their training), then the other citizens
would have failed as well in their duty to prevent such a deterioration, either by enlightenment efforts, or by joining
and expelling certain members, etc. They would then be in the same situation as they are today, under a military
dictatorship, and would have to create anew, as we ought today, a citizen army whose sole purpose would be the
protection of human rights and the natural rights of rational beings, and which is trained, armed and organised in
accordance with this aim. Not only is such a deterioration of the militia unlikely to occur (because of its human
rights commitment and practice) but if it should occur, it would not occur in all units at once. The first criminal
local militia forces would inevitably have all other military forces as their enemies and would be rendered harmless
in a short time.

Thus a general referendum on war and peace would apply mainly towards standing armies, as long as these
dangerous institutions still exist - and even today the military power in democratic states is supposedly already
strictly subordinated to the civil one.


Almost as important as the people's decision making power on war and peace would be a referendum resolving that
all atomic, chemical and bacteriological weapons, as well as their places of manufacture and storage, be destroyed
by or under the super-vision of the militia forces. Combined, these two referendums would do away with the
intolerable state of affairs in which a handful of men (and certainly not the best) may decide whether mankind is to
survive or not. Each of these men may at present start an atomic war when drunk or otherwise intoxicated, after a
nervous breakdown, in a suicidal mood, just before he would otherwise be overthrown, after a prolonged period of
sleeplessness with an accompanying mental breakdown (common during an acute world crisis) or as a result of an
error of judgement, due e.g. to a wrong interpretation of a radar image.

                                                Arbitration Courts

                  Why and to what Extent Should the Sphere of Private Arbitration Be Enlarged?

As a consequence of the establishment of exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers, a large number
of private arbitration courts will be set up with jurisdiction also on the varied crimes acts applied.
Moreover, citizens who prefer arbitration courts to the present courts and who would not be conceded their
requirements within the framework of their old political associations, might merely for this reason secede from
them and join volunteer associations which would provide such a service. Some of the new volunteer communities
will also offer their own communal juridical avenue. They would apply to all those members who have made no
arrangements to have their arguments settled by one or the other arbitration court system operating in the market.

It seems largely unnecessary to talk about the usefulness and value of arbitration courts, seeing how extensively
they have already been realized and are used in private matters. Insurance companies agree upon them, they exist
within and between stock exchanges, settle race course arguments etc. etc. Often they and their principles have
been so successful that they have been coopted by governments, passing laws on them and turning them into State
Courts which remain arbitration courts and part of voluntary jurisdiction only by name.

However, there is still a sharp distinction preventing the natural growth of private arbitration courts today: In all
criminal actions and all matters which involved the so-called "public interest", as defined by bureaucrats, the
contending parties are usually forced to submit to court avenues imposed by the government or provided by it.
Since the "public interest" or "common good" has never been satisfactorily defined but, rather, wilfully left vague
and nebulous so that under the camouflage of these slogan-names one could commit almost any kind of crime,
these terms seem quite unsuitable as a basis for a machinery to promote justice.

Other legal concepts or prejudices have likewise led to the present situation where something as difficult and
sensitive as the achievement of justice has been handed over to the tender ministrations of bureaucrats applying
bureaucratic laws through bureaucratic institutions. For instance: "Special courts are not permitted." and:
"Everyone is given a "right" to his "lawful" judge.

Uniform legislation and jurisdiction is considered necessary so much so that the corresponding institutions have
been given vast monopoly powers, within a territorial State framework.

It has been widely assumed, as requiring no proof at all, that private judges would always abuse their position -
while bureaucratic ones, supposedly, would not.
One generalised the principle, taken from bitter experience, that in case of severe differences of opinion no one
should be the judge in his own case. From this does by no means follow that only the State could provide a just
The other stated or unstated assumption is that "naturally", one could not leave jurisdiction to free competition!

All objections against special courts become invalid when considering that arbitration courts or arbitrators are
agreed upon by all the parties involved, preferably long in advance.

These courts or judges will, naturally, not apply - apart from human rights principles - uniform laws but the varied
laws of the different autonomous and exterritorial personal law associations of volunteers. It should, have been
self-evident long ago that, anyhow, the uniformity of jurisdiction is much less important than the achievement of
just decisions.


Moreover, within these volunteer communities there will be more agreement and uniformity than within the
present States. Court decisions among people of the same persuasion will be much more in accordance with their
ideas of just settlements than present court decisions are in the eyes of the participants and observing citizens.

The present system of jurisdiction, centralised, monopolised, imposed, more or less practised only by a single court
with many local sub-branches, brings only the tendency towards more uniform judgements (Even this is not really
the case. Vast inconsistencies can be observed everywhere.) but definitely not the tendency to achieve closer
approximations to justice. On the contrary, due to the monopolism, centralism and coercion involved, any wrong
decision made at the highest level tends to become perpetuated for decades.

Why should private judges abuse their position more than the present public ones? They are not tied to government
policies, like their present counter-parts are, through the minister of justice and the attorney general. They would
fast lose their clients or contracts or position in case they abused whatever powers they have been temporarily
given. In some communities these judges would be subject to recall.

In most communities, where people almost unanimously agree on certain principles and practices of justice, they
would be among the foremost champions of justice and correspondingly popular.

The principle that no one should be the judge in his own case is also realized through arbitration courts. But it will
not be leading to something like the present condition, in which a judge who may be distrusted not only by one but
by all the parties involved, has nevertheless absolute jurisdiction over them. Arbitration court judges will tend to be
trusted by all participants and will also be more likely to be familiar with the affairs and special situations of the
parties involved.

The foremost experts in certain fields might then often become at least part-time and freely chosen arbitration court

What qualifications and special knowledge have most of today's judges to offer? Knowledge of the existing law, of
court procedures and of precedents is certainly not enough when not accompanied with knowledge of the present
world, its details and specialisations and knowledge of the relationships possible between free human beings.

Jurisdiction should not be left to free competition? Why not? How otherwise could one achieve either cheap or fast
or high quality jurisdiction? It is the responsibility of apologists of the present system to defend the juridical
monopoly. Those who defend liberty, even in the juridical sphere, do not have to justify themselves before the
enemies of liberty.

Would there be special military courts in future? Only if the militias would establish them. If they were established
by local militias and their judges, like their militia officers, would be elected for their special knowledge of human
rights and how to protect them, then it could happen that many citizens would, after a while, hire these courts also
to decide on their private affairs.

What other or similar advantages would arbitration courts and other competitive private courts have to offer? One
can save oneself a detailed enumeration if one has some knowledge of today's courts, their procedures and
judgements and if one realises that it is up to those who agree upon arbitration courts between themselves, to pre-
fer whatever kind of arbitration or juridical system they like.

                        Some Disadvantages of today's Monopolistic and Statist Jurisdiction

The dependence of judges upon the minister of justice and thereupon the government and its current party politics,
is already so large that one can no longer speak of a completely independent jurisdiction, at least not regarding
offences committed by our rulers themselves in contradiction to the laws they have passed or through them. Only a
small fraction of these crimes ever come to light, or soon enough, or are properly judged. On this the Protestant
Bishop of Berlin, Dibelius, remarked in his work "Grenzen des Staates" (Limits of the State, (a worthy
continuation of the famous work by Wilhelm von Humboldt), published 1949 by Furche, Tuebingen, Germany, but
not yet translated into English, as far as I know:


       "Here is a serious problem: Todays State acts as if its laws were something'high and holy, so that
       everybody has to rise when the judge enters the court and statements before a court are made under
       ceremonial oaths and yet, when it concerns the State itself and its political interests, it cold-bloodedly
       ignores the law, externally as well as internally ... One has to realize that the Law will lose its power and
       authority when those handling it ignore it even in a single point in their own interest ... The consequence is
       that the law, even in a so-called lawful State, is in exactly the same position as in a totalitarian State and
       that each juridical ruling is under the suspicion of being an enactment of political power and not an
       attempt to realize a law which stands apart from man's arbitrariness, with all the objectivity that can be
       practised. How can one counter this dissolution of moral consciousness within a nation? This can only be
       done by making jurisdiction independent of the power of the State. Such independence existed formerly in
       most countries and, in principle and as a rule it exists even today. But it must be realized under present
       conditions with much greater certainty and clarity."

As stated before, most members of the legal professions have received only a formal training although for the most
varied kinds of contests the same court avenue is prescribed. Consequently, most judges do not possess the factual
knowledge required to decide many of the cases coming before them.

One of the worst features of the present system is that most judges are either ignorant of or prejudiced against
individual human rights and trained only to apply, as accurately as possible to them, the letter of the law, no matter
how wrongful the law itself might be,

"in the manner of typical lawyers (of the profession, not of legislation) when they proceed politically. As it is not
their business to reason on the legislation itself but merely to execute the present instructions of the law, any now
existing legal situation - and, if this is changed by higher authorities, then the following - is always the best for
them and thus everything is for them in its proper mechanical order ..." - Immanuel Kant

The salutary influence of competition is missing in today's jurisdiction.

The judges have almost no influence at all upon the repeal or amendment of bad laws although they are among the
first to notice the evil effects of bad laws.

Present courts have also often too many opportunities to exclude the public precisely when it would be desirable as
a controlling factor.

The courts of many countries are also filled with judges who have one or the other totalitarian or intolerant
tendency and make correspondingly bad decisions.

Their sentences are for similar cases much too varied and often much too mild and forgiving to be just.

Sometimes they argue more about which particular courts is responsible for a certain case than about the case itself.

Corruption of judges has in some countries become so common that a half-serious proposal was made to dismiss
summarily all charges against people with an income of over $ 100,000 per year, seeing that they would hardly
ever convicted. The saying that there are two laws, one for the rich and one for the poor, is widely believed in
many countries and not altogether without reasons.

Justice is not only frequently denied but, even when it is granted, it is unnecessarily delayed and made excessively
expensive. The only ones whose interests are, as a rule, well taken care of in court proceedings, financially and
otherwise, are the lawyers and the officers of the courts. The accuser, the accused and the witnesses are the
disadvantaged ones. The agents and servants have largely become the masters.

Admittedly, there is frequently also a lot of unjustified distrust against the State's courts, even when they try to do
their best quite honestly. If the same actions were undertaken and the same decisions made, instead, by agreed
upon arbitrators, then most of this distrust would probably cease. As it is, the decision of the present courts is often
imposed and not asked for. That can make all the difference regarding its acceptance. Who would want his affairs
decided upon by appointed strangers, often more or less anonymous public servants? The only justification for this
would be necessity. There is no need to impose jurisdiction when people are able and willing to agree upon
arbitration in advance or from case to case. Arbitrators can as well or better decide upon basic rights and special


                                     Some General Rules for Arbitration Courts

Arbitrators should not be tied to the letter of a law or a contract. Instead, they should be authorised to deviate from
these texts, seeking out rather the original intentions of the law makers or contractors, as long as they make their
judgements public and state their reasons at sufficient length. The judges of the old German tribes were for a long
time not bound by the law of the land and Islamic judges were bound only by the Koran.

Sentences of arbitration courts when infringing human rights or natural rights of rational beings (i.e., not those of
convicted violent criminals etc.) are to be considered as null and void - unless they are freely accepted by all those
involved. If necessary, the militia will prevent their execution and initiate new proceedings. If any arbitrator is in
doubt on the rightfulness or usefulness of any law or contract then he should communicate his doubts to a higher
court, asking it to decide the case, and he should also publicise his doubts.

If he considers any law as wrong or senseless then he should submit repeal or amendment proposals.

(I am all too aware that the above contains only some hints towards what is wrong and what is possible, does do no
justice to the tradition of private arbitration and does not mention the great variety of private arbitration proposals
made. But I am willing to rectify this omission through special Peace Plans issues on private arbitration - if
sufficient photo-ready and non-copyrighted (for microfiche reproduction) material is submitted.

                                                  Recall of Officials

              "Don't you know with how little wisdom this world is governed?" - Axel Oxenstierna

Every election of a parliamentary representative or appointment of a public servant is a kind of authorisation by the
citizens in a democracy. Like any other authorisation, this also should be withdrawable at any time and without
having to state any reasons. This would be a minimum requirement to prevent the abuse of transferred powers and
Thus a certain number or percentage of votes should suffice for the recall of any representative, member of
parliament or civil servant. This is rendered today somewhat difficult by the fact that our democratic State system
is largely governed by political parties, whose members are under party discipline. Under this condition a by-
election would be required in every such case. Otherwise, already a small percentage of the voters could already
recall an official, a percentage which without partisan spirit might already be quite representative of the general
population but which, under the party system, would almost certainly be abused by the party in opposition against
officials of the ruling party.

To require that all voters in a district make the recall decision on an official has the drawback that the majority of
them does not know the official concerned from their own experience, had therefore no chance to form a sufficient
judgement on him and may not be sufficiently interested in his recall, either. Consequently, even where the recall
option has already been introduced, e.g. in many States of the USA, recalls are much less frequent than they should
be and many incapable, arbitrary or corrupt officials remain safe from recalls.

This situation would be changed with the introduction of the right of individuals to secede. The social structures
then arising or remaining would essentially consist only among people with common convictions or beliefs. Then
no difficulties would arise if already a relatively small number of the members would suffice to recall an official.
(Court proceedings for crimes committed while in office will also become usual in such communities - and
precisely for this reason such offences will become relatively rare in them.)
In order to avoid the trouble of new elections, which might become due after too many recalls took place, it has
been suggested that already when someone is appointed or elected to office, a stand-by official should be appointed
or elected at the same time. This reserve man should get the office of the recalled position and would, in the


meantime, act as a self-interested watchdog who could also and by himself initiate recall proceedings.

Soldiers of the present armed forces and members of the future militias, as well as policemen and other public
servants, should also have a right to recall their superiors - at least in certain cases to be defined. As long as
universities are still run and financed as at present, the students should also have the right to recall inferior
lecturers. (Under a free market system they could hire or fire them anyhow - simply by either paying their fees and
attending or by transferring their custom to others.)

                                                    Police Forces

As long as there will be crime after the introduction of these and related reforms (How much their number would
be reduced was indicated in PEACE PLANS No. 15, plan 241.), some police forces will be required to counteract
them to some extent. Freedom for self-help measures would go a long way but would not make professional crime
fighters altogether superfluous.

It is also true that the militia forces will take over some of the rightful functions so far carried out (or ignored) by
the police, like e.g., the protection of freedom of assembly and the protection of property during riots. But, most
likely, many other cases will remain, which should be dealt with by specialists, by hired professionals and their
supporting organizations.

Consequently, some exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers will set-up their own police forces,
like the Foreign Concessions did, for instance, in China, under the extraterritoriality treaties. (These were, alas,
more often than not unequal rather than equal rights treaties. If they had granted equal exterritorial rights to
Chinese people in foreign countries, then they would not have become as unpopular as they did. However, at the
same time all the prejudices of territorial nationalism did also become popular in China.).

Others will prefer to cope without official police forces and let their members hire whatever protective agency
services they require, on the free market. Naturally, they would lay no obstacles in the way of protective and just
actions of agencies like Scotland Yard and the Pinkertons.

Other communities will insist that all of their members join one or the other insurance company which would, with
part of the premiums paid, maintain sufficient police forces.

Abuses of such freedom by these competing police forces would be rather rare.

Their functions would be rather limited. Their funds would depend on fees from or contracts with satisfied
customers. They themselves could be sued and punished for wrongful actions. Militia forces would form a
counterbalance and safety valve. They would, most likely, all be sworn in to defend human rights. Their customers
would be much more aware of their rights and much more jealous of them - and would often also be armed and
organised. Most important of all, by means of individual secessionism, any kind of police State could be deflated.

                                                  Penal Institutions
The State is not necessary to pass laws, to administer them, to judge adherence to them or to police them. Neither is
it necessary for the execution of penal sentences by private and competing courts, no more so than a world state is
necessary today to carry out sentences for crimes committed by criminals who have crossed a national border.
Referrals to penal institutions will be part of the arbitration system hinted at above. Few of the new and competing
penal institutions will be as charitably subsidised at the expense of crime victims and the general tax payers as the
present State institutions are. As a rule they will have to pay their way. Today prisoners are, as a rule, not permitted
to do productive work, due to union opposition, particularly in times of unemployment (inevitably following the
government's economic interventionism) and even if this opposition disappeared, public servants, as public
servants, are rarely able to organise the work of convicts in a truly profitable way, nor have they any incentive to
try to do so. Thus prisoners receive only a pocket money and work correspondingly little.

If prisons were run as productive cooperatives by prison officers alone, then, human nature being what it is, the
inmates might in many cases be exploited like slaves.


Some form of control by the public would be required - a control which would not threaten with another
bureaucratic mismanagement. This could be organised through the economic and legal form of open cooperatives
according to Theodor Hertzka's model. Interested members of the public could join them, at least as voting
members, to prevent abuses.

Some of the obvious deductions which should be made from the earnings of convicts are the following:

a) Their own support and that of their guards and the prison administration.
b) Support for inmates incapable to work.
c) Maintenance for their dependents.
d) Instalments towards their indemnification obligation. (Here the principle of collective responsibility for all crime
   damages can to some extent be rightfully applied to all convicted criminals - rather than tacitly to all crime
   victims and taxpayers, as happens now.)
e) Some forced savings for the time after their discharge.

What would remain would be a pocket money and incentive payments from which they could pay for some small
luxuries - after they have paid their weekly debt instalments.

Only few occupations should be closed to them, e.g. the manufacture of weapons, explosives and poisons.

Workshy types could be forced by certain disciplinary measures to pay at least their monetary debts to society out
of the proceeds from their work. They could give in to their work-shyness only with regard to their little luxuries -
if they want to do without them. Part of this discipline could be a self-imposed one, resulting from properly
organized group work in which the group as such is rewarded for work and in which it is up to the group to see that
its members pull their weight. Another kind of non-violent but very effective disciplinary measure would be to cut
off every service now normally offered free of charge, including even water and sewage service. Prisoners, who
otherwise could continue a passive resistance and hunger strike for weeks, would give-in within days when such
means are used to induce self-responsible behaviour, meaning here: self-supportive work and work to pay off their
If they are unwilling to pay for themselves, their dependants and their victims, why should anyone else be willing
to pay for them any expenditure?
Humanitarians, who would protest should be invited to take over the full costs of supporting such prisoners, their
dependants and of the indemnification of their victims. I doubt that their "humanitarianism", which appears only to
extend to the offenders, not to their victims, would last long under such circumstances.

This subject is discussed at considerable length in Peace Plans 13 and 14 and will receive a full length treatment in
a future Peace Plans issue.


From the above follows that the State is not required to protect human rights and the natural rights of rational
beings. On the contrary, towards most other States and their citizens it continuously offends against these rights
and also against most of the minorities within its territory. Thus, I hold, one can no longer argue that we have to
retain governments and the danger of war and despotism which they bring with them just because we would need
them for the protection of rights within the territory of the State. The territorial State is, even in this respect, an
outdated, wrongful and severely flawed institution, one which should be replaced by protective organizations of the
above described kind.


                                                   PART ONE

                                             B) INSTITUTIONS

                                                  SECTION IV

                              "The mistake whereby men sin most of all is
                              to be satisfied with general views and not to try
                              to form a clear judgement on all things
                              for which one is somewhat responsible."
                              - King Frederic II: Ueber die Maersche einer Armee
                              (On the Marches of an Army)

                                              MAIN SUBDIVISIONS

1. Private Banks of Issue which Issue Goods Warrants etc., instead of the Banknotes of the Old Kind

2. Paper Money without Legal Tender but with Tax Foundation

3. Gold Clearing Currency within a Free Market for Gold and other Metals which Can Serve as Standard of Value
   and as Means of Payment

4. Free Trade System, Introduced by Free Ports and Free Trade Zones

5. Productive Cooperatives

6. Open Cooperatives according to Theodor Hertzka, to Abolish the Monopoly Position of those Natural
   Monopolies which Do not Deserve Recognition

7. Free and Private Building and Housing Market

8. Private Social Insurance Corporations

9. Free and Private Exchanges

10. Voluntary Taxation

11. Unemployment "Insurance"

12. Employment Agencies

13. Private and Competitive Transport Services

14. Private and Competitive Energy Supply
15. Private Postal Services

16. Private Water Works

17. Private Garbage Removal

18. Local Federations of Exterritorial and Autonomous Communities

19. Summary of Section IV



Cardinal Richelieu wrote in his testament:

                   "If the people were wealthy they could not be easily kept within legal limits."

In other words: The more a person becomes a proprietor, the less he remains the property or subject of someone

Once the here proposed economic reforms are realized in the Soviet Union and in Red China, then such an
economic well-being would result that the communists could no longer remain in the saddle. The communist
regimes will have to imitate these radical economic reforms, which should be demonstrated first by the West, if
they do not want to fall too far behind, even militarily, due to their backwards economic development.

Moreover, this kind of free economic relations without any exploitation, practically demonstrated on a large scale,
will achieve what the communists only promised and will deprive them of their ideological base and opportunities
for propaganda. In peace time we would then welcome millions of refugees who would help us to increase our
wealth by a further division of labour and in wartime we could offer all deserters from the communist regime's
conscript armies : personal freedom, well paid jobs and also the same freedom and well-being for their native
country once the war is over. Thus they would act towards us rather as friends and allies than as enemies. More on
this in Sections V and VI.

      Private Banks of Issue which Issue Goods Warrants etc. instead of the Banknotes of the Old Kind

                   "The stocks in stores and shops are the true working capital of any country."
                                                                                            - Ulrich von Beckerath

                                         1/1 Definition of Goods Warrants

Under goods warrant is here not understood a certified claim to a certain product but. instead, a typified and
standardised certificate, in money denominations, which offers the option to buy with it goods and services, up to
its stated value, in one or an association of retail shops.

                                          1/2 Purpose of Goods Warrants

They are a means of payment for all those who are not sufficiently supplied with means of exchange by the present
central note-issuing banks. They are to help end mass unemployment, emergency sales prices, deflated wages and

They are to make workers and employers independent of the banks and of the money and currency policy of

Whosoever employs them intelligently does not have to be afraid any longer of a monetary crisis, of usury or the
bailiff (in case his business is fundamentally sound).
Then, in effect, the debtor will pay with his services while the creditor is put into the same position as if he had
been paid in the currency of the country.

They are to facilitate the sale of all goods and all services, including labour. To the same extent that the members
of an issue and payment community circulate their goods & services warrants, they do supply themselves
automatically with sales for their goods and orders for their labour. It is much easier to circulate such warrants than
to sell one's goods or labour for a monopolised currency kept in short supply. (Such currencies are in short supply
even when inflated. Extreme instance: stagflation.)

Thus the goods warrant system means an end to the struggle for sales, markets and jobs and does, quite by the way,
save a great deal of today's costs of advertising goods, services and labour.


Among other things, the issue of goods warrants will make it possible to finance revolutions of the suppressed
peoples and would permit to integrate, within 24 hours, millions of deserters from the Russian and Chinese armed
forces, as free labourers or cooperators in the process of production. Thereby it could either prevent or cut short
World War III.

                             1/3 General Notes on the Foundation of Means of Payment

"Means of payment, in order to be able to circulate without resistance, must either embody a generally desired
value in themselves or must be subject to compulsory acceptance at their nominal value in at least one place. This
location must be within easy reach of the holder of the certificate. It must, furthermore, be prepared, at any time
(within shopping hours) to sell goods or services in return for the certificates. These must either be consumer goods
daily required or must form, together with the goods or services offered by the other acceptors of the goods
warrants, a total offer that in size and composition corresponds to the law of large numbers and averages. Thus, for
instances, the services of a lawyer must also be offered for the redemption of goods warrants (or they can serve in
this way) although they are, strictly speaking, not consumer goods in daily demand by everybody. But, according
to the law of large numbers, among a large number of bearers of goods warrants, there are certainly also some to be
found who need the services of lawyers." - Ulrich von Beckerath

State paper money does not form an exception to this rule. It possesses tax foundation, i.e. one can pay taxes with it
or, otherwise expressed, one can buy tax-receipts with them. (Something that is, unfortunately, in our society a
valuable possession, for what is likely to happen to you if you do not cover yourself in this way?)

                               1/4 Shop-, Debt - and Acceptance Foundation as cover
                                      - instead of a Metallic Redemption Fund

"Warehouses and retail stores are, apart from other reasons, very suitable for making a beginning with the issue of
goods warrants, because their stocks are, indeed, in every country, the true working capital. Every banknote, even
when issued by a central note-issuing bank with a very large gold reserve, would suffer an immediate discount if
department stores and shops would no longer accept such banknotes. Truly, under present conditions, banknotes
are to be considered as no more than assignments to the stocks in the shops. Every goods warrant system must take
this fact into consideration and every issuing centre for goods warrants must come to some or the other agreement
with warehouses, department stores and retail shops." - Ulrich von Beckerath

All members and debtors of the bank of associated retailers, especially the individual shops and employers, must
oblige themselves to accept the goods warrants from everybody, any time, in any amount, in all payments which
are due to them, in the same way as they would accept cash, i.e. at the same nominal or face value. There-upon,
many other persons and enterprises, especially the debtors of those listed above, will also and voluntarily declare
themselves prepared to accept the goods warrants.

This readiness to accept of the issuer and his debtors, based on their obligations and their own advantage, will
replace the redemption fund. The readiness to accept the goods warrants in shops means that instead of a
redemption fund of rare metal coins, the required consumer goods themselves and directly are made available for
these certificates, no matter when and by whom they are presented.
Since each shop requires a certain time for the turnover of its stocks and because the goods warrants of each issue
shall circulate only for a relatively short period, loans in goods warrants, based on the stocks ready for sale in the
shops, shall initially be granted at most in amounts equivalent to half of the value of the stocks in the stores. The
slower the turnover of particular shops is, the lower should be the percentage of the total value of the stocks which
is to be recognized as a cover for the issue of goods warrants.

For the issuing centre itself, the cover for the goods warrants it has lent out, consists in short-term claims against its
debtors, especially against the shops and manufacturers (employers).


The individual retail shop's readiness to accept the goods warrants of the bank of his association of retailers, must
go beyond the amount of his own indebtedness to the bank - for the bank, in the interest of all its members, i.e. to
promote their sales, will grant short-term wage-payment credits to employers, credits which are lastly based on the
stocks in the associated shops. As a cooperative member of the associated retailer's bank of issue, he will have an
influence on the granting of such credits. Whatever "surplus" of goods warrants he receives in this way, i.e., the
amounts he does not have to use to repay his debts to this bank, he will have to use to restock his store. He could do
this directly by purchases from his wholesalers but will, in practice and mostly, simply establish a current account
with these goods warrants at this bank of associated retailers. Then he can draw cheques against his credit thus
established and pay his wholesalers with them. The wholesaler in this process will present the cheque to the
retailer's bank for clearing against the claim of an employer against him (his own IOU, for instance, which he used
to pay for a delivery of goods from that employer). This claim of the employer will usually be the kind of security
upon which the shop association bank has originally granted a wage payment credit. With its clearing against the
cheque of the wholesaler (which represents returned goods warrants), the circulation is closed. More on this will be
said in later sections and can be found in PEACE PLANS Nos. 9-11. The circuits and possible circulation channels
of goods warrants are perhaps best graphically demonstrated - as was done in PEACE PLANS No. 41.

                                        1/5 Currency Unit (Standard of Value)

Until a free market for gold and other rare metals is established - which would allow to price out all goods and
services in gold weight units, the goods warrants will merely express the currency units of the country in which
they are issued. But they will in no way promise a redemption in such units.

After freedom in the choice of value standards is also introduced and made practical, e.g., by a free market for gold
coins and bullion and for other rare metals, the goods warrants will express their value e.g., in weight units of fine
gold. The corresponding part of the goods warrants texts would then run somewhat like this:

                       "This goods warrant is accepted by the shop association .......
                       like 5 grams of fine gold (in a typified and certified gold coin form)
                       if it is offered in any purchase as a means of payment."

                      1/6 Gold Market, Gold Coin Circulation and Discount of Goods Warrants

The circulation of gold pieces will not be prohibited at all. On the contrary, completely free transactions with gold
are essential for the proper functioning of the goods warrants system. The more gold coins circulate the easier will
the goods warrants (private notes, purchasing orders, claims, clearing notes, token money, scrip, transport tickets,
or whatever one may call them) suffer a discount - whenever the least mistake is made in their issue. This rapid
indication of failure is, like pain in the body or a rise in body temperature, an essential indication for the
maintenance of a healthy circulation of private exchange media.

The media will be sound and widely accepted only if they are issued so well that they circulate at par with their
nominal value. Wrong issues must be temporarily stopped or altogether fail as soon as possible. Good money must
be free to drive out the bad.

                                 1/7 Goods Warrants Must not Possess Legal Tender
                               "Legal tender is an especially low type of despotism."
                                                                    - Ulrich von Beckerath.
The goods warrants shall not be subject to a general compulsory acceptance or to a forced value. (Both, in
combination, constitute what has been understated as "legal tender".) Only the issuer and his debtors must accept
them at any time at their nominal value. Thus, in the general market, the goods warrants may be freely offered,


accepted or refused, they may stand at par with their nominal gold weight value, circulate even at a premium or
suffer a discount (and be consequently accepted only by a few, if anyone - apart from the issuer and his debtors).

Thus an over-issue which would lead to a general price increase, i.e. an inflation, cannot be caused by these
certificates. It is impossible to put exchange media without legal tender into circulation in excessive quantities
because a discount would form very rapidly and they would consequently, become immediately and widely refused
or correspondingly discounted in general circulation. Thus, without legal tender one cannot inflate a currency, even
with the worst intentions. (The worst intentions are indicated by the insistence upon the continuance of legal tender
- under all kinds of superficial pretences. For a more thorough but not yet comprehensive discussion of Legal
Tender see PEACE PLANS No. 19A.)

On those who cannot imagine any other money than legal tender paper money, Karl Marx remarked, in his "Kritik
der politischen Oekonomie" (Critique of Political Economy), which was first published in 1859 and which Marx
called, in 1858, the fruit of 15 years of economic studies:

       "... observers who studied the phenomena of money circulation exclusively on the examples of the
       circulation of legal tender paper money, had to overlook the inherent laws of monetary circulation."
       From page 129 of the Dietz, Berlin, 1951 edition. A similar passage can be found on p. 184 of this edition.

(Let's give even "the Devil his due"! Even Marx was not always wrong in all his observations, however flawed his
ideology & proposals are as a whole. - J.Z., 10.12.02.)

                          1/8 Limited Validity or Circulation Period of the Goods Warrants

Goods warrants should possess only a limited circulation period of about 3 months during which their value would
remain unchanged.

This would assure the reflux of these certificates to the issuing centre and would thus prevent the hoarding of this
kind of paper money much more effectively than could be achieved e.g. by the weekly affixation of stamps as
suggested by the money reformer Silvio Gesell. No additional administrative labour would be required as it would
be just a time limit compared to that of the statute of limitations.

The limited validity of these goods warrants would correspond to the limited durability of the goods and services
that are ready for sale. A clearly recognisable impression on each certificate must point out the end of this period.

Under normal circumstances almost all certificates will have returned to the issuing centre long before this period
has expired

Nevertheless, one has to decide what should happen with the few goods warrants which have not returned to the
issuing centre within the prescribed period. (This does naturally not refer to those kept by collectors.) Various shop
association banks will have different rulings on this:

a) One possibility would be to declare these certificates as completely invalid, like forfeited theatre tickets, railway
tickets or postage stamps and to altogether refuse their acceptance.

b) Alternatively, the issuing centre could accept such certificates still - with a discount. Thereupon even the shops
might still accept these notes at their nominal value - but only in payment for otherwise hard to sell goods.
Otherwise, the shops might also accept these notes only at a discount, letting the bearer suffer the loss, or they
would refer him to the issuing centre. The issuing centre then might exchange these warrants, at a discount, against
those amounts of other cash which it received from the shops in amortisation of the shops' debts, in place of the
goods warrants which were returned too late. If a discount is offered, it could be further increased after more time
has elapsed, to provide a further incentive to return the certificates before they become altogether valueless.

c) Another option would be the establishment of a credit with such certificates over which the holders could
dispose only at the discretion of the shops or banks granting this account.

d) Overdue certificates might also be considered as acceptable for the establishment of long-term deposits.

e) One exception in which the issuing centre should still accept these invalid certificates at their nominal value
would be the payment of old debts, which were due before the goods warrants became invalid. Overdue debts of
third parties could also be paid in this way. Thereupon, after fees are deducted, the claim of the bank against such
debtors would be transferred to the one who paid in the overdue certificates.


From time to time the issuing centres would make announcements on the disposal of such certificates.

The debtors of the issuing centre must also be obliged to immediately cancel the goods warrants, clearing
certificates etc. they receive, either in the presence of the one who makes the payment to them or as soon as they
have received the payment, e.g. by mail. Moreover, they have to use these cancelled certificates as soon as
practicable for the repayment of their debt to the issuing centre.

The same applies to any amounts of these certificates which go beyond the sum of their debts. The customers are
not aware whether they are still debtors or not and have an interest to see these notes withdrawn from circulation
and replaced only by new, separately founded and sound issues. The storekeepers do not lose anything thereby.
They can still acquire an account credit with these certificates as the issuing centre. (This would, naturally, also
help to withdraw certificates which come closer to their expiry date.)

The issuing centre will not return the goods warrants received during a business day into general circulation - apart
from the issue of small change by the cashiers. Instead, the issuing centre will destroy the goods warrants received
during a day's business on the next day of business, at the latest, after registering the numbers of the certificates
returned, and will include these returns in its published reports.

By means of this procedure, one remains fully aware of any still circulating certificates. The printing costs are
minimal. The number check can now be computerised with reading pencils and other automatic gadgets. By ending
the "circulation" or rather "oscillation" of the goods warrants at this stage - and replacing them only by new issues
in new credits - one achieves that the goods warrants are usually returned long before their expiry date and that
thus all payment transactions tend to be conducted with goods warrants valid still for a number of weeks.

(To keep a similar control over its issues - as far as this can be done by a central bank, the Bank of England still
cancels and destroys the notes returned to it. - Information supplied by Ulrich von Beckerath in the fifties. Whether
this still applies now, I do not know. - J.Z., 10.02.02.)

                           1/9 Repeal of the Legal Claim of Creditors to Payment in Cash

The issuing centre as creditor and its creditors, those who established an account credit at the issuing centre with
goods warrants, must renounce any legal claim they may have to payment in cash (State coins or State paper
money or even private gold or other rare metal coins). Instead, they will receive a claim to clearing, of the same
value, a claim to be realized in most instances not by such cash payments but by payment in goods warrants and
clearing certificates.
The promise to pay one's debt, after a certain period is expired, in a particular means of exchange, that is to be
provided by others and thus not easily obtainable for anyone at any time up to the required amounts, is in reality a
speculative dealing in futures, an empty sale of cash at a future date, a forward transaction or time bargain.
This kind of business is in almost all countries either prohibited or very restricted, because of its associated risk, the
likelihood that frequently such contracts cannot be fulfilled, or it is only permitted when "hedging" takes place or a
premium is agreed upon in case one of the parties wants to with-draw from such a contract.
This risk is presently disregarded with regard to cash transactions and this can have the most serious consequences
during monetary crises. For that reason, the goods warrants must not promise a redemption in cash or rare metal
upon demand or even, as with the old Scottish Banknotes, after the expiry of an optional period.
(A further discussion of this question can be found in the 3 books by Ulrich von Beckerath reprinted in Peace Plans
Nos. 9-11.)

                            1/10 Text of Goods Warrants, Denomination and Typification

A corresponding inscription must exclude any uncertainty on the kind and value of the goods and services
promised through the goods warrants. To simplify matters, only one example of a goods warrant text is given in the
following. Many other wordings are possible. But the essential points are contained in this text:
       5                                                                              5
       The issuer of this goods warrant, the ................. cooperative ....…….
       accepts this goods warrant like cash, at its nominal value (5 g gold),
       independent of any discount it may have on the market,
       whenever anyone purchases goods or services from it or pays debts to it.
       The same applies to its debtors.
       Debtors contractually obliged to accept these goods warrants at par
       and other voluntary acceptors are the following: ..................................
       THIS GOODS WARRANT EXPIRES ON: …..............
       From this date on the goods warrant is forfeited. The issuing centre will,
       from time to time, announce whether and how any forfeited goods warrants
       could still be utilised.
       A complete listing of all those obliged to accept these certificates can
       be obtained from the issuing centre and the above named enterprises.
       5                                                                             5

       5                                                                             5
       Anyone but the issuer and his debtors may freely refuse to accept these
       certificates or accept them only at a discount. They are not legal tender,
       i.e., they are not subject to compulsory acceptance in general
       circulation nor do they have any forced value in general circulation.
       The free market rates for these certificates are announced daily by: ….....
       Date of issue : ............ No. of this certificate ..........
       Total of the certificates issued on that day: .......…….
       Total of outstanding goods warrants during the last bank balance on:
       Total of the cover available at this time in form of goods and services
       in daily demand : ............
       Total of the short-term claims given as security to the issuing centre:
       Name and Address of the issuer ......……………………………………..
       Signatures ........……….                          Certification ………………..
       5                                                                               5
The print will cover both sides. Some of the text could be done in small print, other features should be stressed.
The certificates should be made out in money denominations, typified and standardised, but colour, layout,
impressions and even size should clearly distinguish them from the government's paper money.

The stocks in the stores cannot be exactly determined every day or for every day of issue. The same applies to the
total of the outstanding notes. The amounts and values involved vary continuously. Thus these balances are only to
be published periodically.

                                         1/11 Limits of Goods Warrants Issues
For monopolistic and coercive means of exchange (forced currency) there is no useful measure to determine
whether too many or too few were issued. Thus any economy in which a monopoly for the issue of standardised
money tokens exists and in which the notes issued are legal tender, will continuously fluctuate between inflation
and deflation. Moreover, even in the middle of a galloping inflation will such a currency also reveal deflationary

The exact measure for the proper amount to be issued of exchange media without legal tender is very simple: It
consists in the free market rate of these exchange-media. As soon as a few goods warrants too many were issued, a
small discount will appear on the market, first of all in the wholesale trade and in money exchange centres. The
least discount would be very rapidly publicised and it would lead to a wide-spread discount and refusal of these
goods warrants. Only the debtors of the issuing centre would still like to accept these warrants then - as they could
immediately pass them on to the issuing centre at their nominal value.


If the issuing centre were to continue with the issue of its certificates, while a discount exists, then it could do so
only if it is prepared to suffer a certain loss - a rather unlikely case: While issuing the certificates at a discount, it
would have to accept them immediately from all its debtors - who in their own interest would somehow acquire the
certificates - in the payment, even advance payment of their debts, at par. If it would have no debtors left who are
willing to accept discounted certificates then not only wide-spread but general refusal to accept its certificates
would result and bring further issues to a stop. Moreover, this might make future issues difficult to impossible for
this issuer.

Thus the self-interest of the issuing centre will prevent over-issues.

                                           1/12 Discount of Goods Warrants

The possibility of a discount is all essential for the functioning of the goods warrants system. Every discount
happening, published or heard about will bring these certificates where they belong: to the debtors (shops and
manufacturers), and from there to the issuing centre where they finally disappear from the circulation. What would
happen if the goods warrants received at some places a discount, before their cover (shop- and debt-foundation )
would be exceeded? Would this lead to a loss of confidence? Would a 'run" on the shops and the issuing centre
result? Would the system collapse because of this?

This discount would disappear automatically after a short time because

a) the debtors of the issuing centre would continue to accept the certificates at their nominal value and pay their
debts with them,

b) wage earners would bring the certificates into the shops, in payment for whatever goods and services they want,
at their nominal value, and would thereby get rid of these certificates and their distrust and

c) the issuing centre would buy up, at par, goods warrants which are elsewhere discounted and would use for this
purpose other means of payment it has received.

The only ones who would be disadvantaged by such occurrences would be those who, out of ignorance, had
accepted the certificates at par but then passed them on only at a discount. One might even say that these people
would have deserved their loss and that, monetarily, they would have to grow up still. In future they would either
refuse such certificates outright - if there are any difficulties in passing them on. Alternatively, they would accept
them only with a corresponding discount, or, fully informed on all utilisation options for the goods warrants, they
would accept and pass them on at par.

                                             1/13 Use of Goods Warrants

The commercial and everyday use of the goods warrants, clearing certificates etc. would be the same as with cash
today or with ordinary sound commercial bills. Employees would often hardly notice the difference as they could
purchase with the goods warrants as if they had received cash. Employers, especially manufacturers and
wholesalers, would accept private bills "for clearing only", after a short experience with them, probably with less
hesitation than they would accept today's bills promising cash redemption, seeing that the clearing bills would
eliminate the risk involved in the cash promises.

                                                    1/14 Forgeries

The goods warrants system offers no incentive to forgers. The time frame for circulating forged notes is as a rule to
short - seeing the short circulation period of the goods warrants. Moreover, the circulation area (area where they
are readily accepted in general circulation, as local currency) is for each of the many issuing centres to be expected,
so limited, compared with today's national issues, that any large issue of forged notes within this limited area
would very soon encounter suspicion and those who would attempt to pass the forged notes would also be much
easier to identify.

(The accountant of a large Australian department store which issues shop currency for consumer credit purposes -
more on this in a future PEACE PLANS issue - told me once that he never encountered or heard of a case of such
notes being forged. Mostly these notes are returned within a few days to the store.)


                                             1/15 The Granting of Loans

The goods warrants etc. will be issued as loans and will serve as means to repay the loans. The demand of debtors
for these certificates will give them a sufficient reflux.

It is not always advisable to hand over the goods warrants to the borrower himself. This is only required when
goods warrants are e.g. borrowed by a manufacturer for the purpose of wage payments. More often it would be
safer to hand over the goods warrants only to the creditors of the borrower. The danger of the abuse of a loan
would thereby be diminished. Thus, if a member receives a loan from such an issuing centre, he will, as a rule, not
receive this amount in cash (in goods warrants) but will be credited with the corresponding amount. He will hand
his bills in to the issuing centre which will take over their payment from this account credit.

Loans will be granted to persons or firms that have received services or deliveries, want to pay for these, but cannot
do so immediately through cash payments (or account transfers), e.g. to retailers who have purchased stocks of

Another option would be to give those persons advances in goods warrants who have already sold goods but are
still waiting for payment, e.g. employers who have sold their products to wholesalers or wholesalers who have
made sales to retailers.

Formally, the loan will be granted in either of the following two forms: As a loan on or as a purchase of short term
claims, of employers against wholesalers - if it is a loan to employers.

The shopkeepers will receive goods warrants loans against the obligation to accept the goods warrants without
limits, like cash, to cancel them and use them for repayments of their debt or for the establishment of account

Wholesalers would receive goods warrants loans only in return for short-term claims which they possess against

There will always either be a loan on such short term securities or an outright purchase of such securities - both,
naturally, with a discount as a service charge and to cover any risks involved.

                                        1/16 The Circuit of Goods Warrants

The shopkeeper will pay for his purchases from wholesalers either with the goods warrants or with a draft upon the
account credit given to him by the issuing centre of the shop association. The wholesaler uses these means of
payment to pay for his purchases from the manufacturers. The manufacturers redeem the cheques received at the
issuing centre, the bank of the shop association and receive goods warrants in redemption. With these they pay
their labourers and employees. These, in turn, purchase whatever they require, with these means in the various
shops and thereby enable to shopkeepers to repay their loans.

The employer can discount a commercial bill he received from a wholesaler at the bank of the shop association
(which issues the goods warrants) and then pay his workers with the goods warrants thus received. From the
workers these goods warrants flow back into the shops, from there to the wholesalers who are then enabled to
redeem their own commercial bills, which the shop association bank will present to them.

Quite obviously, this kind of circuit, wherever it begins and whatever route it takes, provides the shops, the
wholesalers and the manufacturers with sales, the manufacturers with means to pay wages and the workers with
paid labour.

                                                 1/17 Loans on Claims

Even if the shop association bank merely grants a loan on claims of an employer and does not purchase them
outright, the agreement on this will have to give the shop association bank the authority to dispose of the claims as
if they had been purchased. For instance : If the shop association bank utilises a clearing bill of textile
manufacturer X to purchase from him a quantity of textiles, upon the order of an associated shop, then the
manufacturer is to be credited with this amount, his debt is to be correspondingly reduced, he will no longer have
to redeem this particular security in the end - because he has already done so, with his services, in advance. Neither
will any of the intermediate other holders have to handle this bill again.


The form of a loan instead of a purchase would increase the security for the Shop Association Bank. If, for
instance, among the clearing bills given as security by an employer to the shop association bank, there happens to
be a bad one, then, in case the bank has only made a loan against it as security, the employer is immediately
responsible for it. In the other case, when it has purchased the bills, it would itself have to bear the risk (or at least
part of the risk as one of the acceptors). Once the shop association bank has settled down to its business, then it
may only purchase clearing bills instead of merely granting goods warrants loans on them. It would thereby
simplify its accounting procedures.

                         1/18 Claims which Can Be Discounted or Serve as Basis for Loans

The goods warrant system is also to prevent the hoarding of goods warrants. To achieve this, the claims acquired
during their issue (whether by purchase with the goods warrants or merely as securities for the loan of goods
warrants) must all be short-term clearing bills or equivalent short term clearing certificates. Only thus could a
continuous demand for the goods warrants be established, one which would assure their reflux. The debtor
expressed in these clearing bills must be a firm which either produces or has in stock goods which are in daily
demand. Among these items must be food. Thus, as such debtors the following would be suitable: storekeepers,
farmers, mills, bakers, bread factories, canneries and corresponding wholesalers. To obtain such bills is no problem
but merely a task which any bank could easily solve.

If anyone who wants to borrow goods warrants cannot supply securities which can be used any time or at least
within a short time, then some guarantor must do it for him. Such guarantors could demand a fee for this service.

                             1/19 Condition for Loans: No Extraordinary Price Increases

Shopkeepers who have borrowed goods warrants or whose stocks serve as cover for goods warrants, must not
increase their prices beyond price movements of the general market - as long as their loan runs or as long as they
are members of the Shop Association Bank. Otherwise their whole debt to the shop association bank would fall due
immediately. Thus they may not require a higher price when payment is made in goods warrants or offer only
inferior products for them. They may not even ask a prospective customer, before a purchase and its price is agreed
upon, whether they would like to buy with cash or goods warrants. In most instances, and in their own interest, as
cooperative owners of the shop association bank, they would avoid such practices.

                                          1/20 Maximum Amount for Credits
To reduce the risk of issuing such credits, the shop association bank should never grant a single firm more than
10% of the total of its currently issued goods warrants.

                                                 1/21 Business Area

Such credits in goods warrants will only be granted to traders and manufacturers within a radius of 25 km around
the issuing centre. Thus the shop association bank could at any time easily check the credit worthiness of the
applicants and their use of the credits. Most of the goods warrants issues would thus tend to become local

                                       1/22 Fee for the Use of Goods Warrants

The debtors should be charged such a high fee for the use of the goods warrants that they have a sufficiently strong
interest to repay their loans as soon as possible. As a cooperative the issuing centre would from time to time
distribute the income derived from such fees - less administrative, insurance and reserve amounts - among those
debtors who have not fallen behind in their payments. Thereby the fees for all those repaying their loans punctually
will be reduced to the administrative costs and those of the risks involved. These costs are, as has been shown by
Proudhon, Gesell and many other money reformers, relatively small or large only in relation to very small loans.
This distribution could take place according to the principles for the distribution of dividends in cooperative
insurance companies.


Only for mortgage and other long-term loans are high interest rates often hard to bear. (Many American building
and loan associations - which between them financed a large percentage of all homes in the US - demanded and
received, even under a stable currency, 9 % interest for their building loans and could, consequently, pay their
savers 7-8% interest. Thus, in some cases, even as high and even higher interest rates are not too high.) The goods
warrants system is primarily designed to overcome monetary crises and to normalise all monetary transactions by
the granting of short term credits in form of goods warrants and other clearing certificates. Only here could interest
rates be greatly and directly reduced, as above indicated, while still fully utilising them as part of the price

If a borrower should fall behind with his contractual obligations towards the issuing centre then he should not only
have to pay the usual fees but also interest on the outstanding amounts.

To simplify matters, the user fees are to be determined in fractions of the initial loan amounts regardless of the
continuing amortisation, i.e. in flat-rate interest rates.

                                          1/23 Repayment and Cancellation

Every goods warrant received by the debtors of the issuing centre is to be cancelled and returned to the issuing
centre. If and to the extent that the debtors debt is not yet due or his receipts exceed his debts, the debtor will be
credited for the goods warrants on an account at the issuing centre and he could immediately dispose over such
funds by cheque.

                               1/24 Repayment with Clearing Bills Issued by Oneself

If a debtor, through no fault of his own, is unable to repay his debt with goods warrants or cash, then the issuing
centre will be satisfied with receiving from him clearing bills, e.g. for a debt of $ 100.00 about 15 clearing bills for
$ 10 each. These clearing bills would have to be accepted by the debtor, whenever they are presented to him in
payment, i.e. he would have to redeem them with his own goods or services as if they were goods warrants or cash.

                     1/25 Debt Foundation as Guaranty for the Reflux of Goods Warrants etc.

When the goods warrants are issued, then they derive their value from their shop foundation. When they stream
back to the issuing centre, then they are valuable through their short-term debt foundation. (Naturally, the shop
foundation is also a kind of debt foundation.) The debtors of the issuing bank express a continuous demand for
these certificates. They are all the time repaying the certificates received to the issuing centre.
Should anywhere in the circulation a discount arise of the goods warrants, due to an undervaluation, then the
debtors of the bank would acquire these for them cheap certificates through cash purchases and would immediately
utilise them to reduce their debt. The discount would then be a pure profit for these debtors. (Naturally, they are
only obliged to accept these certificates at their nominal value in the sale of their goods and services, not when they
purchase them for cash. Other debtors would simply advertise, to increase their sales: We still accept goods
warrants which are reported at a discount, in all our shops at their full nominal value, or even at a small premium!
(They might do the latter out of the profit margin expected from additional sales.)

                       1/26 Surcharge in Cases of Repayment with other Means of Exchange

To assure the reflux of the goods warrants and to increase the demand for them, the issuing centre might reserve
the right to charge a small fee if debtors pay back their debts to it not in goods warrants but with other means of

                             1/27 Reflux by Means of the Purchase of Goods Warrants

All other means of payment received by the issuing centre are to be utilised to purchase goods warrants of the
issuing centre on the open market. This would also help to keep them at par with their nominal value.


                                             1/28 Time Limit for Loans

The shop association bank will, as a rule, grant only short-term loans, The maximum period of these loans is 3
months. In particular cases shorter periods will be determined - in relation to the average turn-over periods of the
enterprises desiring the loans.

                                           1/29 Repayment in Instalments

The borrowers must oblige themselves to repay their loans in weekly instalments amounting to at least 1/4 to
1/12th of the loan.

                                       1/30 Legal Form of the Issuing Centre

It appears most sensible to establish the shop association bank as a cooperative of its lenders and borrowers, i.e.
especially of the storekeepers, wholesalers and manufacturers. The cooperative shares would not have to be paid in
in cash but could be paid in bearer bonds which the issuer would have to accept in his payment transactions like

Capital in the proper sense would not be required to any considerable extent by the issuing centre. Required would
merely be the establishment and maintenance of an office with office facilities. Initially, one of the members could
probably make rooms and facilities available for this purpose, also the labour required.

Apart from this only a small reserve fund might be necessary. Working capital would not be required by this bank
as its task would merely be to mobilise or liquidise the capital of its members - consisting in their capacity to
supply goods and services in daily demand - by means of the goods warrants system.

                                              1/31 No Business Secrets

The public should always be enabled to inform itself sufficiently about all details of these issues. Thus the
following should not be considered as business secrets:
The names of the debtors of the issuing centre, the total of the issued and of the still outstanding goods warrants,
their numbers and series, the kind and extent of their cover and foundation which assure their reflux, and the
processing of the returned certificates.
Some of these details could be stated on the certificates themselves. Others could be published in notices exhibited
at the issuing centre and in the premises of its debtors, mainly the shops. Their detailed balances are also to be
published in the press. They should at least once a week publish their goods warrants circulation and the total of the
short term claims serving as their backing - in one of the daily papers. Their books and other records relating to the
issue of goods warrants etc. should always be open to public scrutiny - to the extent that this can be arranged within
normal office procedures.

                                                1/32 Clearing Centre

All shop association banks are entitled and obliged to mutually clear their due claims against each other. They have
to establish a special clearing house for this purpose.

                          1/33 The Position of Employers in the Goods Warrants System

Employers receive claims against their wholesalers who distribute their products. They can either give these as
securities for a loan to the shop association bank or sell them to it. With the goods warrants thus obtained they can
pay wages, salaries, suppliers and their personal expenses. They, their employees and their creditors will then make
purchases with these goods warrants in the shops. Consequently, the stocks in the shops diminish and the retailers
place orders with their wholesalers for restocking. These orders are passed on by the wholesalers to the
manufacturers and thus assure further sales to them. The cover of the goods warrants in these cases would consist
out of the products of these employers which have already been sold to the wholesalers and retailers.


The manufacturers and other employers may also issue clearing certificates in which they oblige themselves to
accept these certificates like cash whenever anybody purchases anything from them or pays debts to them. They
may sell these against goods warrants or use them for the purchase of raw materials. Still more obviously than in
the above instance, they would thereby provide themselves with sales - to the extent of their issue of clearing

                       1/34 The Advantages of the Goods Warrants System for the Workers

They will in future no longer be laid off when their employer cannot obtain a wage payment credit from the banks.
Thus the danger of unemployment is largely abolished for them. The comparatively small unemployment which
now and then results in certain branches of industry and commerce, due to technological innovations, can largely
be abolished by means of re-training credits granted by new credit institutions which are still to be established.

The abolition of the note-issue monopoly will lead to the end of any shortage of exchange media. Thus the workers
would no longer have to sell their goods, their services: their labour, at emergency prices. (This dilemma is
especially vexatious in underdeveloped countries, which have not yet fully converted to a monetary economy and
is often indicated by extremely high interest rates and extremely low wages. The latter are naturally also due to low
productivity, but not exclusively so.)

In quite general terms, one can state that by means of the goods warrants system the needs of the workers can be
transformed into demand that is sufficiently supplied with exchange media or currency - to the extent that they are
able and willing to work.

                       1/35 The Advantages of the Goods Warrants System for Wholesalers

Seemingly, the wholesalers are not aided by freedom to issue notes, seeing that already before the introduction of
free note issue they had made use of a limited freedom to issue, consisting in the right to issue sound commercial
bills of exchange. They issued these bills and largely cleared them rather than redeeming them in cash. However,
only when the goods warrants system offers the employers the chance to be continuously and sufficiently supplied
with means of exchange for wage payments, while it offers the retailers the opportunity to sell all their wanted
stocks, can the wholesalers expect to be also fully employed in their role between the producers and the retailers.
Moreover, after the introduction of the goods warrants system, they could no longer be driven into an economically
unjustified bankruptcy by means of a legal claim of all creditors to payment in cash. All such claims would be
transformed into a right to clearing only - unless the contrary, cash payment, has been expressly, voluntarily and
privately agreed upon. Even then some courts might decide that nobody could be sued to pay such "gambling"
debts in this way. (Any dealing in futures is a form of speculative gambling, even if the item to be delivered in the
future is cash. which is more often short than ready or readily available.)
                1/36 The Advantages of the Goods Warrants System for Independent Professionals

The independents, like doctors, lawyers, barbers etc., could also receive goods warrants based upon their ready for
sale services, in form of loans from the Shop Association Banks. Likewise, loans to manufacturers could also be
granted by these banks and in goods warrants with regard to the service cover offered by these professionals. They
will find it easier to get short term credits and their customers will be more liquid - and more numerous, due to full

They could also associate into large groups and issue their own means of payment. Cases are on record, mainly for
China, where even single barbers, restaurants or brothels issued their own tokens, which were willingly taken
within their neighbourhoods. Naturally, few would want to go back to this kind of decentralized issue - but it
should not be prohibited, either. The traffic will bear, i.e. generally accept, only those exchange media, at least as
local currency, which are convenient enough, that is widely enough accepted by a variety of service and goods
centres, as already stated above.


                                    1/37 Individuals as Issuers of Goods Warrants

At least at first most individuals will probably be unable to make use of freedom for note issues. Immediately they
will derive only indirect benefits from monetary freedom like full employment and higher wage or cooperative

Later on, when the clearing system has been fully developed, they could buy locally current goods warrants with
their own clearing certificates - based on and expressing their own ability to give services or goods in return,
valued in x grams of gold. The clearing house would see to it that these certificates would get into the hands of
those who can use the services of these individual issuers. They would hire them and offer them their own notes in
return, on pay days. Most likely, a single employee or worker could circulate his own certificates only in a limited
circle of acceptors and there only with a discount of, let us say 10-30%. But, quite obviously, he would supply
himself to the same extent with work as he would succeed in getting his own clearing certificates accepted, to the
same extent as he was thus enabled to pay for his requirements.

                                    1/38 Goods Warrants Issued by Large Firms

Larger firms could make use of the issue freedom themselves. The smaller ones would have to associate for this
purpose, e.g. all the small shops in a large shopping centre. They also could issue clearing notes, in money
denominations, standardised and typified, in which they oblige themselves to accept these notes like they would
accept e.g. gold or silver coins of equivalent values or denominations or weights. With such notes they could e.g.
pay their tradesmen, their suppliers and, after coming to an agreement with the tax office, their taxes. They might
also be able to pay railway and postal charges in this way. It would be the task of the decentralised banking system,
connected by clearing houses, to see to it that these clearing notes would be used as means of payment against

Certain firms would have it easier than others to issue such goods warrants or clearing notes and get them accepted.
Among these are, obviously, large department stores, especially chain stores, railways (where the cover consists in
tickets, that is in the readiness to transport), post offices, water works, power plants like electricity works and gas
works, mines, large agricultural enterprises and insurance companies. Goods warrants of such firms could also
largely circulate in the general circulation, at least in certain localities, and could be used for the payment of wages
and salaries. There are many precedents for such issues on record.

A goods warrant of this type might have the following text:
       "This goods warrant, which is not legal tender but may be refused and is subject to a free market rate,
       is accepted by ................... from ........... to ......... like ready cash to the value of xyz grams of fine gold.
       This obligation applies also to the canteens of this firm and to all the sales outlets conducted by it."

                        1/39 Principles and Conditions for the Granting of Long Term Credits
                                   in Goods Warrants by Shop Association Banks

When goods warrants are lent out on long terms they will nevertheless stream back to the shops within a short time.
The shopkeepers would then have sold their stocks in return for goods warrants which they cannot utilise until the
long-term credits are due to be repaid. These goods warrants would then possess no other cover than this one and it
would come into existence only in the long term future. The storekeepers could indeed present these goods
warrants to the issuing bank but this bank could then not refer them to any place which would have to accept such
goods warrants immediately. Only a fraction of them would be required, from time to time, to pay back long term
loans on instalments. Consequently, these goods warrants would suffer a considerable discount and would soon be
refused in general circulation.
In long-term loans the borrower is only obliged to accept the goods warrants up to the amount of the next
repayment instalment that is due in a short time, and he has to return the warrants thus received to the issuing
centre. Otherwise, we would not have a long-term loan.


Consequently, the shop association bank will be able to grant long-term credits in goods warrants only if and to the
extent that other persons are prepared to stand guarantors with their ready for sale goods and services in daily
demand, for the time period that is agreed upon in the loan. This could be arranged in the following way:
These guarantors or suppliers of the long-term capital (they could be workers or pensioners and need not be
capitalists in the conventional sense), could accept goods warrants in their usual payment transactions and deposit
them at the Shop Association Bank in term deposits.

As these term deposits are then acquired with goods warrants which otherwise would have been used by the
debtors of the issuing centre for the repayment of their short term debts, these debtors would now be
correspondingly short of goods warrants.

Thus, on the one hand, in order to abolish this money shortage and on the other, in order to grant the long term
credit, the issuing centre would again issue goods warrants to the amount of the long term loans (covered by
equivalent term deposits and to the long-term borrowers.

These borrowers will then pay with the loan their expenses, e.g. wages or new equipment. The producers of the
latter could then pay wages with these goods warrants. From the workers the goods warrants would stream back to
the shops and these would repay their short-term loans. Thereupon the first kind of circulation would come to an
end, the one involved in the issue of the long term credit. The bank would not grant this credit itself. It would
merely act as a mediator. Lastly, economically, the long term loan would be granted in form of goods and services
- by those willing to make such investments. The money used, the goods warrants, would merely be the veil, as W.
v. Goethe used to say, hiding these goods and service transactions. This would be the technique for normal cases,
i.e., when there are no special sales difficulties for retailers.

If there are any sales difficulties and the retailers are sitting on unsaleable goods stocks, then they would also be
prepared to make these available on long terms, in order to make at least some use of them still. They would also
oblige themselves, in advance, to do so, if this would be one of the conditions.

The Shop Association Bank could issue goods warrants upon the declarations of these suppliers of long term
capital that they would accept the goods warrants up to such and such amounts in their sales, and establish with
these goods warrants long term deposit accounts at the bank. To assure that these goods warrants are at any time
usable against these subscribers to the long-term loan, these acceptors would have to take up the same obligations
which a debtor of the shop association bank has. They have, indeed, obliged themselves to make available their
goods and services on long terms and must not be enabled to evade their obligations.

Thus, finally, the goods warrants issued in these long term loans will get into the hands of these subscribers and
will be used by them to establish their term deposit at the bank. The issuing bank will, naturally, not circulate these
goods warrants again but destroy them. They have then fulfilled their function.

What would happen during the repayment of such long-term credits in goods warrants? The issuing centre, shortly
before the long-term credits are due to be repaid, or shortly before instalments are due, could issue new goods
warrants up to the amount of the due credits or instalments, to those who possess long-term deposits with it. These
goods warrants, or others to the same amounts, would finally get into the hands of those who are the long term
borrowers and with them they can pay back their long term debt - or the due instalments.

Alternatively, the borrowers could also cede short term claims, which they may have, e.g. against wholesalers, to
the issuing centre. Based on these claims the issuing centre could then issue goods warrants and repay with them
the long-term deposits.

Thus, even the long term credits would, under the goods warrants system, be granted (or rather mediated) and
repaid only with goods warrants circulating only for a short period.

Naturally, long-term deposits would not have to be used. Their equivalents might be preferable, e.g. in form of
transferable accounts or bank bonds, most suitably - bearer bonds.


These long-term deposits, accounts or bonds could and should bear interest.

But the bank should not oblige itself in advance on the rate of interest it will pay. The long-term investors could
e.g., cooperatively or as partner share in whatever profits are made from a business, after all costs and risks are
paid for.

The issuing centre should also remain at liberty to repay such credits at any time if it does not find any investment
opportunity for them.

Such long term assets with the issuing centre could either be established only for certain periods or for indefinite
ones. Then long-term loans could only be granted for corresponding periods and amounts (or balances).
Alternatively, they could be established for indefinite periods. Then both sides should have the right to give notice.

When notices have been given for amounts larger than the current repayments are, then the issuing centre should
make repayments either only in the sequence of the notices, or in instalments on all deposits which are in the
process of being withdrawn.
In any case minimum amounts should be determined which could be with-drawn every month outside the sequence
determined by the date of the notices.
Whichever withdrawal policy is pursued, it must not bear any inherent risk and must be clearly announced in
advance to all customers of the bank.

One of the self-evident precautions should be a rule that the bank would not be entitled to grant any new long-term
loans as long as all credits subject to notices or due are not repaid.

Moreover, to assure the rapid reflux of the goods warrants granted in long-term loans, these loans should only be
paid out to the extent that the borrower has expenditures and they should be made at these times or shortly before.

Those seeking long-term credits could also issue goods warrants of the following kind or attempt to sell or convert

             "From such and such a date onwards I will accept this certificate
             in all payments to me like ready cash of such and such an amount

             and value, but retain the right to supply the bearer instead with

             legal tender of the stated amount."

In inflationary times the issuer would better promise, as voluntary alternative, gold coins or gold certificates or
other cash. Otherwise his potential creditors would fear that they might be cheated in the now conventional way.

The only way to use goods warrants for the financing of those capital goods, which for their production require a
long time, would be the following (when no long-term credit of the above indicated kind can be arranged):

The issuing centre discounts short term promises, of those who placed orders for the long-term capital goods, to
make advance payments in short intervals. Then, to the extent of these advance payments, due within a short time,
goods warrants could be issued because their reflux and thereby their par value would be assured.

                         IV/ 2 Paper Money without Legal Tender but with Tax Foundation

                                    2/1 Freedom to Issue - even for the Treasury

The freedom to issue notes does not only permit private people to transform some of their capital (that consisting in
consumer goods stocks, readiness to offer specialised services or labour power) into means of exchange. Even the
State and municipalities, as well as the treasuries of exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers, could
utilise this freedom. They could do this by transforming their capital assets, their tax-rates or contribution claims,
into means of payment.

The method so far used for levying taxes, rates or contributions has forced everyone, who either has or wants to
pay his taxes, rates or contributions, to first of all acquire means of payment for this purpose by selling his goods,
services or labour for them. This method disregarded altogether the monetary condition of the market, whether it
was or was not sufficiently supplied with means of exchange. The issue of special tax- rate- or contribution-based
exchange media will see to it that the market is always sufficiently supplied with suitable means of exchange for
this purpose. Even in normal or good times the issue of such tax foundation money (or contribution money) is to be
recommended to prevent deflationary blockages.


At a time when the tax collectors gather to themselves 30-40% of the national income in form of taxes (that was
noted in 1959 - by now the percentage has possibly about doubled) without providing sufficient means of payment
for tax payments, sales difficulties and unemployment are the inevitable result of such deflationary policies.
(They forcefully extract these enormous amounts from all economic transactions and then do not always and
immediately spend all these amounts again, that bringing about money shortages. - J.Z., 10.12.02.)

       "Governments are even morally obliged to issue as much paper money with tax-foundation
        as is required to pay the taxes which are soon due. If one fails to do this then, according to Stuart,
       it stands before its subjects, who are short of means of payment, like an inquisitor who is
       torturing a deaf mute." - Ulrich von Beckerath

                            2/2 What Is State Paper Money when It Is not Redeemable -
                               and Does not Possess the Legal Tender Characteristic?

It is then no more than a clearing bill drawn by the treasury upon the taxpayers, i.e., it is a paper money with tax
foundation. All paper money today has a degree of tax foundation - but it is distorted and prevented from working
properly by the presence of the forced value for its paper "value standard" and forced acceptance for these notes:
by legal tender. (On the effect of legal tender upon any currency compare PEACE PLANS 19A.)
                                     2/3 What Is the Essence of Tax Foundation?

If a paper money is not redeemable in gold then it is sufficient to preserve its par value with gold currency that
places which offer products or services in daily or general demand do accept it like gold money. One can on the
one side consider tax receipts as goods in daily demand and the State's services as services daily and generally
demanded. (However enforced that demand is.)Thus the tax foundation of paper money is just a special case of
what otherwise can be described as acceptance-, debt - or reflux-foundation.
Tax foundation means that the State can give its paper money a value by accepting it at all its pay offices at its
nominal value, in the same way as cinemas and theaters give value to their tickets by accepting them for their
performances. The stamps of the Post Office and the tickets of the railways are similar examples.

That taxes are today compulsory changes nothing in the principle involved here.

The voluntary - but contractually binding - contributions of private and competitive insurance companies offering
similar services to those desiring them, would permit the issue of the same type of clearing certificates. Only here
they would better be called something like contribution-based money, to indicate the voluntary nature of such

The tax commissioner exerts a steady and certainly large enough (however enforced) demand for paper money.
This demand suffices to keep the value of the paper money steady, at par with e.g. its gold value, if a gold weight
units is accepted in it as its value standards.

If the State's central bank issues paper money up to the amount of short-term treasury bills given to it as security,
then these paper notes are in effect conveniently denominated and standardised pieces of these treasury bills. The
treasury bills or debt certificates of the State are finally redeemed with tax revenues consisting of the paper notes
received. This closes the circle. Naturally, if a treasury were to issue this kind of paper money by itself, as has often
been done in the past, then it could save the interest it has to pay to the central bank for the discounting of its
treasury bills.
Is there a limit for this kind of monetary anticipation of tax revenues? Experience has shown that the treasury could
circulate the tax claims it has for the next 2-3 months in form of standardised and typified paper notes in money
denominations, could use them e.g. to pay e.g., its public servants, pensioners and suppliers, without these notes
suffering a discount against their stated gold value. The demand exerted for these notes, by the taxation machinery,
would assure that.

Once the tax payer has delivered these cut-up treasury bills to the taxation office (directly or by means of his bank)
and has thus fulfilled his tax "obligation", then the taxation office can destroy these tax warrants. They have then
fulfilled their function. The State has covered its expenditures with them. The tax payer was assisted in acquiring
the means of payment for the tax burden imposed upon him.
Thus the proper cover for State paper money consists in taxes imposed by a government and the readiness to accept
that State paper money at all tax offices in payment of taxes - at their full nominal value. In other words, the tax
foundation of a paper money is the confidence of the population that it can with these means pay its taxes or,


otherwise expressed, that the State will almost certainly levy sufficient taxes. This confidence can be justified even
by such States and powers which are not able to pay in the conventional sense.

Already Adam Smith knew this kind of foundation for means of payment and wrote in the section "Of Money" in
his famous "The Wealth of Nations":

       "A prince, who should enact that a certain proportion of his taxes should be paid in a paper money of a
       certain kind, might thereby give a certain value to this paper money, even though the term of its final
       discharge and redemption should depend altogether upon the will of the prince. If the bank which issued
       this paper was careful to keep the quantity of it always somewhat below what could be easily employed in
       this manner, the demand for it might be such as to make it even bear a premium, or sell for somewhat more
       in the market than the quantity of gold or silver currency for which it was issued ..."
                          2/4 Why Should such Paper Money never Possess Legal Tender?

The tax foundation means only a very limited legal tender, namely that towards the tax offices. A general legal
tender would give the State paper money a general debt foundation. Everyone could then pay all his debts with it,
not only his tax-debts, and always at the nominal value of this paper. Thus the State could issue much more paper
money than would be justified by its tax receipts, i.e., an inflation, an over-issue with a corresponding depreciation,
becomes possible, mostly even likely.

Under legal tender a means of payment is at the same time value carrier and value standard and thus an inflation or
over-issue of the value carriers leads simultaneously to an inflation of the value standard. As under such a system
all prices are fixed in this legally enforced value standard, and as everyone within a country has to accept these
paper value tokens at their nominal value, an overissue of such means of payment leads inevitably to a general
price increase.

As opposed to this, an over-issued means of payment which is not legal tender (in general circulation, i.e. must be
accepted at face value only by the issuer, and, perhaps, his debtors) could depreciate, at least in the general
circulation, but would be unable to influence the general price level - because it is not at the same time the value
standard. Those few people who, apart from the issuer and his debtors, would accept it at all, would accept it only
at its market rate, leaving the price and wage levels, reckoned in stable value standards, untouched. Thus legal
tender provides the legal option for any government to engage in an inflation. What every government has in
abundance is motives for an inflation. There are only rarely intelligently directed protests against such a procedure.
It amounts to a secret taxation of all creditors and can be carried out as an administrative measure, i.e. even without
parliamentary consent.
In short: Without general legal tender an inflation is impossible.

While today hardly any university in the world or any textbook really teaches anything about legal tender and its
inflationary tendency (apart from merely supplying a formal definition), the disadvantages of a paper money
economy, of a forced currency, were known a few decades ago to almost every economist. They did not use the
term "inflation". Instead, they dealt with the depreciation of money under the headings: Paper Money Economy,
Forced Currency or Legal Tender. Far from praising legal tender, they considered certain phenomena as self-
evidently associated with it:

       "Economic disturbances, infringements of rights and interests, a corrupting gambling spirit and wild
       exchange speculations, waste and uneconomics do always more or less accompany a paper money
       economy." - Adolf Wagner

       "Legal Tender is a measure whose purpose is, mostly, to force into circulation, or keep in circulation,
       against the will of the population and by means of an abuse of juridical sovereignty, pathological (i.e.
       exceptional) forms of circulating media which, in turn, result from an abuse of the coinage authority or the
       note issue monopoly. Thus Legal Tender cannot possibly belong to the concept of 'money' and far less to
       that of a perfect money." - Carl Menger in the 3rd. edition of the Handwoerterbuch der
       Staatswissenschaftenn (Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences).

Still more interesting is a short remark by Laves, who in 1890, in his book on "Die Warenwaehrung" (The Goods
Currency) said:


"'We will naturally disregard the excessive fluctuations of the monetary value under a paper money currency. Such
a currency is almost a mockery of the demand that a value standard be unchangeable. All disadvantages of
fluctuations in the value of money appear here many times over. Already in moderately disturbed periods a country
is continuously in a feverish condition thanks to this strange institution. A demonstration of the monstrous
disadvantages is currently offered by the conditions in Argentinia."

Thus, at his time. one had to refer to Argentinia if one wanted to explain what an inflation is!
Further severe condemnations of Legal Tender can be found in PEACE PLANS' first monograph on this subject,
No. 19A, especially on pages 13, 14 & 19, in the remarks by Adam Smith, the US Constitution, Madison and Adolf

That a State should be obliged to accept its own tax warrants (more accurately: tax anticipation certificates) at any
time at their nominal value, independent of their current market rate, i.e. that they should be forced currency or
legal tender towards the State, is really self-evident: Everyone must naturally recognise his own debt, by letting it
be reckoned or counted against himself as a means of payment. You must recognize your own IOU's against
yourself and so must the State.

As Prof. Dr. Felix Dahn said in his "Deutsches Rechtsbuch" (A German Book on Rights):

       "Paper money should at least have Legal Tender against its issuer, at the nominal value given to it.
       Then, especially when the government has obliged itself to accept such paper money
       in all payments to be made to the State instead of cash, for instance in tax payments,
       the exchange rate of the paper money in general circulation will keep at par - with its nominal value."

The unrestricted right of the people to refuse any paper money offered, make the abuse of the note issue right either
by the State or by private people impossible.

                                 2/5 When Must the Issue of Tax Warrants Cease?

The proper upper limit for the free issue of tax warrants is determined by their free exchange rate. As soon as their
exchange rate has fallen to 99% of their nominal value, the general circulation is sufficiently supplied with means
of exchange for the payment of taxes. Then further issues should cease until the exchange rate has brought these
tax warrants again to par with their nominal value expressed in whatever currency unit or value standard is used.

If the State were to continue issuing paper money in spite of its discount, to those who would not refuse to accept it
altogether because of the discount, but who would accept it with a discount, then it could only harm itself - for the

tax payers would acquire these notes in order to pay taxes with them at their nominal value. They might then even
pay taxes in advance, if the discount is high enough. The State would thus always have a loss corresponding to the
discount of the tax-warrants and could not use them for all payments. If it persisted in making such losses then the
discount and the losses would increase and more and more people would come to altogether refuse to accept these
notes - unless they have still taxes to pay with them. When even future tax claims are paid-up with discounted tax
warrants, then there would be general refusal to accept these notes. But long before that stage would over-issues
have ceased. (Alternatively, this government would have fallen because it could no longer pay even its public
servants, policemen and soldiers.)

When advance tax payments are made with depreciated tax warrants then loan certificates are to be given in return,
whose gold value is guaranteed and whose par-value should be maintained by free transferability and interest
payment as well as by the acceptance of these certificates, once due, and shortly before, in payment of taxes.

            2/6 Value-Preserving State Paper Money Can only Be Issued upon Short-term Tax Claims

State paper money that is not covered the tax receipts of the near future has neither a sufficient reflux, nor, in the
absence of legal tender for it, in general circulation, sufficient utility and therefore insufficient acceptors. The
continued offer of means of payment thus constructed leads inevitably to the depreciation of such means of


The current offer of tax warrant money must always be in a proper relationship to the present or shortly to be
expected demand for tax warrants for the purpose of tax payments. If taxes are set too low (in relation to the issues)
or are due only at some considerable time in the future, then correspondingly less tax warrants can be issued.

If a State would need more short-term means than it could acquire in this way, i.e., if the exchange rate of its tax
foundation money would have fallen to 99% of its nominal value - before it would have issued sufficient of this
money for its requirements, then it would have to increase taxes and, based on these, issue further tax warrants
until their exchange rate has again fallen to 99% of their nominal value.

Lorenz von Stein was, apparently, the first to determine that tax foundation gives a paper money a par value,
without legal tender, equivalent to the tax receipts during three months.

                             2/7 No Monopoly for the Issue of such Means of Payment

Freedom of note issue means that means of payment can be issued wherever, whenever they are needed and by
whosoever is suitable as an issuer - provided only they find willing acceptors and do in no way defraud them. Thus
not even any particular centralised pay office should possess a monopoly for the issue of tax foundation money.
The diverse exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers to be expected in the future (if there is to be a
future) will probably possess their own issuing centres for their voluntary contribution money. Municipalities will
issue it, if they consider it necessary, in the some way as a federal government would. (Compare e.g. the issue of
demurrage money with tax foundation in Woergl, during the great depression. See on this the discussion of this
experiment in many passages in PEACE PLANS Nos. 9-11.)

This would mean the simultaneous and decentralized issue of such money tokens and thus a more even and regular
supply of the economy with means of exchange.
It has often been observed that under today's centralist issue of exclusive currency some districts are better and
others worse supplied with means of exchange. Moreover, under the present system even in the same locality both,
deflationary and inflationary phenomena can be observed at the same time. For instance, there are some, who have
no cash income or only a subsistence income - in depreciating currency, and others, who are over-supplied with
paper money - often coming fresh from the printing press, like the politicians, the administrative fat cats and the
lower ranks of the public service. Yes, there are indeed people who at the same time, not only for ideological and
tax reasons, retreat to barter conditions and subsistence economies on the land. To some extent the monetary
conditions of underdeveloped countries are still with us.

                                             2/8 Gold-Clearing Currency

A paper money with tax- or contribution foundation becomes automatically and without a gold reserve or
convertibility or 100% gold cover, a gold-value means of payment - under the conditions of a free market for gold -
by an obligation on the certificates with something like the following wording:

           "This certificate of 10 gold dollars (or 1 gram of fine gold ) is accepted
            by public pay offices at its nominal value in the same way
            as a gold coin of the same denomination would be accepted."

                       2/9 Surcharge in Cases of Tax Payments with other Means of Payment

In order to furthermore assure the par-value of this kind of paper money, the treasuries could order that all or a part
of all taxes should be paid only in this kind of paper money. Otherwise, a premium payment would be due -
whenever other means of payment are offered instead.

When, consequently, other means of payment are received in payment of taxes or other dues, then the receiving
pay offices must utilise these already on the next day for the purchase of their own tax warrants or contribution
money still in circulation.


                                     2/10 Limited Validity for Tax Warrants?

Tax foundation money need not become invalid after a certain short period. The more such certificates are hoarded
or even destroyed, the more could be issued by States and municipalities because then the certificates will not as
soon suffer the discount as they would without this hoarding or destruction. Should hoarding afterwards cease
rather suddenly, then there would be two options designed to avoid considerable discounts:

1.) The State could accept advance payments of taxes.

2.) It could also issue a gold-value loan which could be subscribed with this depreciated tax foundation money at
    its nominal value.

Naturally, by limiting the circulation period to about 6 months, most of these cases could also be avoided.

                                   2/11 No Secrecy for the Issue of Tax Warrants

All public bodies and authorities issuing tax foundation money should, if possible, announce daily the amount of
taxes claimed by them, the amounts not yet paid in upon these due claims and the amount of the tax warrants still
in circulation and their current market rate.

                                                    2/12 Summary

Fundamentally, all kinds of paper money issued and circulating today amount only to paper money with a kind of
tax foundation, i.e. their value consists lastly in the fact that one can buy tax receipts with them.

Alas, today's paper money with tax foundation possesses some serious flaws:

   It is the only cash payment means permitted and does not suffice to mediate all desired exchange transactions.

   It is at the same time means of exchange and standard of value. It possesses legal tender.

   It is centrally issued and, consequently, many areas and circulation spheres are insufficiently supplied with it.

These mistakes and the resulting disastrous consequences for every economy should be avoided by the future tax
foundation and contribution based paper money.

The issue of all kinds of money tokens should, in future, be free and decentralized, i.e., undertaken by as many
issuing centres as are deemed necessary by the participants. The abolition of the monopoly would abolish any
shortage of means of payment for tax and contribution payments.

The separation of the value-standard from the value-carrier or means of exchange - through the introduction of the
gold-clearing currency (even this one would not be enforced but would be a freely competitive solution leaving
other standard choices untouched), would lead to stable value reckoning.

The free exchange rate or market rate for all means of payment, in combination with freedom to issue exchange
media, by all those able and willing to do so, would prevent over-issues and thereby inflations, as well as under-
issues and thereby deflations. Good money would drive out the bad.

In future, finance ministers in countries under economic depressions - if after the introduction of note issue
freedom such conditions could still occur - would no longer worry about accumulating over-due tax assets which
they are presently unable to mobilise, due to a depression. On the contrary, they would welcome such assets and
mobilise them, turning them into cash in the way above described. Thereby they would greatly contribute to
overcome an economic crisis.

(No longer would e.g. large firms be aided by cancelling their tax debts while their smaller competitors, employing
between them possibly more people, are ruthlessly driven into bankruptcy because of tax debts, hardly gaining
anything for the treasury, just because such a procedure is politically more opportune. Naturally, in the long run
and as soon as possible all enterprises and individual producers and consumers should be exempted from all
compulsory levies, tributes, robberies, extortions or blackmail, commonly called taxes.
Tax exemptions, as granted now, unequally and under emergency conditions, are not the ultimate solution.)

              3. Gold Clearing Currency within a Free Market for Gold - and for all other Metals etc.
                        which Can Serve as Standards of Value and as Means of Payment

                             "Gold has not become bad - but the bank directors have!"
                            - Prof. Heinrich Rittershausen, during the Great Depression.

What are the characteristics of a gold clearing currency and a free gold market?

   Value standard is the weight unit of fine gold on the free market.

   The redemption of all certificates expressing gold values takes place only on the free market, not by the issuers.
    (Unless special contracts are made among volunteers willing to face the risks involved. By all means, let them
    have the supposedly one and only "100% gold dollar". )

   Everyone has the right to possess gold coins and gold bars and to offer them in payment.

Since today, as a consequence of a long agitation against gold, many are still convinced a gold currency would be
the result of some financial conspiracy or, anyhow, a diabolical invention, even gold pieces should today no longer
have legal tender. That could infringe the religion of such people. After two or three years of experience with all
kinds of other value standards even the beliefs of such people might change. Important is that legal tender is not
essential for gold. Most people would only be too satisfied with being paid in gold pieces, or gold certificates and
might even make concessions to those paying in gold.

Everyone has the right to accept gold pieces as means of payment or to offer to pay with them.

At the same time' no one has a legal claim to payment in gold, unless this is based on private contractual
arrangements and even then withdrawal premiums should be agreed upon to cover the time dealings risk involved.

Gold coins are not and will never be numerous enough to enable us to cover all payment transactions with them.
There is also the fact that no one has the right to impose them as an exclusive value standard and exchange
medium, no matter how good and efficient they may believe this medium and standard to be.

To protect debtors whenever it is too difficult, nay, sometimes, impossible for them to pay with gold pieces, the
legal claim of creditors to gold pieces is repealed or not re-established and it is replaced by a claim to payment in
gold values unless some other value standard has been contractually agreed upon.

All enemies of gold currency mix up gold pieces and their commercial and economic characteristics with the legal
claim of creditors to be paid in gold coins.

After this legal claim to payment in gold is repealed, the quantity of circulating or hoarded gold coins is no longer
of importance. Trade is then independent of it.

As said before, contracts providing for payment in gold should contain a withdrawal premium. (The latter might
not be permitted merely at the discretion of the debtor but perhaps at that of an agreed upon arbitrator.)

Moreover, everyone has the right to use gold pieces as value standards. For instance, storekeepers may price all
their goods in gold prices. All debt contracts, like wage, rent and loan contracts, might contain value preserving
clauses which take the value of a certain quantity of fine gold in coins or bars as a base.

The repeal of the legal claim to payment in gold means here that anyone may still reckon in gold weight units, i.e.,
one may take up a gold loan (which may also be given in gold values rather than in fine gold) but is not legally
obliged in consequence to deliver to one's creditor a certain quantity of fine gold but only its equivalent value in
some other acceptable form.
This right includes the right to issue means of payment which express gold values but which do not promise
redemption in or convertibility into gold. The issuer must only be prepared to accept them in all his payment
transactions like the equivalent and stated quantity of gold.

The government mints are obliged to coin out gold bars into gold coins, without limits, just upon payment of the
coinage fee. They do not have any monopoly for issuing gold coins, either. Anyone has the right to coin gold
pieces or let them be coined by others, provided only weight, fineness, diameter, thickness and issuer are indicated.
Consequently, the price differential between gold bars and gold coins will remain small.


Everyone has also the right to produce or order standardised bars of fine gold or other rare metals and to freely
trade with them.

To be repealed are all gold coinage, gold export and gold import restrictions, all State gold prices, notification,
licensing and delivery obligations for gold - and, naturally, silver and other rare metals (I will not go into the
discussion of radioactive metals here!) - that are suitable for coinage etc.

(Gold used as a value standard and or as a means of payment, the purchase and sale of gold and its coinage and the
production of bullion bars must also be exempted from taxation. It must no more be taxed than the weight, volume
or length units should be taxed. - J.Z., 10.12.02.)

The government gold hoards, established by exploiting the tax payers under false pretenses, are to be dissolved.
This could be done e.g. by coining them and using them for government expenditures. Then, for the time that all
government expenditures can be paid for with these coins, all otherwise due taxes should be cancelled, e.g. all
taxes otherwise due during the next xyz days. (Alternatively, the victims could get their share in them in the way
described in PEACE PLANS 19C.)

Publicity of the gold trade and announcement of the paid, offered and demanded prices as well as the turnover,
would also be essential for a free gold market.

For any country with a truly free gold market and free gold coinage etc., the acquisition of gold is usually no
problem. Gold usually streams to the places where it has the greatest purchasing power - unless it is forcefully
prevented. Thus a relatively even distribution takes place. This has been called the "law of the fluctuating gold

This is important, for any rare metal currency under which no rare metal coins circulate cannot persist in the long
run. It would founder on a justified distrust against it. Everyone must have the right to test the value of his paper
certificates on the rare metal market, not only by enquiries but by real exchanges. Only then can a value standard
gain and retain trust and confidence and deserve them. (Trust and confidence do have their role to play in any
economy - if only they are not made the sole "foundation" - which usually requires a confidence trick and can be
only temporarily successful.)

Would the transition to such a system be difficult? Under complete freedom debt contracts would, inevitably, be
expressed in gold dollars, e.g. gold value mortgages would be agreed upon. Thus, step by step, this or that gold
price or gold wage being agreed upon, and before it even becomes generally noticed, without further losses of
purchasing power between intelligent people and without the tax department receiving more or less taxes, the old
gold currency and standard could be re-introduced but without the past excesses:

a) the obligation of the central bank or other banks to deliver gold pieces upon demand,

b) the necessity for banks and, indirectly, for all creditors, to restrict the granting of credits when gold flows off to
   foreign countries.

The same principles apply to silver coins and silver bars. Both standards could peacefully and without causing any
harm coexist with each other (and other value standards) under the parallel currency system, i.e. under free
exchange rate between them continues.
Naturally, everyone should also be free to agree with his associates upon any other base than gold or silver. But it
can be safely predicted that even they would soon find out that gold weight units are by far the least evil
(fluctuating) ones that are so for available, for debtors and creditors alike, if only all above indicated rights and
obligations are upheld.

                       4. Free Trade System, Introduced by Free Ports and Free Trade Zones

               "Active and passive trade balances exist only in the imagination of some people
                and in the defects of trade statistics." - Ulrich von Beckerath

                                      4/1 The Fundamental Aims of Free Trade

Repeal of all import and export levies, licensing and quotas, monopolies, subsidies, price controls and of all foreign
exchange restrictions, in short, complete separation of the government from all foreign trading.


                         4/2 Principles and Facts upon which Free Traders Rest their Case
The means of payment used to pay for imports, even when they are gold coins instead of the today generally used
paper means, will inevitably sooner or later stream back and lead to corresponding exports. Thus import and export
are as in-separable as breathing in and out. Thus no government need concern itself in anyway with the
preservation of the so-called balance of trade. No government should do so, anyhow, because it will never be as
much interested in achieving mutually profitable exchanges as the foreign trade merchants themselves.

Likewise, the taking up of credits in foreign countries or the granting of credits to foreign countries is exclusively
the concern and risk of those who want to take or give such credits. It is up to them to take all advisable
precautions, e.g. by means of credit insurance - which should also be a private business. (Governments are only
good in writing foreign debts off!)

After the above indicated economic restrictions and borders have been abolished, division of labour between the
peoples of this world will be greatly promoted. This would have the same favourable effect upon the general
standard of living and economic development as the previous abolition of custom barriers within countries had.
Indeed, it would only be an application of the same kind of measure on a larger scale.

As a result of improved international division of labour - after the introduction of Free Trade - the tendency would
be for everyone to produce at his location and under his natural conditions etc. only that what he could produce
with the least effort and lowest cost, for a world market. Moreover, consumers would have the option to buy the
best and cheapest goods from anywhere in the world and could thus increase their standard of living.

The international competition introduced by free trade would likewise lead to better and cheaper products and

What influence free trade would have upon the establishment of world peace was already stated above.

                                            4/3 The Ideal of Protectionists

In essence it consists mainly in buying as little as possible in foreign countries, thereupon to buy at higher prices in
the own countries and to accept the resulting lower standard of living, while attempting to sell as much as possible
in foreign countries, thereby reducing the goods offered in the own country still further and making goods more
expensive at home, and then to utilise the proceeds from exports not for purchases from foreign countries but,
instead, for the granting of long term credits to foreigners, credits which many people in the own country vainly try
to obtain. When a few years later the foreign debtors begin to repay their credits, and lastly they can do this only
through goods deliveries to us, the protectionists would rather cancel their debts than accept goods from them.
Consequently, and fundamentally, and to that extent, the own export products were then given away. To realize this
nonsensical system the protectionists are prepared to commit many offensive acts and even crimes, all quite
legally, naturally: searches of private luggage, confiscation or imposition of high fines for infringements of their
absurd, immoral and harmful rules, shooting of smugglers or black marketeers, who are trying to carry on a free
trade regardless and, naturally, try to prevent arrests for moral deeds, devaluations of the currency in order to
promote exports and reduce imports.
Inevitably, this kind of system brings a high degree of corruption with it (which under these conditions is often
better than incorruptible customs officers would be - but why should one have to buy them in the first place?), a
reduction of the standard of living and also, perhaps worst of all, something like a permanent condition of war, at
least a trade war, between national economies. This kind of warfare is conducted by methods designed to harm
other nations as much as possible, regardless of the indirect and equally large harm done as a result of such actions
to the own nation. All over, the subsidised or even given away export goods (greatly reduced compared with the
volume occurring under Free Trade) are out of proportion to the total harm done by the various existing restrictions
of Free Trade and are, anyhow, offset by that part of one's taxes which the own government uses for similar
subsidies to other countries. Sometimes, the protectionist myths on trading can lead to real wars. (Protectionist
opinions and practices were involved in causing both World Wars! - J.Z., 10.12.02.)


                                            4/4 Free Trade and Tolerance

The human right to engage in free trading gives everyone the right but obliges no one to utilise the advantages of
Free Trade for himself.

The majority is today economically so ignorant that in theory and as voting cattle, it supports protectionism, votes
for corresponding representatives and would even, in a referendum, without sufficient prolonged enlightening
efforts preceding such a referendum, decide in favour of the protectionist system. Nevertheless, almost every
protectionist passing a frontier and given opportunities to ignore such trade restrictions to his own and clear
advantage, makes some attempt in this direction, i.e. with words most protectionists declare for protective tariffs
but in practice they are inclined to exempt themselves from them.

The question and problem is: In what way could an enlightened minority, right now, claim the advantages of Free
Trade for itself without having, first of all, to defeat the prejudices of the majority? How could it, at the same time,
propagate the advantages of Free Trade in such a convincing way that, finally, the protectionist majority would be
converted to Free Trade?

The tolerance principle in its new version, the right of individuals to secede, to experiment and to make any kinds
of contracts among themselves, show a way out:

These rights give the enlightened minority the option to enjoy, in the middle of Protectionists, all the advantages of
Free Trade among themselves, "at their own risk and expense", and to do without all of the supposed advantages of
protectionism, also "at their own risk and expense".

These actions would all occur "at the own risk and expense" anyhow because any Free Trader could rightly dispose
(and would only want to dispose) only of the own products and services and purchasing power (apart from those
entrusted to them for this purpose).

These Free Traders could conduct Free Trade between them either in form of a tolerant economic experiment or
within an international exterritorial and autonomous community of volunteers who are Free Traders and who
seceded from all the present protectionist and territorial State associations.

If the Protectionists were right, then the Free Traders would, by their behaviour, harm only themselves. Their
enterprises and exchanges would soon fail and they would be turned into convinced Protectionists. Thus, if they
were logical, the Protectionists would promote this kind of free trading.

With what arguments could one suppress Free Trade under such conditions? (The question of employment is
discussed elsewhere.)

                                                    4/5 Precedents

Those who want Free Trade for themselves in form of tolerant economic experiments, as well as those who will
associate in one or several free trading exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers, will establish
institutions comparable to the free ports and free trading centres and fairs of the Middle Ages and to the still
existing and expanding free port and free trade zones of today.
Some of the still existing free ports and free trade zones are in Hamburg, Bremen, Singapore, Penang, New York,
Colon and New Orleans. (By 1959. I am tempted here to expand this section and give references but will rather
leave this to future microfiched monographs.)

Such places have the following characteristics: Goods may be imported and exported duty-free, may be stored,
transferred or processed. In Colon and Hamburg as well as in the 6 or 7 such zones now in little Taiwan, whole
industries can be found. Many tax and regulation exemptions are granted, at least for prolonged periods. They do
not practice fully free trading but rather interesting approximations to it.

Even Protectionists do often favour one or several such centres for their own countries but usually seem
constitutionally unable to expand these examples to the whole country.

Smaller scale instances after the second World War were the special shops by occupation forces in Germany and
Japan. The presently very numerous duty-free shops for international travellers show how far such tolerance can
go, namely to retail shops, not only at airports but also spread over a city.


                               4/6 Details on the Free Trade Zones to Be Established

The local organization of free traders determines and privately purchases suitable locations for stores, warehouses,
exhibitions, sales centres and even factories. Then, either in the own name or in that of its members, it conducts
foreign trade exchanges, especially duty-free purchases. It makes agreements on the transport of the acquired goods
to its centres, may even form its own transport organization.

Finally, it will sell the thus imported goods to its members, largely upon orders. To promote its rapid expansion
and to go along peacefully with the protectionist associations in its neighbourhood, it will refuse to make any sales
or take any orders from non-members. Anyone who would want to claim the advantages of Free Trade for himself
would have to proclaim himself quite openly a Free Trader - by becoming a member.

Not only duty free shopping centres should be established - and these might go down to small free trading
storekeepers - but also whole free trading industries, which could join as members and consequently acquire all
materials, goods and equipment from overseas without special restrictions, permits and duties.

They could likewise export all their products and services anywhere in the world where there are free traders
willing to buy them, without let or hindrance by any government.

Most likely, the establishment of such free trade centres will only be a transitional measure. Once they can be
freely established, once every individual can freely decide for himself whether to live as a Free Trader or as a
Protectionist, whether unrestricted imports and exports are advantageous for him or not, most people would soon
join one or the other free trade association - and free trade would soon become general - apart from some sectarian
and limited persistence of some protectionist restrictions which would affect the others no more than e.g., the
meatless days of some religious people.

The number of such free trade communities should not be limited in any way in advance. But it can be estimated
that one such centre for every 10,000 inhabitants would probably suffice in the beginning. As indicated before,
some of these centres may be as large as a large industrial enterprise or a group of them. Others might be confined
to a single corner shop. These centres, within easy reach of most Protectionists, would, I believe, propagate the
benefits of Free Trade so effectively and rapidly that, if I were involved, I would take out no more than a 6 month
lease on such places.

      4/7 It Is up to the Protectionists to Arrange for the Barriers to their Trade which they Believe they Need
It lies in the nature of these institutions and their principles that they and their members are not subjected to any
tariff-, foreign exchange - and other "protective" rules passed by Protectionists - with the unanimous consent only
of Protectionists.

What Protectionists can demand from Free Traders would perhaps be some kind of identification card as free
traders. The precedent could here be the exemption of certified members of a foreign diplomatic legation from all
custom duties and searches. To supply this precedent may be the best service diplomats ever supplied. The Free
Trade organizations will permit the Protectionists to establish custom-barriers around their centres (as long as Free
Traders can easily pass them) provided that they are established exclusively at the expense of the Protectionists
who profess a belief in the value of such barriers,

The Free Traders will also be prepared to let all transports from and to its centres be sealed by Pprotectionists -
again, at their expense.

It would not object, either, if the Protectionists were to punish, quite severely, all those of their own members who
somehow obtained duty-free goods. But it reserves the exclusive right to give any reprimand or impose any
contract penalty upon the own members who might have had dealings with outsiders.

The Free Trade associations will also not mind if Protectionists look into their business records - as far as business
procedures permit - to find out who are their members, when and where and what kind of goods or services it
expects, produces or has for sale. To that extent it would assist the Protectionists in imposing restrictions on fellow-
Protectionists. The more the absurd restrictions are enforced against supposedly consenting Protectionists - who at


any time would have examples of free trading before their eyes - the faster these restrictions would be abolished.

The free trade associations will also be prepared to employ former custom duty officers as employees, storemen
and packers and perhaps as security men. The finally resulting general free trading would multiply international
trading. The thereupon growing trading companies would accept former custom duty officers as employees -
provided they have not become too corrupt and on this these companies themselves might be best informed. .

General monetary and financial freedom would also ensure that no unemployment would result either among these
officers or among the workers of formerly protected industries.

                         4/8 What Will Free Trade Associations Use as Means of Payment?

Full freedom in external trading means, among other things, that one can use any kind of means of exchange and
any kind of value standard as well. Thus the Free Traders will use any kind of means of payment, value standard
and clearing method which would satisfy their commercial partners, regardless of current predominant theories and
practices. Whatever means of payment and standards they might apply, the Protectionists could never rightly
complain that they would be harmed by these payment alternatives. In the following some options for the payment
of imports will be discussed:

Payment with foreign exchange: The free trade associations will only use those foreign currencies which they have
themselves acquired by their exports or which they have bought, at favourable rates on the more or less free market
of the Protectionists. Should a protectionist government categorically refuse to sell them any foreign exchange,
then they would not mind this either - for they would not depend upon any foreign currencies.

But if they do use foreign currencies they would not harm anybody thereby: All foreign currencies used by the free
trade associations would either be obtained by their members in a country through exports, or by non-members in
this country and sold to the free trade association. If not obtained by either of them for exports, then they would
have been obtained in loans which are, sooner or later to be repaid in exports. Thus, if these foreign currencies are
now used for the payment of imports then they are exactly balanced, apart from time differentials, by
corresponding exports. Thus the Protectionists can raise no logical objections, no complaints about wrongs or
harms done by such usage.
Payment with the currently circulating State paper money: When imports are paid with the own national paper
currency no harm or wrong would result. either. The above described case would simply occur in reverse: The
import would cause and make possible the export. For each State paper money note that has found its way into a
"foreign" country (All these terms will have to be revised after the introduction of exterritorial and autonomous
communities of volunteers, seeing that nations acquire quite a different meaning then and "foreigners" will be
everywhere and recruited even among the own family members and friends.), there will lastly be only one usage:
Taking it as a means of payment for foreign imports from us: in payment for our exports. They must flow back in
order to be useful and must in this bring about a corresponding export (apart from destructive and give-away games
which make no economic sense at all).

The Free Traders will utilise the exchange rate agreed upon between governments only to the extent that it agrees
with the free market rate. Thus the paper monies used by them could, if the imports paid with them are extensive,
and not at the same time offset by payments with them for exports, suffer a considerable discount (against their
nominal value) or fall in the exchange rate against the foreign currency. Would this be a disadvantage? No, for the
greater such a discount or fall would be, the greater would be the incentive for all "foreigners" to acquire these
paper means cheaply (due to the discount or fallen rate) and thus buy bargains from us. paying with this exported
paper currency and thereby returning it to us and removing any excessive discount or too low rate. At the same
time, the fall of our paper money on foreign exchanges would inevitably reduce interest in imports because then
our paper money could be given in payment only at a discount or at an unfavourable exchange rate which would


increase the price of imports reckoned in the own State paper money.

Thus the balancing of imports and exports would happen automatically in these cases also, without any government

What would happen if a foreign central bank were to use the State paper money received from us as a "foreign
exchange cover" for its own paper money? If our central bank were then to ignore the present of corresponding
goods and services thus made to us - in return only for printed slips of paper - if it really became worried about
these outstanding paper claims against us, then it could enforce their reflux by e.g. declaring that these notes would
become invalid within 6 months and that everyone, with the exception of the foreign central bank, could exchange
them for new notes.

Alternatively, it could use the chance to issue tax foundation money and thereby increase government revenues by
issuing as many new notes with tax foundation as are hoarded by the foreign central bank.

Should the notes hoarded or kept as reserve in foreign countries suddenly stream back, then they could be
transformed into long-term loans by their acceptance, at their nominal value, regardless of any discount they may
have in all other transactions, in subscriptions to such loans.

Moreover, note issue freedom would soon teach everybody, even the presidents of the central banks and the other
monetary experts of governments, that one can issue sound means of payment without a costly cover in form of
foreign means of exchange. Thus the Protectionists would have no serious objections against this kind of payment
procedure. (Naturally, they can always invent some more nonsensical arguments but they can all be settled by an
arbitration court both parties agreed upon.)

Payment of imports with gold coins or assignments upon a gold deposit: If someone has gold coins or gold
certificates, then he should also be free to use them in payment for imports. As long as the legal claim of creditors
to payment in gold is repealed and gold is at most a payment which a debtor may force upon a creditor but never
one which a creditor may force out of a debtor, and as long as all debt obligations are fundamentally payable
through clearing, an outflow of gold coins in payment for imports would not prevent anybody from fulfilling his
payment obligations.

Moreover, gold has the tendency to distribute itself evenly among all civilised and trading people, not only under
the "pure" gold currency, where gold is the exclusive means of payment, but also under the gold-clearing currency
and while a free gold market exists, i.e. about the same quantity of gold which is lost through imports comes soon
back in payment of exports (unless all kinds of government interventions prevent this). Thus the Protectionists
would not have anything to object against this kind of payment, either.

Payment with clearing certificates: The means of payment most frequently used by the Free Traders will be
clearing certificates. They are available to everybody to the desired extent. They are not manipulated by a
government, like State paper money presently is. They preserve their value, e.g. by gold reckoning, and contain no
term risk as all other debt obligations do, which do not promise ready for sale goods or services but instead cash
without there being a certainty that the required cash would really be available when needed. These clearing certifi-
cates will consist e.g. of shop foundation money and of standardised and typified claims against producers, in small
round figures, in which these producers oblige themselves to accept these claims like cash whenever anybody buys
anything from them or pays other debts to them. They would retain the right to deliver instead gold coins or "local
currency". Useful would be especially the clearing certificates of agricultural sales cooperatives, large machine
manufacturers and mines, and among these especially those firms working mainly for exports.

Quite obviously, this kind of payment for imports would automatically lead to corresponding exports.

A limited circulation period for these clearing certificates would assure sales before the goods represented by them
deteriorate or become outdated and would prevent the hoarding of such certificates by foreign central banks in
form of a "foreign exchange cover".


Every discount a clearing certificate would suffer in a foreign country, would merely help to speed up its reflux, i.e.
its utilisation against us in payment for our exports.

Everyone who considers not only the goods side but also the payment side of all foreign trade transactions and
takes the possibility of free exchange rates and of private clearing tokens into consideration, must sooner or later
bow to the logic of the Free Trade arguments. Protectionists usually consider only the goods side and even of this
only the first half.

                    4/9 Should Free Trade Be Introduced even with Communist Governments?

To me it seems self-evident that no Free Trader should be "free" to supply e.g., the Soviets with arms and other
military equipment. Indirectly, he would thereby infringe the human rights of others and no right authorises anyone
to infringe the rights of others, especially when the rights infringed appear to be of a higher order. Morally such
deals would be no better than supplying known violent criminals with arms. One would thereby become an
accessory to many violent crimes.

Free trading with communist regimes should therefore be confined to raw materials and consumer goods which are
not essential or important for war preparations.

All goods getting to Soviet Russia and Red China in this way could advertise the freer countries. (Really free they
will be only after the realisation of all the economic and other rights described in this book.)

The Soviets or Chinese communists could not simply use the consumer articles thus obtained for their armament
workers and soldiers (unless they were given long-term credits as at present) because a genuine trade is a two-sided
process. They would have to supply equivalent values (even if they are supplied by slave labourers). Under their
system of centralised planning and direction, these equivalents are certain to cost them more (at least in wasted
slave labour, whose cost is not only their low maintenance but does include the extra they could have earned as free
labourers due to the increased productivity of free men ) than the goods we would produce for them, in exchange.

Moreover, the economic system of the communists will see to it that a great percentage of the goods they import
from the West will be wasted in one way or the other - while the West would almost optimally utilise its imports
from the Soviet Union and Red China. Consequently, free trade would strengthen the Western economies more
than the communist ones. What more could we ask for?
Even during wartime can Free Trade largely be continued by free countries. As Friedrich Schiller, in his history of
the secession of the Netherlands from Spanish rule reported, the people in the Netherlands had free trading
relations with everyone during the struggle, even with the Spaniards, and their wealth and their economic and
military power grew steadily during this period while Spain simultaneously declined and grew poorer because it
was despotically ruled. A more recent example: During WW II a black and therefore partly free market flourished
between the subjects of two governments at war with each other, the Japanese and the Chinese one. Details can be
found in Readers' Digest, Pacific Services Edition, Feb. 1944, p. 13.

                                 4/10 Is the Transition to Free Trade too Difficult?

Consumers would, obviously, have no difficulties to adapt to the offer of a greater variety of goods at reduced
prices. They would no longer have to work in order to provide monopoly earnings to protected industries - i.e.,
industries protected against their free consumer choices. They can retain what was so far wrongfully charged to
them. With the savings made they can buy or order other goods and services. (Thereby they would reemploy as
many people as they would first disemploy, given a free choice with their money.) Thus this kind of change could
not be used as a valid objection against the Free Trade system. A complaint would here be comparable to the one
by wood suppliers upon the abolition of the burning of witches and heretics. They also suffered a loss of income
because they could no longer sell wood for the stakes.
A far more radical change occurs regularly at the beginning of every war, when an economy gears up for the

production of war materials. Naturally, these industries have then no sales problems but neither would any
industries under monetary freedom have - as long as they produce something that is in demand and do so at compe-
titive prices. Admittedly, a lot of featherbedding and mismanagement would have to be thrown overboard.

In case of war the transition to a very different production does also take place under difficult conditions: numerous
workers are called up and unskilled ones have to take their place in a short time, transport routes are largely
blocked by troop transports etc., the change in the kind of goods produced is usually larger than the one to be
expected upon sudden introduction of Free Trade, e.g., foreign markets and sources suddenly dry up or are cut off.
Nevertheless, the adaptation does takes place and the process is rapidly reversed when the war ends. The economy
is much more adaptable than most Protectionists believe - if only it is not hindered by numerous laws and
The issue of standardised and typified private means of exchange would offer the possibility to abolish any
unemployment occurring, within days at most, and thus full employment could be achieved without the sacrifices
and losses demanded by the protectionist system.

Admittedly, Free Trade will require great changes in almost every economic sphere but a destruction of the
economic system would be impossible under economic freedom. Those firms which would have to make large
changes very soon would also benefit from cheaper imports - and the whole world market would be thrown open to
them (at least to the extent that they use their own clearing certificates as means of payment, by-passing the current
monetary and exchange restrictions).

                      4/11 Is Free Trade only Good for some People and Harmful for others?

Many opponents of Free Trade assert that Free Trade would be good only for "strong" countries, i.e. countries with
many raw materials or cheap labour or much capital and consequently many highly productive machines, for
countries with a well developed economy, while it would have disadvantages for countries without any of these
supposed pre-conditions. The "weak" countries would be unable to compete with the "strong" ones on the world
market, they would be flooded even at home with the products of the strong countries, could not sell any of their
goods, whereupon a huge unemployment would result. The "strong" countries would grasp all of the world's trade
and they alone would enjoy full employment. All these objections go far astray:

Free Trade is very important for countries without raw materials because only under Free Trade could they be
sufficiently supplied with cheap raw materials.

Free Trade is also essential for countries with an expensive labour force, in order to reduce the costs of living of
these labourers and thereby avoid still further wage increases. It would further be required by these countries in
order to keep their expensive workforce continuously and fully employed - within the framework of an
international division of labour.

Free Trade is necessary for countries short of capital - so that they can import the required capital, in one form or
the other and consequently develop their own competitive industries. For a long time the United States imported
development capital from the "stronger" European economies - until this situation become finally reversed.
Countries free to import capital can soon become capital exporting countries. Afterwards, they exploit machines
rather than humans.

Generally, Free Trade is necessary for undeveloped countries to speed up their development with the aid of
countries which are ahead of them.

Any "weak" country can in some sphere or the other successfully compete with all strong country. Countries which
otherwise may be "weak" have usually as a pre-condition for rapid development, an abundance of cheap labour
power - which could make them correspondingly "strong".

What merchant of a strong country who has not altogether lost his senses would flood any other country with his
goods if this country could not now or in the foreseeable future offer anything in exchange?

If a country would really have nothing to offer, then it simply could not engage in any trading with other countries.
Free Trade would change nothing in such a situation. As soon as value is demanded, offered and agreed upon in
exchange, the feared unemployment would not occur.


Whosoever believes that the "strong" countries could gather all of the world's trading to themselves, overlooks that
trade is always a two-sided business. He asserts, in essence (without being aware of that) that some "strong"
nations could then "usurp" all export business and could do altogether without any imports. This would mean that
the "strong" countries would supply all the "weak" ones free of charge with all kinds of goods and services and
would turn themselves thus into the over-worked slaves of the "weak" countries.
Naturally, this would not occur under Free Trade. But today, under the protectionist system, such a tendency can
indeed be observed, especially in endeavours to export at any price, even if this means making presents to
"foreigners" at the expense of the own taxpayers.
Underdeveloped countries are insufficiently developed because, among other things, they suffer under
protectionism and possess not even a well developed central banking system and far less a payment system resting
upon freely competitive note issue.
What would a continuous flooding of "weak" countries with cheap products of "strong" countries mean in practice?
The "weak" countries would receive from the "strong" countries and for their usually deteriorated means of
payment large quantities of cheap quality products while the "strong" countries, with the inferior means of payment
received, could purchase from them only a few and expensive goods of inferior quality. This, if it really were
possible, would certainly not be a disadvantage for the "weak" countries about which they would have any cause to
complain. Unfortunately for them, this kind of thing does not take place, either, in reality. If the competitive
situation were really like this then simply no exchange would take place.
Under freely floating exchange rates a purchasing power parity between the currencies of these countries would
soon be established, one which would lead to equitable and mutually profitable trading, would prevent the
"flooding" and "conquering" of markets and sales difficulties. When the own currency has sufficiently fallen in
foreign countries against their currencies, then even our expensive goods will appear cheap to them.
As long as no government interferes, purchasing power parities of the currencies of countries trading with each
other (whose citizens are free to trade with each other), would very soon develop and remove most of the expected
and predicted difficulties. The concepts of "strong" and "weak" countries become then quite meaningless. All of
them would then be internationally competitive - although their standard of living might greatly differ. The
"strong" country could then acquire the currency of the "weak" countries quite cheaply (in reality only in
accordance with freely determined world market prices) and thus buy cheaply in the "weak" countries, while the
"weak" countries would have to use much of their own currencies to purchase anything from foreign countries, i.e.
imports would be very expensive for them. Thus there would be no incentive for them in multiplying their imports.
Imports would not flood their markets. Naturally, their general standard of living, although increased through Free
Trade, would still be lower than in the "strong" countries.
(To answer all the myths of the Protectionists with the best replies so far made would require an encyclopaedic
effort. Microfiche (*) would be an ideal medium to compile all such contributions and to publish a manageable
encyclopaedia of this type. Plan 183 in PEACE PLANS No. 8 discussed Free Trade with communist countries in
some detail.) - (*): (Now I would add CD-ROMs. Few would be required to record and sum up all of this
controversy, stretching over centuries & several languages and numerous writers. - J.Z., 11.12.02.)

                                           5. Productive Cooperatives

       "The greatest of men cannot do more than develop
        the cooperation of those with whom they come into contact." - John Leitch: Man to Man, p. 199.

                                   "Seek 'cooperation without subordination'"
                                        - David Wiek: ANARCHY 8.

                        "Cooperation is possible only amongst independent individuals;
                    amongst others, there may be regimentation but no creative cooperation."
                                               - W. J. Cameron

                            "Cooperation is impossible without peaceful competition."
                            - Leonard E. Read in; "Meditations on Freedom", p. 23.
                                       ,,Internalizing the Invisible Hand"
                         - Heading of chapter 12 in Cornuelle's "Demanaging America".


                "... we must also progress towards the capital-owning democracy of the future..."
                          Conservative Election Manifesto: A Better Tomorrow, 1970,
                             quoted in: "Down with the Poor", Churchill Press, p. 74.

                       5/1 Principle: Everyone Becomes an Owner of Means of Production

The basic idea of advocates of productive cooperatives is not to abolish the private property in means of
production, as communists and many socialists want to do, but instead to turn, as far as possible, every working
person into an owner of means of production, one with all rights and obligations of a proprietor, and thereby to
fully utilise the profit and creative interest of all working people in an enterprise, not only that of the former
employer, and thereby to increase the productivity of enterprises and the earnings of all participants.

Already much can be achieved with mere suggestion box schemes (as mentioned in the introduction to PEACE
PLANS Nos. 20/1) and with work-cooperatives, gang work or group work as described e.g. by Hyacinthe Dubreuil.
(See a review of his main work in Peace Plans No. 13.) (Later I microfiched the whole of his most important work:
A Chance for Everybody, which was reviewed and recommended by Aldous Huxley in his "Ends and Means". - It
was kept out of print, like many other significant works, for all too long. - J.Z., 11.12.02.)

                    5/2 Cooperative Property as Distinct from the so-called People's Property

Cooperative shares allow a collective and yet individualized ownership in means of production.

As an individual can rarely save enough capital to permit him to buy a large enterprise and as automation has not
yet advanced sufficiently, and never might, to permit him to run a whole large business on his own, the task
consists in establishing some collective or cooperative form of ownership which does not in the least reduce
initiative, responsibility and profit incentives for individuals, but, instead, promotes them. (Most productive
cooperatives in the past have not held to this ideal. They rather tended to make a religion out of a concept of
cooperation which was seen as the opposite of competition, out of egalitarian principles and practices and
democratic procedures, so that they were often worse run than the managed enterprises of today. In them the
human productive and creative potential of the participants was barely touched. (They have given the very concept
of "cooperatives" an ill repute among free marketeers, in the same ways as "competition" has become an ogre in
the minds of "faithful" "cooperators". - J.Z., 11.12.02.)

The collective or cooperative property relationship must be fundamentally different from the so-called people's or
national property in State enterprises.

The form of a share company formed by cooperators could achieve this fundamental difference if, for large
enterprises, it is combined with a decentralized form of association, in which the sub-groups or departments enjoy a
large degree of autonomy and a considerable separate interest, assured e.g. by separate profit and loss accounting.

Preferably, a productive cooperative should go the whole way and consist exclusively out of genuine proprietors.
This would require that each member would have to purchase, immediately or on terms, a minimum number of
cooperative shares.

Earnings would have to be distributed in accordance with the work-services supplied by each member and also
corresponding to the amount of capital the individual made available to the cooperative.

When capital is not monopoly or spurious capital (like an investment in a legalized privilege) then it is in essence
nothing else than pre-done labour expressed in monetary units, labour which has not yet received its final reward.
This pre-done labour greatly increases the productivity of a cooperative and can therefore claim a special reward or
share in form of an interest rate to be determined by the cooperators themselves. Whoever makes pre-done labour
available has also the right not to be exploited: the right to the full proceeds of his labour (as measured on a truly
free market ).

In all the following sections only productive cooperatives are discussed while consumer cooperatives are largely
ignored. The reason for this is that productive cooperatives are presently hardly developed and usually very badly
organized, i.e., not in accordance with free market economics and the nature of free men.
They are more the product of ideologies than economic knowledge and understanding (I would like to hear of
exceptions to this rule!) and have given the whole cooperative movement a bad name. They are also usually
subjected to many legal hindrances (even if they are well-meaning ones) and many prejudices work against their


The development and spread of sound productive cooperatives has hardly any inherent and natural limits. Only
very efficient employers of the old type could compete with them and only inferior workers would be unable or
unwilling to shoulder the self-management responsibilities involved.

One of the major tasks consists in subdividing large coops into many independent sub-coops.

Another task is the discontinuance of the practice to hire for long periods, or even permanently, mere employees,
i.e. workers who are not also cooperative share-holders - rather than independent sub-contractors, alone or in work
groups or in work-coops. Thus, to prevent a kind of exclusive and privileged cooperative capitalism of the
founding members or long-term members, and to avoid the disadvantages of the employer-employee relationship,
the constitution of each productive cooperative should determine that, apart from trial or training periods, it will not
employ anyone as a mere employee. Enlightenment among cooperators should reach a stage where they would do
this voluntarily and in their own interest.

            5/3 Establishment of Productive Cooperatives through the Purchase of Existing Enterprises

The establishment of productive cooperatives should occur rightfully, especially without confiscation, State
subsidies or "occupations", through the purchase of existing enterprises by their employees, who organized
themselves in a cooperative or partnership association. As employees possess as a rule not sufficient savings, nor a
chance to save enough to permit them to buy an enterprise with cash, one of the remaining options would be to
acquire an enterprise through instalment payments. The technically and financially best method for this, now
frequently used by financiers among themselves, would be to purchase the enterprises using freely transferable
bonds or other securities issued by the new cooperative, as means of payment. These securities are then to be
gradually redeemed, in instalment payments, over a period commonly running over 10-25 years. Such bonds are
today negotiated at the exchanges as industrial bonds.

As a result of such outright purchases the cooperators will, as a rule, have to pay out less in amortisation of the loan
involved, including interest and interest on interest, than they would have had to pay out in dividends from the
earnings of the enterprise for the some period, in case the enterprise had not been transformed into a cooperative. In
practice, these term payments would be made out of the additional earnings achieved through the transition to
cooperative production.

One of the many beneficial side-effects would be that the cooperators, finally constituting the majority of voters in
political elections, would see to it that they are no longer highly taxed as today the entrepreneurs are, who are
presently all too frequently considered as "capitalistic enemies", as the "rich who ought to be soaked". (The "share"
of the State in the earnings of an enterprise, in form of diverse taxes, is today often already as high and sometimes
higher than the total expenditures for wages and salaries. Consequently, the State as exploiter has largely taken the
place of the previous supposedly exploiting employer. Today's entrepreneurs are as a rule content with 5-10% of
the total earnings of an enterprise. Thus tax resistance and reform resulting from the transformation of enterprises
into cooperatives, would on its own already considerably improve the economic position of the cooperators.

A short study of the almost daily published reports in the mass media of profit and loss accounts of today's share
companies (this applies to conditions in Germany and countries with similar share company legislation only, but
the relationships and percentages can be supposed to be similar in similarly developed countries) could enlighten
everyone rapidly about the relationship existing today between wages and salaries on the one hand, combined with
fringe benefits and social insurance premiums (*), and the profits, dividends, interest payments and taxes on the
other hand. (I used to have an extensive collection of reports of this type. Anyone with access to similar reports by
large companies can check out this generalisation. Only firms with relatively high capital investments per head of
the employees, like mines and waterworks with large dams and hydroelectric schemes, formed exceptions from this
rule.) - (*) Wage-related burdens laid on enterprises are already - by 42-47 % in Germany and 75% in France -
higher than the gross wage payments! - Prof. Heinrich Rittershausen: Wirtschaft (Economy), Fischer, Frankfurt/M,
1976, p.11.

(My father, K.H. Zube, pseudonym: K.H.Z. Solneman, in his: The Manifesto of Peace and Freedom, The
Alternative to the Communist Manifesto, 1977, 1983 - published in my version in PEACE PLANS 61-64 and
microfiched in the printed version in PEACE PLANS 1324, pointed out that by 1975, at least in somewhat
developed countries like Germany, the small and working class savers had already, between them, enough money
on their bank accounts to purchase, if only they wanted to, the controlling interest of all the German share
companies six times over! So far they have not even seriously discussed their option to thus and quite peacefully
and rightfully take-over the enterprises they work in! Instead, their heads are still full of trade unionist prejudices
and class-warfare notions and they engage in the usual anti-industrial actions called strikes and believe to gain
thereby! - There are, naturally, many countries still in which employees are much worse off than they were then in
West-Germany. In these the above-mentioned purchase of enterprises with self-issued securities would still be
advisable, i.e. the payment of the take-over costs, out of the proceeds, in instalments. - J.Z., 11.12.02.)


The purchase of enterprises by their employees (in the way above recommended) is especially advisable in times of
economic depressions or recessions because then the enterprises can be purchased cheaply.

Once a few productive cooperatives of the above indicated kind have been founded, survived and are successful,
most other enterprises would be likely to be similarly transformed, at least in the long run. Only a few and very
capable employers would be able to compete successfully with these cooperatives, could e.g, afford to pay their
employees higher wages than they could earn as cooperators elsewhere. Such private enterprises would certainly
not constitute a problem.

The resistance among the employers against the transformation of their enterprises into productive cooperatives is
smaller than the numerous mental reservations which most labourers and other dependent employees have against
such a transformation. The employers would receive a secure annuity out of this sale and the enterprise they might
have established themselves, one of the achievements of their lives, would be more likely to be continued in this
way. Moreover, their continuing managerial income could be high, if they continued as experienced and popular
managers or executives of the coop. Many employers would make their own life-long employment in an executive
position one of the conditions of their sales contract. They would largely be freed from the enterprise risk which so
far they had largely shouldered themselves. They too would finally have more regular and much shorter working
hours - if they wanted them.

                                    5/4 Will the Unions Prevent these Reforms?

Once union functionaries recognize that, e.g., as secretaries of productive cooperatives, they could be better paid
and have more independent and more satisfying positions, they would soon no longer fight against a transformation
of employer/employee organisations into productive cooperatives. Every coop will require many intelligent people
who are good writers and talkers & used to taking the initiative. They could even offer them more influence than a
union could. Their new work would most likely be much more pleasant and their working hours much shorter. The
excitement of fighting employers and manipulating men would largely be replaced by the creative challenges of
production problems.

                            5/5 Closed Cooperatives as Opposed to Open Cooperatives

The so far indicated productive cooperatives would use only means of production which do not constitute
monopolies. For all other enterprises which utilise one or the other "natural monopoly", open cooperatives should
be established according to the model described below. The ordinary cooperatives here discussed should be free to
refuse to accept anyone who is applying for membership. They could do this e.g. with reference to the fact that he
might join a competing coop or even establish his own. In practice, as a result of full employment, which would
follow from freedom for note issues and other liberating measures, almost every cooperative would welcome any
new applicant with open arms. But no one should be granted a "right" to become accepted as a member by any
such ordinary productive cooperatives.

                                  5/6 Main Problems: Management and Marketing

Most of the productive cooperatives so far established failed. Among the major reasons for their failures were the
problems they had in arranging management functions efficiently and in assuring sales. Mostly we had cases of
tradesmen who associated in cooperatives believing that good tradesmanship would be all that would be required to
make their coops a success. Usually, they understood little of the administrative labour associated with a
productive enterprise and of the marketing organization required and even less of the requirements of fully free

Difficulties in finding a suitable director and salesmen are abolished, to a large extent, by not considering all of the
present ones as enemies but rather as potential allies. At least all the capable ones among them should be retained
in their present positions or even promoted.

Sales difficulties lying not in personal disabilities but in economic causes, could largely be abolished by freedom
for the issue of notes and other clearing certificates. Without issue-freedom any form of organization is dependent
on the exchange medium in circulation, its quantity, quality and distribution. Then, when e.g. the monopolised


State paper money is largely hoarded, many enterprises simply have to shut down, regardless of their
organisational form.

Under monetary freedom, the payment of raw materials, machinery, interest and loans, after an agreement with the
taxation office, also of taxes, could be done by many productive cooperatives largely with clearing certificates
based upon their own products and services. The earnings and profits of their members could initially be largely
paid in warrants upon their own canteens, then in goods warrants with shop foundation issued by consumer coops
in the neighbourhood, (acquired in exchange for the own clearing certificates or claims arising out of sales to
wholesalers), and finally in the goods warrants of regular Shop Association Banks as were described above.
Thereby a productive cooperative would automatically assure sales for itself corresponding to its expenditures,
earnings and profits.
All laws and regulations on cooperatives, which are all too often only obstacles for the establishment of new
cooperatives (Many require e.g. a minimum capital for their establishment and it is to be paid in cash!) should
either be abolished, ignored, or by-passed by voluntary agreements.

                                             5/7 Distribution of Profits

The net earnings of a productive cooperative can only be determined at the close of an accounting year. (Modern
computerised accounting may already have changed this situation.) Thus the cooperators should only receive
advances, which somewhat correspond to their work and capital contributions, and these should be paid out, like
wages, in short periodical intervals. The total of these advances should not exceed 90% of the net earnings in the
previous year. Thus the income of the cooperators would have to fluctuate only once a year. (Not all cooperators
will remain prejudiced against fluctuating earnings.)

                                5/8 Appeal to the Capital Market, when Necessary

If the own capital of a cooperative would not suffer to cover its capital requirements, then it could either increase
the minimum cooperative shares or appeal to the free capital market, e.g. by asking for subscriptions to a loan or by
issuing industrial bonds. It should offer such creditors in all its meetings the same voting rights which working
members have. When, for instance, one cooperative share would correspond to one vote, then these financiers and

investors should receive a number of votes corresponding to the number of their shares, or bonds or loan
certificates of the same denominations. The working members of the cooperatives, seeing that they do not only
invest their capital but also their labour power for long periods, might be given as many additional votes as
correspond to their annual earnings in relation to the value of one cooperative share ( which is the equivalent to one

                                           5/9 Responsibility of Members

In case a productive cooperative is dissolved, all its members are responsible for its debts in proportion to their
shares in its earnings. Their responsibility does not altogether end with them leaving a coop before it would close
down, at least not for the debts existing at the time they were leaving. Naturally, all such debts and assets should
already be determined at the time of their leaving.

                                        5/10 The Organs of the Cooperative

The supreme body of productive cooperatives should be the general assembly of its members in which every
member should have the same active and passive right to vote unless someone possesses more than the minimum
number of cooperative shares , or is an investor with rights as indicated above. Those with more shares will get
correspondingly more votes. Likewise, some coops might determine that a certain amount of work earnings would
give the equivalent of one vote.

The general assembly should make decisions with a simple majority. But for changes of the constitution of a
cooperative, a 3/4 majority should generally be required. The some 3/4 should be required for the dissolution of a


The general assembly also elects the directors for a certain period. They are responsible to it and can at any time be
recalled by it. All other leading positions are to be filled by elections only among those who would have to work
directly with and under them and are recallable by them, also.

The general assembly will also elect every year a supervisory board, consisting of members of the coop, whose
sole task is to be a watchdog over the directors and to give frequent reports to the members.

                              5/11 Particular Advantages of Cooperative Production

                                                 a) No More Strikes
Fights for increased wages are impossible in a cooperative for it has neither employers nor wages. Against whom
could the cooperators strike? They could simply replace an incapable director. Working time and individual
earnings they determine themselves, in accordance with their previous earnings, their orders, their will to work, and
their individual abilities and special training. If they believe their income to be too low and that the sales of their
products would not be too much reduced thereby, then they would further increase the price of their products or
attempt to cut costs further. If sales fall, they will satisfy themselves with lower incomes and consider further cost
cutting and diversification of production.
Never will they be able to complain about an employer who is supposed to exploit them. They will begin to think
like businessmen rather than as "wage slaves". The own experience with a free market, outside their enterprise and
also within, will soon give them the required economic knowledge.

Strikes are an outdated and unreliable method compared with the threat of or the act of giving notice in order to
join a productive cooperative or to establish one:

       "What working man has ever considered that if the body of workers of a factory or of a large estate paid the
       owner quarterly one-fiftieth of the value of the undertaking and that seventy-nine times, the workers would
       own the undertaking, provided the owner is satisfied with an interest rate of 1- 1/4 % quarterly on the debit
       balance remaining at any time?" - Ulrich von Beckerath, on p. 198 of PEACE PLANS 10.

If workers, instead of engaging in wage struggles and industrial war for more than a century, had proceeded in this
way for 10-20 years, then they would have become cooperative owners of most enterprises long ago.

A cooperative of wharve labourers might indeed not go on strike against an employer - it would have none - but
against a ship owner, by refusing to load or unload a ship. If they break their work contract, then they could be sued
for damages, also by class actions of their victims. If they reserve in their work contracts a "right" to themselves to
engage at any time in anti-industrial actions, then they could not expect to get many work contracts. If they
engaged in criminal assaults and intimidation against groups of workers or individuals willing to undertake the
work the striking men refuse to do, thereby also infringing the right of their customers to hire alternative
contractors, then, under a just system, they would be charged and treated as criminals. But the more they would
come to understand the workings of a free market and the more the indirect benefits of it, like full employment,
would be felt by all, the rarer would these cases become. "Wharfies" (as they are called in Australia), who
attempted to set up an exclusive organization to exploit the natural monopoly of a harbour, would either encounter
well protected competing groups or would be transformed into open cooperatives, even against their will,
cooperatives which many of their present victims would join, with decisive voting powers. Compare the notes
below on open cooperatives.

                                                  b) Rationalisation

Rationalisation measures are today frequently neither proposed nor demanded by workers and unionists because
they save labour. On the contrary, frequently they are systematically boycotted or prevented in order to avoid lay-
offs. Thus wages remain comparatively low and prices relatively high.
In cooperatives everyone would have an interest in cost-cutting or quality or productivity increasing rationalisation
measures because they would increase earnings, shorten the working hours or make work easier and nobody would


have to be afraid of unemployment. At most their kind of jobs would be changed. Cooperators could not become
unemployed because they are co-owners of the enter-prise and because monetary and financial freedom would
have abolished unemployment generally. As co-owners they might declare in favour of a general reduction of
working hours (for those who want reduced hours) or for a change in the products or for an expansion of
production. Under free market conditions, including freedom for the issue of private money tokens and securities
and freedom in the choice of value standards, industrial credits could be easily obtained. Naturally, every
cooperator would be free to either leave and sell his shares or retain them as a now all the more profitable
investment, while he would work in other cooperatives, where his own special abilities could bring him higher

              c) Increase of Productivity by Subdivision of Large Cooperatives into Small Subgroups
If one considers the State as a cooperative insurance company, its taxes as premiums, its administration and social
services as the services of this insurance company, then it becomes clear that even the smallest savings, e.g. in
electricity to power the lights of an office, would lastly be to the benefit of all the insured. (Unfortunately, here
they cannot so far opt out and make other, more suitable arrangements with other insurance bodies or remain self-

But the advantages for the individual who should switch out the lights are so small, seeing that they are so widely
shared around and, likewise, the disadvantages of not switching them out are so dispersed and small for the
individual, that this cost factor (among many others) is usually overlooked or ignored and such possible savings do
not take place. The same applies to every one of the myriad activities of the "insurance company" called the State.
Combined, all these little acts of waste amount to a great burden upon the tax payers, the "insured".

A similar waste takes place in large private firms, like e.g. Siemens in Berlin with more than 100,000 employees.
(In my time in Berlin. - J.Z., 11.12.02.) Some waste or destruction by one of the employees would, equally
distributed among the employees, burden him and the others only with 1/100,000 of the costs involved, if it was
worth $ 10, then with only 0.01 cents! Consequently, almost no one bothers.

From this and similar considerations, it follows that there is for every kind of enterprise, even a cooperative
enterprise, a certain optimal size. The same applies for certain operations to be done within enterprises. The
optimal size for groups within enterprises doing certain sections of the social production process is usually between
2 and 3o persons. Within such small coops everyone tends to know everyone and every waste and every cost
saving and improvement does significantly affect the earnings of each member. Thus all see to it that no one within
the group wastes too much and every improvement potential is sooner or later explored and realized.

Thus all enterprises, which certainly or possibly have exceeded the optimal size, as a whole or in their departments,
ought to be subdivided - in accordance with the wishes and abilities of the participants - into numerous more or less
independent sub-cooperatives, at least with their own profit and loss accounting, corresponding as closely as
possible to the optimum size for each operation.

These subgroups act like internal sub-contractors to the entire firm. They contract e.g., on the supply of raw
materials and finished products and the use of equipment with the main coop and guarantee a certain product or
service, of certain standards for certain periods. The main company would then largely be reduced to being a
coordinator and conducting "external affairs". The original shoe manufacturing firm Bata in Czechoslovakia has
possibly applied this system first, successfully and on a large scale. In the US this system, introducing market
relationships within enterprises, has been called an "agoric" revolution, from the word agora = the market. It is a
rational undercurrent in the present workers control movement and has been previously described in this series in
plan 183 in PEACE PLANS 8 and in plan 226, pp. 1-46 in Peace Plans 13.

Without this kind of decentralisation scheme many productive cooperatives could become as inefficient and
unsatisfactory to work in as other large enterprises.


                                           d) Higher Quality of Products

Under today's system the quality worker does not necessarily earn more. He may have to use more time and energy
than bad workers and might not be any better paid. The quality worker might even be blamed for working too
slow! Thus the quality of the products tends to become reduced to the lowest acceptable level and all too many
workers continue under the illusion that the harm through shoddy work would have to be born only by the
employer and the customers.

In a cooperative every cooperator would be directly affected in his earnings if he himself or others in his group
would produce shoddy goods. Thus each becomes interested in quality products, not because some boss wants
them but because their own earnings demand them.

                                             e) Personal Independence
A cooperator is no longer truly subordinated to and dependent upon superiors whom he, together with a few fellow
workers, has elected and may recall. Indeed, in many cases he would be much closer to being an independent
businessman. Instead of having to obey or give notice he can now have his say - as long as he does not hinder pro-
duction - and can also have a real influence on decision making, at least within his own sphere of the process of
production. He would never be helplessly exposed to arbitrary actions by superiors - or coercive unionists.
Cooperators will be able to speak up and largely also act upon their convictions - if only they can convince their
fellow workers that their ideas and proposals are creative and not counterproductive.

Only rarely will they be able to select the best kind of foremen and directors on their first try. But the profit motive
and its rapid feedback process will see to it that they will make better decisions soon. A merely popular guy, for
instance, whose decisions would rather lead to losses than additional earnings, would not remain in any elected and
recallable leading position for long. Workers would not have to rely exclusively on their own judgement in order to
judge advanced qualifications but would hire the services of one or the other certification and guaranty company.

                                                  f) Working Hours

The cooperators determine their working hours themselves. Naturally, if they want to shorten them considerably,
without simultaneously and proportionally rationalising their work, they would have to be satisfied with lower
earnings. Individual cooperators would also have considerable freedom in arranging shorter or longer working
hours for themselves with corresponding lower or higher earnings.

                                                      g) Earnings

The cooperators themselves determine - dependent only upon approval by their more or less satisfied customers -
their working time, kind and volume of production, investments, prices of the finished products etc. Their earnings
will then correspond the value of their product on a free market - less all the fixed costs involved.
If they appear to low to them then they can only hold themselves responsible and they will have it in their power to
improve the situation.

                                h) Management Mistakes Will Become Less Frequent

After a few dozen general assemblies, the cooperators will have won insights into economics which even many of
the present entrepreneurs do not have. Why? Very powerful people cannot stand being contradicted and so very
often they are not or not sufficiently contradicted when this is required. Many wrong decisions follow from this. In
cooperative assemblies everyone can freely speak his mind. The subdivisions of cooperatives will see to it that
each will have a channel for his opinions and ideas in accordance with his level of interest. Those disinterested will
stay away. All participants will have a similar financial and working interest in the proper decisions. Wrong
decisions will hurt them in their pockets. Those who gave the right advice will be better listened to next time.
Experience will be the best master.


There is no intention here to dispute in this rough and ready way all benefits of modern management methods. But
the further these have gone away in the management of people from hierarchical decision-making towards personal
incentives at every level and decentralized responsibilities, towards self-management in short, the greater have its
successes often been.
Other kinds of management capabilities and training can be hired in form of consultants or contracted or elected in
form of cooperative members with such special abilities and training.

I have no illusions about mass meetings or committees always making the right decisions. But these meetings are
distinct from many others in that they decide only the own affairs and have in these a profit and loss interest.
Moreover, there will be many such meetings at many levels, each attended by those interested at that level by those
who have most to win or to lose.

What one expects from such a re-organization largely depends upon what one expects from man as a free being.
Many libertarians still wrongfully believe that man as a producer needs a master over him. I hold that properly
organized cooperatives will refute this belief.
                                           i) "Go-Slow" Policies Will End

Wages of workers remain all too often the same, whether particular workers produce much or little. Even when
they work on piece work, they have often experienced that when many workers produce above the normal rate then
the normal rate is simply increased and the value of the extra efforts flows rather into the pockets of the
entrepreneur than into their own. Whatever happens actually, this is the impression the workers often have and
their reaction is predictable: More or less formally they agree upon taking it easy and going slow, producing under
their capacity and thereby, indirectly, do also lower their wages and their purchasing power. Their additional
earnings must become much more directly related to increased turnover and profits from sales than happens
through piece work and no one must be authorised to determine cut-off points and minimum quotas for them. That
does not mean that they will not have to haggle and bargain out the value of their particular contribution to the
product of an enterprise with other work groups within a cooperative. In this they will even have to compete with
outside contractors offering the same services.

Cooperators would harm no one but themselves with go-slow policies. They are, generally, interested in utilising
every minute of their working time for production and ever increased productivity. Thus they will not take
unnecessary "Sickies", either, especially when they have also organized their own sickness and accident insurance
and the costs of loafing would have to be born by their mates. These find out, often long before a doctor, whether
one of them is truly sick and unable to work.

Related to going-slow agreements are pretended hyperactivity as soon as a supervisor is near, combined with
comparative relaxation or even inactivity as soon as he is out of sight. In a cooperative, particularly a properly sub-
divided one, the full profit motive and proprietary interest applies to everyone and loafers will not be carried at the
expense of other cooperators. Instead, their lower income would be determined by the evaluations of the other

Today the appearance of being busy is given frequently by employees, e.g. by sales personnel in department stores,
who are not supposed to sit down (even if seats are provided) when there is nothing to do. Cooperators would be
inclined to make each job rather as easy as possible, as long as productivity does not suffer.

                                             j) Jobs According to Ability

In a cooperative everyone has a considerable influence on the kind of his contribution or job. Likewise, his fellow
cooperators have an interest in finding the job for him which is most suitable for his abilities. Thus, to a higher
degree than is presently the case, people will get into the positions corresponding to their abilities and interests,
where they tend to be most satisfied and most productive. In short, larger freedom in the choice of jobs and
professions will also be introduced within enterprises. Connections or friendships with powerful people would no
longer help, at least not for long.

            k) Increase of Productivity through Job Rotation in Relatively Simple and Monotonous Jobs

Today workers are often tied (due to unemployment) to simple and monotonous jobs for years. Change into others


depends upon approval by superiors for whom increased productivity and worker satisfaction will not always be
the first consideration. Consequently, certain workers tend to deteriorate at least as human beings whose creative
potential is not sufficiently utilised, then also as producers whose quality and quantity of output suffers.

Cooperators will much more rapidly agree among themselves to make their jobs more interesting (job -enrichment)
by re-arranging them or less boring by frequent job exchanges (job-rotation).

                                    1) Theft and Embezzlement Will Be Reduced

Theft by employees of raw materials, tools and finished products is very common today. Workers often believe
they would merely harm the employer in this way and not themselves and their fellow-workers, at least indirectly.
Moreover, believing to be exploited, they often try to "get even" in this way. Once they consider such items as their
own property and that of their fellow workers the situation will be different. Those who steal from their fellow
workers are never very popular and would be much more easily uncovered. To that extent security guards would
usually not have to be hired by cooperatives. Moreover, they could save much in record-keeping which is based on
the assumption that every employee is a potential thief.

               m) Waste and Abuse through Neglect and Maliciousness Will Become Less Frequent

Neglect and abuse lead today often to waste and a short life-span for tools and machines. In a coop the fellow
workers would demand an indemnity payment in such cases from the culprits. Employers, at present, are much less
likely to find these offenders and tend merely to write-off such losses, together with other production costs.

                                                    n) Amenities

Apart from paternalistic firms and labour legislation, amenities and investments which would facilitate work are
frequently not provided today. Most cooperators would be willing to make such expenditures for themselves, e.g.
provide better ventilation, seating for jobs which could be done sitting down, or better seats etc.
Even if they did nothing of the sort, they would only have themselves to blame and their output would be less
likely to suffer from job-dissatisfactions.

                                           a) Less Supervision Required

Cooperators, in their own interest, will as a rule work industriously, compete with each other, spur loafers or see to
it that they are paid correspondingly less. They will not require any special supervisors or incentives or
disincentives for that. Their inherent ones will be enough. The only norms and quotas they will have to follow are
the ones they set themselves. Thus their supervisory and administrative costs will be greatly reduced.

                                            p) Superfluous Jobs Reduced

Superfluous or unprofitable jobs are today often ordered by superiors who want their department to appear very
busy, in order to justify demands for still more staff and workers and to give the impression to their superiors that
they would have thought of everything. In a cooperative such abuses would be prevented by the profit incentive
every cooperator has. Nobody could or would force them to do jobs which would be unprofitable for them and no
one else would be prepared to foot the bill for such jobs.

                                               q) Corruption Avoided

There will also be less corruption in cooperatives because the supervision of every cooperator by his fellow
workers is almost 100% and, primarily because the cooperators are not just representatives disposing over the
property and services of others, but of co-proprietors. Every harm to the whole enterprise and to the cooperative
group they belong to would also harm themselves. Self-inflicted wounds are rather rare.

                             r) Just Determination of the Individual Share in the Profits

Today there is often the same rate of pay (determined by collective bargaining) for different jobs and output and for
the same kind of work different pay (according to age and seniority). One can almost say that the contracts made
by union functionaries with coercive and exclusive powers have turned this absurd and inequitable procedure into a

Employers and supervisors, even with the best of will, can often not determine the difficulties experienced in
certain jobs as well as the workers themselves. Thus the latter will gradually and job by job develop experience and
systems based on them to measure individual contributions, in the attempt to come close to just individual shares.
The subdivision of large coops into small autonomous work cooperatives will be a great aid in this. But not all jobs
can be thus measured. There are e.g., certain clerical jobs whose particular activities would be hard to impossible to
measure and compare. Here another practical method could be applied. Whenever several cooperators with
comparable abilities apply for the some job, then it should be circularised on job bulletin boards and the salary
should be determined according to the law of supply and demand. The one willing to do the job for the lowest
salary, equal capability presumed, would receive the job. Naturally, it would not be a sinecure either. Someone
might turn up with superior qualifications and he would get the job even at a higher pay or someone else might
undercut him by demanding less for the same job.

In cooperative production anyone believing that his particular share in the profits would not correspond to his work
contribution, would have to come to an agreement with his fellow workers. It would have to be determined at
whose expense his share should be increased. Thus the constitution of many coops would determine that everyone
applying for a higher share should name at the same time the individuals or groups whose earnings should be
correspondingly reduced, because they are, supposedly, overpaid. In case of disagreements the jobs involved will
frequenty be swapped, at least temporarily, until finally agreement will be achieved in most instances. As most of
these work groups will also be affinity groups of basically compatible people, lasting disagreements on such
subjects will be rare. Incompatible people will go their separate ways in separate associations.

                                                    5/12 Summary

The main flaw of most of today's so-called "free enterprises" with a hierarchical structure and based largely on
subordination, allowing free enterprise and initiative only to a few on the top, usually misnamed "capitalistic"
enterprises, as if the others, even national enterprises and many of the nominal cooperatives would not have the
same flaws and characteristics, lies in the fact that the enterprise and its products belong to those who directly
provided the capital, that these are usually not identical with the workers and that the workers are more or less on a
fixed income, regardless of their individual contributions and of their inclinations and abilities, in a prescribed and
supervised role.

From this do inevitably follow ignorance and disinterest of the workers regarding the functions of the enterprise.
They tend to give as little to the enterprise as possible or as they can get away with and to grasp as much in form of
income and fringe benefits as they can get. The employers have the directly opposite interest: They want the
maximum output at minimum costs. From this follows a permanent condition of either hot or cold industrial wars,
all very wasteful and harmful to both sides. (Hyacinthe Dubreuil called the employer-employee relationship
therefore: "A condition of organised antagonism." - J.Z., 11.12.02.)

At the same time, the present shareholders understands as a rule as little of the activities of "his" company as the
workers of this company do, has no interest in the business conduct of his company than is absolutely necessary for
the receipt of his dividends. In case something goes wrong, he will rarely try to reform his company but rather
change-over to other shares. This ties in with the over-size and lack of subdivision of most share companies which
give most share holders as little influence in stockholders' meetings as voters have in political campaigns.
(Add to this that at present many of the top managers are, like top politicians, more concerned their "image" and
their temporary high salaries, share options and golden handshakes, sometimes with other fringe benefits, including
power, fraud and corruption, than with running their companies profitably. Like with their lowest workers, their
rewards are insufficiently related to their performance. They are often given the opportunity to extract much more
out of a company than they do put in. - J.Z., 11.12.02.)

All these evils would be largely abolished by productive cooperatives, by people who are workers and shareholders
of enterprises at the same time and who are sub-divided in groups which maximise their common interests.


The employer-employee relationship can probably not be abolished altogether. But one could achieve that it would
be abolished wherever it becomes an obstacle to technical progress, where it amounts to an unjustified
guardianship over employees and where there is any danger that under it the product of work would be unjustly

The various productive cooperatives would naturally be free to decide what, how and where they produce
something. Insofar there would be no distinction between them and other private firms or free enterprises. Difficult
to sell goods they would as a rule produce only upon orders and advance payments and goods in daily demand for
the free market. In essence, they would merely consistently apply free enterprise and free market methods not only
externally but also within their enterprise, more or less turning every participant into a "capitalist" or "socializing"
every "capitalistic" enterprise. These distinctions would lose their meaning for them.
Through the advantages of cooperative production compared with the average employer-employee-based
production, and according to experience so far gathered, the average income of the members of a new cooperative
will immediately rise by about 20-30 %. Later it will rise in accordance with the productivity increases due to
additional rationalisation measures realized by the cooperators.

(As the example of Matsushita Electric - National, Panasonic, Technics etc. - shows, where one employee submits
in the average 8 written suggestions per year, it would be hard to overestimate the possible speed of rationalisation
measures following the release of everyone's productive energies and talents.) - (A still better but also mere
suggestion box scheme at Sony did achieve, already years ago, an average of no less than 350 improvement
suggestions per employee per year. Most of these suggestions, in the better schemes, were found acceptable,
applied and rewarded with bonus payments. - This experience alone indicates an enormous, previously unsuspected
and unused creative potential of ordinary human beings, within their work sphere and it can make one somewhat
optimistic about human nature, when set free in its creative activities. - J.Z., 11.12.02.)

The presently predominant employer-employee relationship is in its effects one of the strongest supports for
communism and other forms of coercive socialism. Cooperators would be immune toward the promises of
communists, State socialists and trade unionists. Those striving toward a communist/socialist world revolution of a
totalitarian character would thus suffer a severe set-back, if not defeat, if one were to utilise the advantages of free-
enterprise or laissez-faire economics also within present productive firms by a corresponding re-organization,
brought about in a voluntary and businesslike way. This method would use all the advantages of capitalism
(without any privileges) for production and distribution by discontinuing its ineffective organisational forms.

If one admits that the aim of rightful socialistic attempts is to secure the right of workers to the undiminished value
of their product or service (their contribution to them, as measured on a truly free market, then one will also have to
admit that properly organised cooperatives are "socialistic" enterprises, the only enterprises in which this right was
so far widely realized for large groups.
They would also avoid the bureaucratic exploitation which is inherent in State socialistic experiments.

As indicated above, this kind of free market capitalism or voluntary cooperative socialism can be established
without State subsidies, State regulation, expropriation or nationalisation, simply by self-help measures of
interested individuals, utilizing market methods and business-like purchases and credits. Right from the beginning
no violence or fights or sacrifices are required and additional profits for all concerned could be obtained already
during the first year.

(The literature on what is called, among other things, "organization development" is so immense that all these
ideas, proposals and experiences have not yet been sufficiently surveyed and evaluated as they should be. Nor is all
of it sufficiently published and kept in print. Use of CD-ROMs would make that possible and could lead to much
faster theoretical and practical progress in this sphere. - I did my bit by microfiching some such writings. - J.Z.,

              6. Open Cooperatives according to Theodor Hertzka, to Abolish the Monopoly Position
                        of those Natural Monopolies which Do not Deserve Recognition

                                     6/1 Unlimited Acceptance of New Members

Those monopolies resting upon special legislation will be abolished by the proposed human rights, described above
and compiled in the appendix. There remain natural and socially essential monopolies like land, mineral deposits,
but also some electricity works, railways, telephone networks etc. i.e., enterprises against which competition is
either impossible or very hard or expensive to establish.

Provision must be made so that cooperatives possessing such monopoly enterprises will not abuse their monopoly
position and exploit all other citizens dependent upon their services.


Some form of "socialisation" (or open-market arrangement, involving individual consumer and producer
sovereignty - J.Z., 11.12.02.) will be required as a solution. If these cooperators retained absolute private property
rights in their monopolistic means of production, then they could abuse their monopoly or oligopoly to gather
monopoly earnings from their fellow citizens, corresponding to the absence of or impossibility of free competition
that would be involved. This is an unpopular abuse - although often not as harmful as is widely supposed - and it
could easily be avoided by allowing everyone to share in or decide upon such monopoly earnings. As soon as this
possibility would be created, many would make use of it. The higher the monopolistic part of the prices of such an
enterprise would be, the more people would want to join it, thereby doing away with these unearned profits.
Monopoly earnings would be reduced until they become as low that they are then insignificant. From then
onwards, the members could earn only the average work income of people in similar positions and the rush to join
their enterprise would come to an end. No one would want to share just average earnings or below-average
earnings by joining such an enterprise as a worker, no more so, anyhow, than he would want to join any other

Any present enterprise based on the employer-employee principle or even on the cooperative principle could refuse
to accept new members. (Compare the present closed "shops" of medical doctors, lawyers, plumbers, electricians
etc.) Precisely in this an "open cooperative" would be different. It would be "open" towards everyone who would
want to work in it, even if he is already a member of other cooperatives. Consequently, an open cooperative could
no longer exploit anyone by demanding excessive prices for its services. (Taxi proprietors are now usually "closed"
enterprises due to legislation achieved by them, leading to only a certain number of taxi-plates being issued.)

This kind of freedom of movement for workers into jobs and enterprises would prevent most attempts to collect
monopoly profits from "natural monopolies". Most members would be aware that the attempt to rise prices to gain
monopoly profits might bring such a rush of competing workers into their firm that their earnings might temporari-
ly fall well below the average earnings. Knowing this, the attempt will rarely ever be made.

This "openness" would thus mean that such a cooperative would to have accept, as far as technically feasible, if
necessary through shortening the labour hours, all those applying for work with it, no matter whether the present
members like this or not. (The same applies to additional productive investments. Here I will not take up the
controversy on legal patent monopolies, which I do oppose. - J.Z. 11.12.02.)

For professional or trade people this would, naturally, require that they do also possess the necessary abilities and
knowledge. The public is in no way to be excluded when tests of this kind are to be conducted.
(Competing certification systems and evaluations of them should also be established or tolerated. - J.Z., 11.12.02.)

Only if and when there is no work at all available for someone, which corresponds to his training, ability and
willingness to work, and if he could not be trained within a short time, either, should an open cooperative be
allowed to refuse work to someone.

Naturally, every member of such an open coop could leave such an enterprise again after having given notice.

                             6/2 Participatory Decision Making by all those Interested

On the one hand, the number of labourers which can be employed in certain jobs is physically limited. Thus a crane
operator cannot, during his shift, be replaced by two or three others or effectively aided by them. On the other
hand, the working hours should not be reduced to ridiculously short periods, like e.g. 15 minutes daily - while in
other enterprises it would generally still be 6-8 hours.

Thus, if, due to an excess influx of new workers, the working time of an enterprise would have to be reduced
excessively, without correspondingly reducing the earnings, then still more people might want to join such an
enterprise, not because of above average earnings of these cooperators but because of their below average working
hours. Consequently, the earnings of these cooperators would fall still further.

Those joining last, or marginally, would consider such jobs only as second or side-jobs and the original members
would be forced to look for other jobs, in addition to this one, in order to make a living. Quite a few would not be
pleased with this development and it is one which can be foreseen and against which they could take certain
precautions, if they wanted to. (They could e.g., donate the monopoly profits for the next x years to some research
Another evil would remain: if only the working cooperators had a vote on the pricing of their monopoly goods or
services, then they could still largely dictate prices, i.e. could still exploit their consumers, those of them who
would depend on them.

Therefore, open cooperatives should also be open not only to labourers, professionals and investors wanting to join
it but also to people who do not want to do any more than to vote in their general meetings.

Consequently, when members of an open coop tried to uphold monopoly prices, and would not reduce them as
suggested above or dispose of these earnings as hinted at above, then it could happen that many of their consumers
would join them just in order to vote for lower prices of their products. The cooperators could then no longer
complain about an excessive influx of additional labourers because the lower earnings would deter such an influx.
(There could still be cases where even price reductions might not help sufficiently: A pricing allowing the
cooperators only normal earnings at normal working hours, i.e. preventing excessive influx and monopoly price
exploitation of the customers, might lead to a situation where the existing demand at the lower price could no
longer be satisfied. In these - probably rare - cases, the cooperators might be wise to make long-term commitments
for donations with the amounts gathered as the difference between the prices required for their work efforts and the
prices they would have to charge, at market level, in order to avoid rationing their products. They would, in these
cases, pay some-thing like a voluntary "single tax".)

If any coop applied chicanery to prevent members from joining or to make new members leave again then again
interested people must be free to join in the general assemblies to put an end to such abuses.

At the same time, these mere voters could not vote the prices down below a level which would permit the workers
normal earnings because then this activity would soon come to a stop, people not finding it any longer worthwhile
to work in such an enterprise. Thus, in spite of their formal voting powers, these consumers will only be able to
vote-in prices corresponding to free market prices. Any prices above or below this level would harm the

                                6/3 All their Business to Be Open to Public Scrutiny

In order to prevent that the influx of new workers becomes too small or too large and to assure that the job changes
required do take place with sufficient certainty and fast enough, every "open cooperative" should also be "open" in
another sense: Everyone should be enabled to inform himself without any difficulties about the prices, turn-over,
profit and work situation, the debts, assets and other economic facts about all open cooperatives or, in other words,
no such enterprise should have business secrets. All essential facts on its production and its earnings should be
periodically published, Everyone interested should have, as far as business requirements permit, a chance to peruse
such a company's books and records.

If this takes place, then everyone can easily find out what kind of natural monopoly enterprise offers him the
highest income and the most favourable work conditions and would then tend to apply for jobs with such
companies. These open coops would have to accept him, if this is physically possible and thereby every monopoly
enterprise would lose its chance to make monopoly profits. The influx of new labour would occur within days,
sometimes within hours after the facts were published. Such an enterprise is then no longer a monopoly enterprise -
but, instead, an "open cooperative", a somewhat "socialized" enterprise that is, in some real sense, with regard to its
natural monopoly, a "public property". (But without the disadvantages of a nationalized one. Free movement of
individuals in and out of such enterprises would "demonopolize" them and avoid bureaucracy. - J.Z., 11.12.02.)

                                       6/4 The Essence of Open Cooperatives

With the exception of the above indicated special features, everything that has previously been stated on productive
cooperatives of the ordinary type does also apply to these "open cooperatives". Through freedom of movement into
monopoly enterprises, in combination with the participatory decision-making right of every interested person and
the publicity for all business activities of such companies, every natural monopoly enterprise would lose the
disadvantages of monopoly enterprises: low productivity, excessive prices, exploitation of all other producers and
consumers, and would win all the benefits of free competition for itself. Thus the open cooperatives would be

another instance for the old insight that through the completely free play of all economic forces the harmony of all
economic interests can be achieved.

               6/5 Any Remaining Monopoly Earnings Will Be Donated by the Open Cooperatives

The different productivity of e.g. different soils and mineral deposits leads often to a great profit differential
between enterprises which had basically the same expenditures to get into production. (In case the differential is
not already collected in form of site rent by the land lords or former owners.) If land and mineral resources are not
considered and legally protected as exclusive private property but instead considered as natural monopolies to be
rendered harmless in one way or the other, granting everyone access to these means of production - without
infringing the rights of workers and investors, e.g. by transforming such possessions into "open cooperatives", then
this difference in the earnings potential would still create a problem in some instances and attract an excessive
number of workers and investors to particularly fertile stretches of land and high concentrations of minerals. They
would have natural monopoly earnings even if they charged no monopoly prices but just ordinary market prices -
due to their lower costs. Although they could sell below market prices - they could not satisfy world demand for
their products. Thus too low prices would increase demand for their products so much that soon rationing would be
required, with all its disadvantages. As long as they continued to charge market prices, they would continuously get
an excessive influx of labourers. To deter this, they should, as already hinted at above, promise to set aside a
sufficient percentage of their profits for some or the other project promoting the "common good". One such
purpose would, obviously, be the financing of any enterprises which would help to break the monopoly position of
the enterprise concerned. Other projects to be financed in this way could be research into reducing occupational
hazards of the industry. In this way and for these enterprises an acceptable compromise between the ideas of
Theodor Hertzka and Henry George could be achieved.

(It must be admitted that not all of the "natural monopolies" will last forever. Technical progress makes some of
them superfluous. For instance: Many to most railways have lost their natural monopoly position to motor vehicles,
roads and air transport. Some power plants are likely to lose their natural monopoly positions when alternative
energies become more cheaply available. Vast telephone networks are beginning to lose their natural monopoly
position to satellite networks. - J.Z., 11.12.02.)

                                                6/6 Land Monopoly

Every unlimited property right in land constitutes a monopoly because land is available only in a limited quantity
and can, with small exceptions, not be produced by man. The same applies even when land belongs exclusively to
those who work it. Nationalisation of land would lead inevitably to all the evils accompanying any administration
by the State. Any economic activity should always be left to those who themselves and directly feel the financial
and other successes and losses of their own activity. Public servants do receive their fixed salaries regardless how
of productive or unproductive the enterprises administered by them are, largely regardless even of how harmful or
even wrongful their activities are.

To tax away the site rent is not yet a satisfactory solution nor always a just one, particularly when most of the
development costs have been paid by private enterprise. Especially when such funds go into general revenue and
then finance a bureaucracy, military establishment and various other unwarranted subsidies, then one can hardly
call these funds "socialised" in any sympathetic sense. Moreover, even if a limited government is the initial aim,
even these territorial governments do always have the tendency to become unlimited, as the U.S. has probably
shown most extensively.

The best practical applications of Henry George's land reform ideas, that I know of, are the land trusts developed
by the U.S. School of Living and the Proprietary Communities as described by Spencer H. MacCallum in his work:
"The Art of Community" (Institute for Humane Studies, Cal., 1970). In both instances the land thus community or
privately owned and privately leased, should neither be too small in area nor too large so that the existing
monopoly becomes really broken to a significant extent, at least locally, while no new monopoly, even a reformist
one, is being set up. Many other land reform ideals could be peacefully coexist and they could all be based on
peaceful purchases from the present owners. Some of these were discussed in PEACE PLANS No.5, more will be
in future issues. Here I just advocate Theodor Hertzka's solution, the "open cooperative" ownership of land, as a
means to secure to everyone his equal right to use land and its mineral deposits. In this organisational form, as

stated above, everyone who wants to work in such a cooperative, must be accepted as a member, even if this would
require a reduction of the working time of the members of the cooperative. The rights of all those, who have
already worked on and otherwise invested in that particular land, must naturally also be respected by the open
cooperatives, i.e. they are to be credited with all improvements due to their efforts and investments. (Dr. Theodor
Hertzka's main work on this subject: "Freeland, a social anticipation", was reprinted by Gordon Press, N.Y., in
1972. Its sequel, "Travel to Freeland" will be translated for this series. In both works he offers refutations to almost
all conceivable objections - and also over-expands his main scheme.)
(Particularly these of his works do contain some other interesting "utopian" ideas. By the way, they turned a 16
year old Ulrich von Beckerath from a Marxist into a Libertarian. - J.Z., 11.12.02.)

The following objection appears to be serious at first : Hertzka's principle of the open cooperative would lead to a
wasteful use of land. Everyone would endeavour to draw as much value as possible out of the soil, in the shortest
possible time, perhaps leaving nothing but a wasteland behind. References are then often made to the wasteful use
of land in times when much more land was still freely available, like during the settlement of North America. But
precisely this latter condition does no longer apply. Land that can be freely used and then discarded is today
available only to a very limited extent. And precisely the organisational form of the open cooperative could prevent
its abusive use - by allowing all objectors to join!

Moreover, only relatively few workers would want to move like nomads from one area to the other, always in
search of the highest possible temporary gains. They are usually more or less attached to their homes, gardens,
friends and relatives and only large financial advantages could induce them to move. But precisely large financial
gains they could not make through this cooperative form; just good working and investment incomes would be
possible. Newcomers to any particular land area would also always earn less than those who made investments in
land improvements long before they came and the newcomers would have no right to deprive them of the value of
these improvements.

Furthermore, by now most farmers are aware that the greatest profits cannot be made from unimproved and virgin
land but from capital and labour intensive land improvements. They are frequently so productive that they pay back
the investment within 12 months. Thus a wasteful use of land would be rather unlikely, especially when, under
monetary and financial freedom, credit for land improvements could be obtained relatively easily.

That initially a fertile virgin soil is always somewhat exploited, i.e. deteriorated, is self-evident and there is no
intention here to avoid that. It does not make economic sense to artificially improve the fertility of land which is
already better than most other land. But to use it and to maintain its fertility does usually make economic sense.

Far from being deplorable, the tendency to use primarily the most fertile soil, in combination with the removal of
all national barriers, would have a very desirable consequence: Too much labour would no longer be wasted on
relatively unproductive land, achieving only inferior harvests which can be sold only due to the protectionist
system. Instead, most primary products will be produced in the most fertile areas of the world and those who want
to produce them would move there. Alexander von Humboldt estimated that all of mankind, at his time about 1,000
million people, could easily get all its food supply from one river valley alone, that of the Amazon. Perhaps one
will come to utilise all these possibilities only after the introduction of open cooperatives, of exterritorial and
autonomous communities of volunteers, freedom of movement and freedom of trade and monetary and financial
freedom and then produce all the food, fibre, oil etc. requirements of mankind with a fraction of the present labour,
investments and land, in a few areas of the world. Strong tendencies in this direction can already be observed now.

                                 6/7 Real Estate Property and Right to Living Space

Repeal of monopoly property rights in land used agriculturally or for mining, would not abolish the right to living
space and the right to supply oneself with work. Both these rights require for their realisation if not exclusive
proprietary rights then at least exclusive use-rights in defined areas or spaces. Thus the kind of freedom of move-


ment into enterprises that would be introduced through open cooperatives, should not be extended to blocks of land
which do not exceed a certain size, are soon to be used by the owner for building or are already used for building
purposes. Agreements among the citizens living in an area will lay down guidelines on this which correspond to
local conditions. The same applies to industrial structures on land.

Such properties should also be freely transferable. Consequently, a small amount of site rent would remain under
this system but it is here assumed that this land cannot be better distributed than through free transferability and
free pricing for housing and industrial blocks of land, in accordance with supply and demand. Whatever
neighbourhood associations will be established by the citizens of various exterritorial and autonomous
communities of volunteers in an area, will probably determine, from time to time and for considerable periods,
what use could be made of local land and what sizes should not be exceeded by private blocks in order to satisfy, as
far as possible, all demand for them. Here, again, a merger is likely to take place with the ideas and practices of
private zoning, uncovered by recent research and with the administration concept of "proprietary communities".

For the keeping of title registers to land titles the principle which was, at least at one stage, already recognized in
the U.S., that the private title books of lawyers and solicitors are recognized in courts, will possibly find general
recognition, so that not even a local government need be concerned with that aspect.

                        6/8 Conversion of Monopoly Enterprises into Open Cooperatives
                 Means their Proper Socialisation or Transformation into Free Market Enterprises

The property of an open cooperative can be considered as "socialized", accessible on the free market, as granting
the access to the means of production desired by many who possess only their labour as capital. Whoever would
doubt this could convince himself simply by joining one of the open cooperatives temporarily, either as a co-
worker or as a co-investor or a co-advisor. Most socialist writers considered it as self-evident that socialisation
would have to consist in nationalisation. After the experience with nationalisation in the Soviet Union, one must
accept as proven that State capitalism is worse than private capitalism (where most of the productive capital, apart
from labour, is in the hands of relatively few people, even if, as under "pension socialism" the nominal titles lie
lastly with the insurance claims and small bank savings of the masses). The nationalist-collectivist combination of
political power with economic power deprives the workers completely of their rights.

The few socialists who made a distinction between nationalisation and socialisation have made no clear proposals
how the socialisation could be realized - apart from a mess of contradictory, coercive, counter-productive and self-
defeating controls.
Hertzka's open cooperative is, as can be seen from the above, open at least in three ways to every member of
human society and thereby the property of such a cooperative, especially its productive capital and its land, must be
considered as socialised. Without government directions, controls and confiscation, the productive capital of an
open cooperative is accessible to every individual. The socialisation is thereby placed into the hands of self-
selected individual people and thereby can and will not be carried further than is really necessary, i.e., it will be
applied only against natural monopoly enterprises. If and to the extent that they realise monopoly profits, they will
be thus "socialised" - as a result of free individual actions.

When realized, this ideal means that, without bloodshed, new laws, confiscations or demagogic appeals to mobs,
every day the benefits derived from all monopolistic means of production are distributed among all producers fully
in accordance with their work and capital contribution, simply by several hundred people - in a country like
Germany - changing every day from an ordinary cooperative to an open cooperative - because they expect a
personal advantage from this. Any centrally planned and directed production of these "socialised" enterprises from
any outside bureaucratic machinery is superfluous.
Theodor Hertzka said on this, fittingly, in "Reisenach Freiland" (Travel to Freeland ):

       "Where everybody owns what he produces and where a free market exists on which the own products can
       be exchanged for the goods one wants oneself, everybody will, self-evidently, attempt to produce what is
       widely needed because only if he does this can he expect to achieve the real purpose of his productive
       activity, namely to satisfy his own requirements with the least possible effort. Thus the aim must be to utilise
       the selfishness and the profit motive of all labourers to the best effects by giving them free play."


An enterprise run by an employer corresponds often only to the profit incentive which the employer has, a
cooperative only to that of the present cooperators.
A natural monopoly privately owned appeals only to the profit motive of the owner. But if people can freely share
in the earnings from this monopoly - by working with it or investing in it, or can have an influence on its pricing
policy, as voters, then the production in such enterprises will be in accordance with the profit motive of all

If equal rights of all in economic activities are considered a basic characteristic of socialisation - or of free
enterprise and free market activities - then an open cooperative, applied to natural monopolies, would fulfil the
requirements of socialisation - and of free enterprise and a free market.

To avoid, in the period of transition, any disturbances which might even deteriorate into civil war, and because the
present monopoly owners, including the land owners, must naturally be indemnified for their capital investments,
open cooperatives should only be established like any other productive cooperative or other enterprise, i.e. through
the purchase of existing enterprises by their employees and managing staff, organized in cooperatives or
partnerships, using industrial bonds as means of payment. The above described characteristics of open cooperatives
would tend to assure a just purchase or sales price.

As cooperatives and open cooperatives do no longer exploit anyone and can be considered as "public" or socialised
enterprises, accessible to all citizens, benefitting all citizens, they should be exempted from all tax burdens which
do not amount to fees for services desired and used by them.

                                  7. Free and Private Building and Housing Market

A free housing market means: abolition of all interferences with and regulations of the housing market, the
abolition of housing commissions, forced tenancy, rent ceilings, restrictions of the right of landlords to give notice,
abolition of all special taxes on housing land and houses etc.

One of the most unpleasant side-effects of government interference with housing was that, in a country like
Germany and for many years, one half of all court suits consisted of disagreements between landlords and tenants.
(In short, the more the State attempted to provide equity in this sphere, the worse both sides felt and probably were
treated.) Consequently, all courts were over-burdened and all settlements required still more time.

Rent control robs on the one side the landlords of a great part or all of their pre-done labour, in form of their houses
and leads on the other side to extra high prices for the few flats that are not subject to rent control. Moreover, it
prevents the building of blocks of flats for profit and the building of family homes - to the extent that neither can
compete with rents which are artificially kept low. Consequently, a real housing shortage develops which the State-
run system cannot rapidly and economically overcome. Moreover, the limitation of the right to rent out unused
living space under conditions mutually agreeable, leads to a situation where much of such living space is left rather
unused than subjected to bureaucratic control. (The subsequent government "solution" to this problem consists then
in measuring all available living space and allocating it bureaucratically, whereupon then, in countries like the
Soviet Union, all those not specially favoured by the bureaucrats, have to be satisfied for many years with less
living space per person than most prisoners have in the more civilised countries.

In Germany, after World War II, the official housing commissions and their activities were so expensive that for
the equivalent expenditures every year 100,000 dwellings could have been built. Among the many other defects of
such a system are, naturally, extensive corruption and favouritism and delays which lead to waiting periods for
several years - and finally to housing commission homes which may be 50 miles away from one's place of work,
making one further dependent upon public transport or public roads and public transport policies.


Far from achieving a just distribution of the available living space and promoting the building industry, and helping
the tenants, coercive interference with the housing market prevents the just distribution of the available space, as it
suppresses freedom of contract and the price mechanism, and it preserves and increases the housing shortage by
largely preventing private building efforts.
A free housing market means nothing else but the absence of any State interference under any pretence in the
housing market. Only violent crimes, theft and fraud involved should concern the government courts - as long as
there are only government courts.

                                       7/1 House Building Must Be Liberated

The main obstacle to private house building (for others, not for oneself) lies in the risk of inflation. Thus legal
tender for State paper money is to be repealed and the prohibition of value preserving clauses for the mostly long-
term building loans. Only then would private financiers get sufficient confidence to invest their funds in blocks of
flats. Whoever possesses capital and must expect that he will be deprived of it by devaluations, inflations, taxes,
price control or confiscation, will not be inclined to make loans wherever he is exposed to such dangers and
wrongs. He will rather waste it, gamble it away or otherwise amuse himself with it, or hide it away, safe but
unproductive, or will transfer it to wherever he believes it to be safer. The strictest controls could prevent only a
small percentage of this natural reaction.

Private house-building is also indirectly restricted through the note issue monopoly. This limits turnover credit and
thereby the total turnover, and thus the sum total of all surplus earnings over current consumption which could be
utilised for long-term investments e.g. in the housing market.

Maximum interest rates, trustee acts, building regulations, coercive zoning, privileges for building workers,
compulsory licensing for all building activities and jobs are other minor but still important restrictions of the free
housing market which prevent its full development.

                            7/2 Disadvantages of the Provision of Housing by the State

Whoever ignores the above hinted-at legal obstacles to house-building could easily come to draw the wrong
conclusion: private house building has failed and must be replaced by that of the State, financed out of general tax

The repeal of all restrictive laws in this sphere would soon show how false this conclusion is. Prejudices in this
sphere could also be much faster abolished if the costs and risks, to which they lead, would have to be born
exclusively by the voluntary members of an exterritorial and autonomous community of people, who do believe in
government or community intervention in this sphere. For others it would almost be self-evident that the tax funds
collected from a people impoverished by excess taxes for a great variety of public expenditure programmes, by
wars, arms races. inflation and currency shortages, protectionism and other interventionist actions, would be insuf-
ficient to rebuild what has been destroyed during war years, replace what ought to be condemned because of age,
and add what is required due to population growth and refugee movements. For almost every government many
other tasks are much more important than house-building. Even if government departments worked at this task at
their full capacity (i.e. when there is not another credit restriction, often due to the myth that "over-full-
employment" would be possible and the belief that a boom could possibly "overheat"), then the most exaggerated
political promises to provide much and cheap housing would, as a rule, provide only the presently registered
requirements within 10-20 years. Over such a long time (apart from the fact that few would volunteer to wait that
long) a much higher demand might arise.

That a government house-building programme is always associated with an enormous degree of waste and
corruption and that the costs of publicly built accommodation is, in spite of inferior quality, often much higher than
the privately provided living space, is already widely known - and experienced over and over again .

But all too few people pay attention to the absurd consequences for individual taxpayers: Those who, under great
personal sacrifices have finally succeeded in building a home for themselves, are under this system forced to
provide also the funds for those people who, to say the least, were less industrious, productive and provident.


In extreme cases they were forced to finance thus people who earned more than they themselves did and who paid
controlled rents which were lower than the repair costs for a home.
On the other hand, rents for accommodation provided under such "social" building programmes are often
comparatively so high that only relatively well off people can afford them, while the capital costs for providing
such accommodation are largely provided by people who live in slum accommodation, because they cannot afford
anything better. Moreover, due to slum clearing, these poorer people might then even lose this cheap slum
accommodation, in order to make room for "public housing" which they cannot afford! Language often fails to
clearly describe the wrongs and absurdities of such policies. (Let the victims of such policies and institutions
secede from them! - J.Z., 11.12.02.)

The ideal of the followers of a government-planned economy (as if the private economy worked without plans and
as if ruling people could more intelligently dispose of other people's money than these people could or would
themselves) is that only one institution is authorised to grant building credits. Consequently, anyone whose credit
application is refused by this centre cannot proceed with his building project. Any of the frequent financial crises of
governments today leads probably to ten-thousands of such cases in large countries. (Naturally, government-
financed and built accommodation will then be rationed and allocated by the usual "honest" bureaucrats and the
usual shortages will occur. Very few will get the kind of housing they like. Some joker once said: If the Sahara
were nationalised then, after a few years, a shortage of sand would happen even there. But I doubt that bureaucrats
could be as efficient sand miners, exporters and transporters of sand. - J.Z., 11.12.02.)

7/3 How Should Private House Building Be Financed?

Freedom of choice for value standards (requiring among other things a free gold-market), freedom to use value
preserving clauses in long-term contracts, freedom of contract regarding interest rates, freedom to issue medium
and long term securities, together with the larger offer of capital which will indirectly also result from free note
issue (larger turnover leading to larger production and then more savings) will facilitate the private financing of
home building. Then, within a few years, like in Germany before WW I & II, the offer of housing will tend to
exceed the demand for it - like it does now regarding office space. The emergency prices for accommodation,
resulting from the housing shortage, will then fall to normal levels.

A special kind of credit insurance, the mortgage insurance, in combination with mortgage banks, could further
facilitate the private financing of housing.

Moreover, once licensing, inspections, building codes, union privileges, tariffs against prefabricated homes etc. are
abolished, the prices for standardised, prefabricated and modular housing could come down close to the price of a
good car - and, correspondingly, financing of housing would be much less of a problem. (Compare the suggestions
of Buckminster Fuller on this. - J.Z., 11.12.02.)

                            7/4 Tax exemption for New Buildings and Building Credits

After the 30-year war (1618-1648) and the Seven Years War (1756-1763) Germany was very rapidly restored,
essentially by granting reconstruction credits based on rare metal values and by exempting new buildings and
credits for them from
all taxes. (In Pomerania ALL taxes were abolished for 2 years!) That was a great incentive for all potential
creditors to finance reconstruction.

Thus, together with the above proposed monetary freedom system, a law should be passed which would exempt all
new houses and other buildings and credits for them for several years (20 years should today be the least!) from all
income and capital or wealth taxes. The country which introduced such a reform would receive a flood of refuge
capital from all over the world and could, with its aid, overcome its housing shortage still more rapidly.

Under present tax rates (and other confiscatory measures against land lords) there is no great incentives to produce
something like buildings which can be so easily taxed and tend to be so heavily taxed, regulated and controlled - so
that relatively little building results and also only a small tax total. Under tax-exemptions for new buildings and
building credits there would at least be more turn-over- and wage taxes and less expenditures for unemployed
people. Thus one should expect the tax department to promote such a reform - if one could expect it to act
rationally. As it is, irrational penal tendencies in tax laws often outweigh economic considerations, and they are
much more popular with ignorant voters.

                                7/5 Development of Saving and Building Cooperatives

The establishment and development of building cooperatives should be promoted.

They promote purposive saving for future house-building and for the repayment of housing mortgages granted by
them. As a rule they take only contributions from members who thereby, sooner or later obtain a claim to a housing
loan. Their high interests on savings accounts do also attract non-members but their income consists mainly out of
the regular savings instalments made by members and the amortisation instalments and interest payments of their
debtors - those who have received a housing loan from them.

Even under a stable currency should their interest rate be set rather high, at about 7-10%. Then those, for whom the
repayment of the loan, including the high interest rate, is still cheaper than their rent, will apply for the loan as soon
as possible. Those, who can accumulated only small savings per year, will voluntarily postpone their loan, while
they receive the high interest rate on their savings deposit and help to provide the means for those who do not want
to wait as long. Some will then even postpone the loan application altogether and wait with their building project
until their savings plus the high interest have reached the sum required. The interest on these savings deposits and
the interest on the loans must be so high that the waiting for the building credit is as advantageous as the early
granting of a building credit. Consequently, the high interest rate can make an allocation system for credits largely
superfluous. Rather than not having enough funds, these building cooperatives might then often have more liquid
funds than they can immediately invest. (Then they should lower the rate, thereby reducing deposits and increasing
loans.) If the reverse should happen and less funds are available than the members want to obtain as loans, then a
waiting list could be laid out and the members would get their loan when their turn comes.
(Those who saved up, with high interest, half the building costs and then borrowed, at high interest, the second
half, would, in balance, gain as much in interest as they paid and might thus be considered as having gained their
loan interest-free. - J.Z., 11.12.02.)

Because of these peculiarities the interest rates at building cooperatives should rather be called a premium for
waiting, paid by those who do not want to wait to those prepared to wait because of the premium.

They should require regular repayments in equal sums.

Such self-help institutions have already built a large percentage of all privately owned homes in the developed
countries. The building and loan associations of the US, at one stage, had financed up to 75% of all private homes.
By rationalisation and through liberation from government controls they can further increase their share of this
important market.

                                            7/6 Rationalisation of Building

There is such a vast scope for improvements here that only the barest hints can be given. Required would be
especially the abolition of all coercive building codes and a much more efficient system for the enforcement of
private contracts than the present government courts provide, moreover, the abolition of all international barriers
against the flow of prefabricated homes. Buckminster Fuller reckoned that, as a consequence, the future home need
not cost more than a good car and he may well be right - if we allow the miracle of the market to work.

The abolition of unemployment - largely through freedom of note issue - and the ease of obtaining bank credits
from free banks for the purpose of rationalisation measures, in combination with the high wages to be expected
when labour-intensive jobs are no longer the ideal, and with the relative shortage of labour, would assure that all
possible rationalisation methods would be rapidly applied. E.g., new tools would soon save much of the costs of
bricklaying. Plastering machines would be handled by unskilled labourers etc. One Western Australian firm offered
to train bricklayers, sufficiently, within 3 weeks and to guarantee the brickwork they would do afterwards under the
supervision of an experienced bricklayer!
The seasonal unemployment of building workers could largely be overcome by utilising large cheap shelters, like
blow-up domes, or erecting at such times predominantly buildings which are less climate sensitive, like steel
frameworks with aluminium cladding etc. There is no technical obstacle to fast, cheap and good housing and
building but too many meddlers and parasites are in the way.

                                       7/7 Cooperatives of Building Workers

Cooperatives of builders would be easy to establish because little initial capital is required. The building costs are
usually covered by those who place the orders and their creditors. As in this organization form every member has a
strong financial interest in improvements, the tendency to rationalise building methods and reduce costs will be
further increased. At the same time, the cooperators would to some extent be together responsible for mistakes
made in the building which would provide an incentive to produce quality work.
(After WW II in Australia small temporary building coops were established by groups returned soldiers, each of
whom acquired at least some special building skills and then they helped each other to build their homes. These
building coops were rapidly successful - and then disappeared! - J.Z., 11.12.02.)

                                       8. Private Social Insurance Companies

                   8/1 Repeal of Compulsory Insurance with a Monopolistic Insurance Authority

Within everybody's obligation to assure as far as possible a minimum standard of living for himself in case of
inability to work, due to sickness, accident or age, and to do the same for one's dependants, especially in case of
one's death, everyone has the right to arrange for this kind of security without the aid of any officials and
departments, through private organisations and the conclusion of suitable contracts. A case could be made for a
"compulsion" to insure oneself against such common risks of living (In different exterritorial and autonomous
communities of volunteers different arrangements of this or other kinds will be made.), but there should be no
compulsion to insure oneself with a particular insurance authority (unless one prefers such a "solution" among
volunteers). Those communities which agreed that all their members should insure themselves against such risks
with some insurance company or the other, or should take equivalent precautions, would probably appoint a
supervisory body which would see to it that the members fulfil this obligation - to which, as voluntary members,
they would have given their consent.

        8/2 Self-Financing of the Private Social Insurance Companies with their Own Contribution Money

Every insurance company should be authorised to pay its pensions and other benefits as well as the wages and
salaries of its employees in its own service warrants, which are standardised, typified and in denominations like
money. The reflux and thereby the par value of these warrants could be assured by the insurance company
accepting them in payment of contributions like cash, i.e. at their nominal value, regardless of their current market
rate. In general circulation, these clearing certificates should not have any legal tender. We have here, if one con-
siders the insurance premiums as voluntary taxation, some kind of tax foundation. For details see the work by
Ulrich von Beckerath reproduced in Peace Plans No. 11.)
(As far as their investments are concerned, these should not be subjected to monetary despotism, taxation, trustee
acts and other government interventionism, confiscation and exploitation, not to trade union monopolies and
powers, as are now many superannuation funds. - Under free competition both health and old age insurance could
become rather cheap. The really needed insurance against health catastrophes would then be much cheaper than
insurance for the costs of every visit to the doctor or chemist, which can be self-insured against, by most earners in
developed countries. I will not go into details here. - J.Z., 11.12.02.)

                                          8/3 Abolition of Interest Ceilings

All laws and regulations limiting the height of interest rates should in future be repealed, especially for the funds
accumulated and invested by social insurance bodies. The higher the interest rate is which the insured receive for
the capital accumulated by the insurance company, the higher could be their pensions become or the lower their
If there were no interest, a man working 40 years and wanting afterwards for 20 years a pension of $3,000 p.a.,
would have to put aside, for 40 years, $ 1,500 p.a. If he gained instead 15 % interest on all his premiums (based on
credit-insured productive investments) then his premium for the same pension could be reduced to no more than 13
dollars yearly for 40 years! If he would want a higher pension, let us say, $ 30,000, he would still not have to pay
more than $ 130 p.a., i.e. much less than people do usually pay now in order to gain quite moderate pensions. For a
premium of $1,300 p. a., about equivalent for many people to what they now are forced to pay towards the govern-
ment-run social insecurity which they can expect from it, they could then gain $ 300,000 p.a. - for 20 years, i.e.
they would be multi-millionaires! How many people are aware that the government prevents them from becoming
millionaires? What would happen if the woke up to this fact?


(Another way to instant riches, not only after 40 years, but also blocked today by governments - and a way to
overcome this blockage, was described in Peace Plans No. 19 C. - It would effectively expropriate the bureaucracy
for the benefit of its victims.)

Some might object that 15% interest p.a. are unrealistic and too high. They would be right if the borrower could
only clear 5-16% on such capital. But what if he can make, under a free economy and with rapid technical,
agricultural and scientific advances, 45% to 150% p.a.? Is such an interest rate still too high for him then? I believe
that e.g. old age funds should be primarily invested in all such opportunities (naturally, credit -insured!) and that
there will be many such opportunities in the future and that there were already quite a few such opportunities in the
past and present. Enemies of "usury" would be free to form their own communities, granting within them whatever
little capital they accumulate interest-free to each other.
(Adherents of free pricing and free enterprise and free investments in this sphere would want to see the predone-
labour (capital) of the investors rewarded with a fair share in the additional productivity achieved through their
investments, ideally through a correspondingly fluctuating interest rate. - J.Z., 11.12.02.)

                 8/4 Safeguarding Insurance Fund Investments by the Reform of the Trustee Acts

Some form of "trustee acts" seems to exist in every "advanced" and "civilised" nation. They regulate a great
percentage of the national wealth, funds like those of people under age or in mental homes, funds of foundations,
unions, communities, churches, savings institutions and the enormous funds of social insurance bodies, especially
the reserves of the pension funds. They do usually require that a large percentage of these funds be invested in
government insecurities - just because these seemed, especially during the 19th. century, to be the safest
investments. Now these investments assure only one thing: A nominal repayment in inflated paper money.
Nevertheless, this legislation continues in full force and nationalises and wastes probably more wealth every year
in these countries than the local communists and socialists would dare to propose. Much of the funds being thus
forcefully channelled into these directions (which also usually include first mortgages - on a paper money basis!),
excessively low interest rates in these investment spheres result, while rates for industrial investment credits are
simultaneously rather high.
Even if issuers of industrial bonds are free to offer these on a gold accounting basis and thus largely inflation -
proof, the trustee acts would still force the funds concerned to invest not in such good papers but in proven bad
ones instead, under the legal pretence that the "bad" ones would be "secure". Thus the industrial sector, due to
whose activities these funds were accumulated in the first place, is largely starved of these funds. Many
economically useful and profitable plans cannot be realized because due to the trustee acts the banks and insurance
companies cannot advance the capital they have for these projects. Instead, they must put them into relatively
unproductive and low interest-bearing investments and are, finally, repaid in inflated and almost useless paper

An increase in unemployment, excessive insurance premiums and all too low pensions are among the results.
Relatively low productivity and a correspondingly high price level are among the other effects.

We have here another case proving how important Jefferson's and Paine's proposal was to limit the validity of all
laws and regulations to a relatively short period. Luckily, similar proposals are presently being revived in the USA
- under the term: "sunset laws".

Even apart from inflation, the compulsion to invest funds in government securities is another wrong form of
"forced loans". Most tax payers are also members of social insurance bodies. Thus when they are forced to repay
these government loans, taken up from social insurance funds, they are forced to indemnify themselves for the
raids by bureaucrats against their funds. Thus they are forced to pay these amounts twice, once as contributors and
later as tax payers. (This in the best case, when the funds are not destroyed by inflation and when a government
actually makes an effort to repay the public debt.) (The Nazis managed to invest these so confiscated funds in their
armament preparations for WW II!)

Consequently, the trustee acts are either to be abolished or at least to be amended in the following way :
1. Investment in government securities is interdicted as being much too risky and basically wrong.

2. Value preserving clauses are to be agreed upon for all such investments of a medium and long-term kind.

3. Credit-insured investments are to be considered as sufficiently secure in the meaning of these acts.

Anyone further interested in this subject should study Prof. Heinrich Rittershausen's monography: "Die Reform der
Muendelsicherheitsbestimmungen und der industrielly Anlagekredit" (The Reform of Trustee Acts and Industrial
Investment Credit), Fischer, Jena, 1929, 96pp. I hope to be able to offer a translation of this work soon, in this


                           8/5 Decentralisation into many Local Insurance Cooperatives

To reduce fraudulent claims for health insurance benefits, save costs in gaining new members and to reduce
administration costs in short, to allow the lowest possible premiums, as many small local insurance companies or
insurance cooperatives should be established of the members of firms as is possible. Within such insurance
companies members would know each other and would keep each other in check. They should have at least about
150 and at most about 1,000 members and, to cover themselves, they should take out re-insurance or form
guaranty-associations as was proposed already in 1900 by Prof. Bleicher.

                            8/6 Separation of the Old Age from the Invalidity Insurance

Old age is very different from invalidity as an insurance risk. The higher mortality is, the lower could be the
contributions to old age insurance. With invalidity the reverse is the case. The earlier it occurs, the higher must be
the contributions to cover it - provided the contribution period is not decisive in working out the sum of the
pension. Especially in such cases the length of the contribution period should not be decisive. Consequently, either
different insurance companies should conduct these different kind of insurance cases or the contributions for these
two risks should be independently determined, independently changeable and the capital amounts accumulated
from them should be separately administered and used only for their particular risks and claims arising out of them.

                                          9. Free and Private Exchanges

To obtain full monetary and financial freedom, not only free banks must be freely established but also all
restrictions on private stock exchanges and other exchanges must be removed. E.g., the licensing for the issue of
securities and the registration of dealings in securities must be abolished. Bearer-bonds must be permissible. No
such exchange centre is to have a statutory monopoly. Stockbrokers should be self-regulating and everybody
should be free to set himself up as a stockbroker. Publicity for all transactions must be as complete as possible.

Under such conditions honesty among stockbrokers became once proverbial. As a result of numerous attempts to
further increase honesty among them by a variety of legislative measures, they have so much lost their good
reputation that honesty among stockbrokers is no longer proverbial.

One of the best short defences of the rationale of exchanges and explanation of the socialist opposition against
them can be found in U. v. Beckerath's work: "Must Full Employment Cost Money?" on p. 159 of the reproduction
of this work in PEACE PLANS No. 10. The passage is fundamental for the understanding of monetary and
financial freedom.

An expansion of publicity in stock exchange reporting that is significant was reported in the same work and issue
on page 197.

In 1954 U. v. Beckerath wrote another short paper on kind and importance of stock market trading:

"It does obviously make a difference whether interested people associate in groups or appear singly on the market.
The English wholesale company of consumer cooperatives, for instance, negotiated with Asian tea syndicates. It
owned several steamers for food transports. Thus it achieved quite different prices than those prevailing in a bazar
in Morocco, where small single tea traders deal with single customers - and sometimes haggle for a long time. In
exchanges whatever is traded is exhibited in samples. In trading outside of exchanges differences occur often on
whether a supplier has supplied what a customer had ordered. Trade on exchanges is so developed that whole
shiploads of goods can be turned over in a few moments. The contractual conditions are carefully worked out and
standardised. Thus disagreements are rare." (Tea is still abundantly provided, sometimes at almost ridiculously low
prices, if one does not insist upon top quality. To what extent has the tea-market been de-monopolised, compared
with other markets for other standard consumer items? - J.Z., 11.12.02.)


"In stock exchange trading everything is mediated through brokers. These know all the trade practices by heart.
While trading outside of exchanges even experienced merchants do sometimes forget important points.

The major part of the world's production is brought to the consumers by middlemen. These are led by other
motives than the consumers. Instance: During the latest cacao boom most of the middlemen kept a cool head and
merely acted deaf when there were no cheap offers at all while very expensive offers were shouted.

This was soon effective. Everywhere long available cacao stocks became visible and prices fell steadily. The
German chocolate manufacturers are already reversing the small precautionary price increases they had made. If,
instead, single consumers negotiate then, when cheap offers are not made, they are all too ready to offer
exaggerated prices. The exchanges offer the opportunity for anyone interested to obtain knowledge of all offers.
The system of stock exchange news brings an element into trading which is missing wherever there are no
exchanges. Continuous information on trading and production break many attempts to monopolise something
already in the first beginnings.

At the exchanges dealings in futures are undertaken - except where foolishness prohibits them. This kind of term
business allows people to assure themselves of sales for long periods. Withdrawal premiums permit them to
withdraw from such commitments under bearable conditions.

The people, especially the workers, will enjoy complete economic freedom only when they come to use the
methods of stock exchanges for themselves."

                                                10. Voluntary Taxation

Please note that the following are views I held in 1962 at the latest and that I may have improved upon them in plan
228 in Peace Plans 13, pp. 71-81: "Some Notes on the Possibility of a Tax Strike" and in plan 223 in Peace Plans
14, pp. 30-75: "Voluntary Taxation" and also in Peace Plans No. 19C, of which I have recently put out a second
and enlarged edition. Here I will merely translate what I had written then. Do not blame me for the flaws in this
section - you may already find them corrected in the above contributions.
More essays on this subject will be published in future issues. I have seen at least some of the other plans in the
libertarian press for the transition from a taxed to a free society and would like to bring together all such projects in
a number of microfiche.
(For the time being, PEACE PLANS 13, 14 & 19C are among those few made freely available by me, upon
request, via e-mail, in RTF, until they become available on a website or and on a CD-ROM. - J.Z., 11.12.02.)

Voluntary taxation follows as a technical detail automatically from the right of individuals to secede from a
government. Even those levies, which formally are forcefully collected from members of exterritorial and
autonomous communities of volunteers, are in reality voluntarily paid taxes or contributions if and as long as the
members can make use of their right to secede. Seemingly, and according to some theories of consent, tax payment
in democratic States takes place already today voluntarily. The freely elected representatives of the people are
supposed to make only those expenditures which are desired by the voters and are to raise the funds for them from
the voters by taxes which they find tolerable and at tax rates they are willing to bear. That is the all too imperfect
theory of the matter. It does not agree too well with reality. The right to elect representatives for a period during
which they can do almost anything they please, does not suffice to protect the rights and interests of the voters. At
the very least, to protect their rights and interests better, the presently very limited right to vote ought to be
supplemented by the right to recall representatives and officials, to vote in referendums or to secede as individuals
(thereby casting a 100% veto vote regarding one's own affairs).

Reasonable beings would voluntarily determine a minimum amount which every member of an exterritorial and
autonomous community would have to pay as a tax, fee or contribution. This amount would then be raised directly
or indirectly in accordance with whatever tax or collection system is preferred by that community. They would also
reserve to themselves the decision how most of these funds ought to be spent. They could do this through elected
and recallable representatives, always with the safety valve that they could escape from their "representatives",
laws and institutions by individual secession. They might be satisfied with whatever constitutional safeguards they
would arrange. They might also determine their common expenditures largely by referendum - from whose
decisions minorities could secede.


One of the best and most democratic methods appears to be the following: While every member is obliged to pay a
certain agreed upon total, the disbursement of this amount among the various common projects of the community
could be left altogether to the contributor's discretion. He would be free to pay his whole tax amount or parts of
them, as he pleases, to the institutions of his choice, which in his opinion need funds most of all or whose activities
ought to be expanded - again, in his opinion. This would require a listing of those institutions whose activities are
recognized for the time being - and their account numbers, e.g., public libraries, schools or sports fields. This
public spending or budged system would be almost infinitely adaptable and would starve those institutions which
do not find sufficient approval and support those well which do.

The tax offices would then have to publish statistics on the government expenditures, list the subsidised
institutions, the sums of the subsidies, how far the voluntary tax contributions from individual taxpayers fell short
of or exceeded the target of these institutions during the last year - or other agreed upon period, what particular
expenditures are planned by these institutions for the current period etc.

The full balance sheets of any such institution should be available to every individual contributor upon request.

The tax office could then insist only that the taxpayer present it with receipts from the recognized institutions
amounting to the total required from him.

Naturally, whosoever, in spite of all bitter experiences with tax offices and bureaucratic spending machines like
parliaments, does still possess sufficient confidence in them, should not be prevented from assigning to them his
whole contribution, to be spent as now, at their discretion.

This system would be practised among volunteers who have enough in common to voluntarily join a particular
community and remain in it. Thus the views of the members will be similar on many points. They will thus support
most of the institutions most of them really want - if, e.g., they could not be financed sufficiently by fees,
foundations or in other ways.
They would soon discontinue granting official support or recognition to institutions which, as they can find out
from their statistics, would only be supported by a handful of members.
Thus they might come to determine a cut-off point from which onwards support for institutions would become
altogether a private affair. Dissenters could secede and form communities where such expenditures might be the
main expenditures.

A system of voluntary taxation does not mean that people could go into debt to the community, by using its
services and then refusing to pay. Probably a much more effective and forceful debt collection would be practised
then compared to the ones we see at work at present.

There were precedents for voluntary taxation: the voluntary contributions of the Persians under Darius, of the
patricians in the cities of the Hanseatic League, the public income declarations of taxpayers practised in Italy after
World War II (in which they often declared a higher income than they actually had - in order to obtain credit more
easily!), and the high contributions which certain religious sects demand from their members in order to maintain
the various charitable projects of these religious organizations.
Ideally, and in the long run, prices, fees, contributions, subscriptions and donations should replace all taxes and all
institutions now requiring tax support will one day be considered with the high degree of suspicion and horror they

But it should also be clearly understood that even a 99% progressive income tax or death duty, when agreed upon
among the members of an exterritorial and autonomous community of volunteers, is not a tax in the present sense
but rather a "religiously" motivated donation. Only the forceful imposition of one's expenditures upon non-
consenting others, and their corresponding enslavement, is a moral abomination and an anti-economic absurdity. If
the victims consent, then they should be free to suffer whatever pleases them.

I confidently predict that when all the other reforms proposed in this book have been realized, then there will not be
many people left who are prepared to voluntarily suffer the costs of armaments for large-scale wars or the costs of
military slaughters for undefined and undeclared, immoral or irrational purposes. How to deal with misguided
people, with criminals and madmen is to some extent described in Sections V-VII.


                                          11. Unemployment "Insurance"

Any contributions to any "insurance" the government supplies and may formally deduct from wages and salaries as
"premiums", are essentially taxes. Many countries have already recognized this and finance their "unemployment
benefits" out of general tax revenues. From their very nature as taxes one can already safely predict that these
contributions or the general tax revenues will be lower the higher unemployment is. In short, the income of this
"insurance" will be at the lowest ebb when it is most needed to pay the promised "benefits" at the time of the
highest unemployment.

If the same total of contributions as in "normal" times were raised at such times, then this would mean that much
higher taxes than before would have to be demanded from the reduced number of workers. This extra burden
would then very likely lead to the dismissal of still more workers (excepting only the tax avoidance industry).

Similar considerations apply to capital and reserve investments made by such "insurance" corporations. Most of the
accumulated premiums or reserves are not held in cash but are, instead, invested, ideally in productive enterprises -
and on long terms but under a withdrawal notice. If they were only invested on short terms, then the long term
capital market would be deprived of these amounts and thus some unemployment would follow. When invested on
long terms and some unemployment occurs, then the debtors will be given notice to repay these amounts - sooner
than they expected - which would, most likely, leave them short of funds, so that they might have to put more of
their employees on the street.

As demonstrated elsewhere, under monetary and financial freedom such "insurance" provision would be seen to be
unnecessary and would not be made. Most of the existing involuntary and long term mass unemployment is due to
interventionist legislation (especially the legislation upholding monetary despotism). This legislation, in its turn,
rests upon popular myths and errors, which are subject to fashions and the laws involved are not consistently
applied either.

These interventions can also exceed any predictable degree or form. Consequently, these risks cannot be suffi-
ciently predicted and covered by a proper insurance arrangement - quite apart from the inherent difficulties and
counterproductive results of raising funds for unemployment benefits, which were hinted at above.

In 1956 Ulrich von Beckerath commented on this:

       "The government insurance against unemployment, now introduced in almost all States, has the following
       fundamental faults:

       1. This insurance assumes that chance plays here an analogous role to that involved in fire and health
       insurance. But in the case of unemployment the risk to be insured against occurs by chance only in a few
       cases. Crises like those of 1893, 1904, 1907, 1921 and 1932 are no chance phenomena. Thus one has here
       to make the same distinction as e.g., in fire insurance, which excepts the risk of war damages and in health
       insurance (at least the private one) which excepts the risk of wide-spread epidemics.
       2. When the kind of unemployment is abolished which necessarily results from our present monetary
       system, at least from time to time, and when employment agencies are better and more competitively
       organised than at present, then the small amount of remaining accidental unemployment (by chance in the
       sense of statistics) could easily be covered as a sideline by e.g., the health insurance services. (Under "our
       monetary system" is here understood one that, like all present ones, grants every creditor the right to
       demand cash.)"

Ulrich von Beckerath's views on this whole subject, here only summarised, were shortly stated by himself in Peace
Plans No. 10, p. 179.
The subject is so important that it should be dealt with in some special dissertations. I have heard so far only of one
private study, made by Dr. G. Ramin's Festmarkbank, in Germany in 1924, which found that a large percentage of
the total note circulation issued at that time, when all phenomena of a deflation were present and unemployment
was high, had accumulated at various government offices and their bank accounts and were held there, pending
disposal, for considerable periods. In other words, these notes fulfilled their intended function as exchange media
only at bureaucratic speeds and in the bureaucratic sphere - while the private economy was short of exchange
media. Government unemployment offices act similarly, even if unintentionally and unaware.


                                             12. Employment Agencies

       " conversation with any contemporary, be it a worker or a high official, a manufacturer or a
       shopkeeper, most of them will contend that it is simply immoral for individuals or groups to undertake
       something which the State perhaps could perform. It is true that they cannot express their opinion in such
       an abstract form, but in any given case four out of five will not fail to testify to this, if asked. A few modern
       laws have originated in this emotional complex, e.g. the German Act regarding the monopolisation of the
       employment agency service by the State, of 22 July 1922, confirmed by the Act of 16 July 1927. One would
       think that a Parliament which is seriously combating unemployment would support every agency providing
       employment and only legislate against abuses. The German Reichstag did not do this, but, on the contrary,
       as a result of pressure by the Socialist Party of Germany and the Communist Party of Germany, passed a
       law which has certainly contributed to the increase of unemployment in Germany. From ideas such as are
       involved in the above State monopoly, there is but a step to a complete Statist economy ..."
       - Ulrich von Beckerath: Must Full Employment Cost Money? - pages 117/18 of PEACE PLANS No. 10.

Based on considerations like those above, the Berlin Programme of the "Society of 1952 to Fight the Causes of
Unemployment" demanded the repeal of all such monopolies and restrictions. See Section XI of this programme,
reproduced in Peace Plans No. 41, page 61.

A later German law on this subject, dated 23.12.1956, did not repeal the monopoly for employment services but,
instead, made it still more exclusive and added an interesting new "task": The authority thus established is now also
to avoid any "shortage in labour power" or, in other words, to see to it that unemployment might never become so
low that the "industrial reserve army", consisting of unemployed would thereby become "endangered".
What hope is there for people who, without protest, without even a murmur, accept such treatment as their "fate"?

                                   13. Private and Competitive Transport Services

Here also, any State or private monopoly is wrong, exploitative and contradictory, seeing that people have the right
to move themselves and their goods as cheaply and efficiently as possible and no transport organisation should
have any other function. A high standard of living rests essentially upon the free exchange of goods and services,
produced under a system of division of labour, and thus upon efficient transport. Any transport restriction must
therefore reduce the standard of living.

That private and competitive railway-, bus- tramway and taxi companies are quite viable, that they do not need any
monopoly or privilege and that they can effectively compete with similar institutions set up and maintained by
governments, has often been shown, mainly by enterprises in the U.S.A.
In Market Street in San Francisco there were even, until 1944 two competing tramway companies operating on
different rails. After their final municipalisation no economies of scale were observed. On the contrary, services
went down and prices up. John Gunther reported details on this in: "Inside U.S.A.", Hamish Hamilton. London.

That nationalisation or State control of transportation enterprises should be avoided or reversed follows from the
numerous cases in which governments abused their powers in order to limit competition against privileged
institutions. Thus bus and truck companies able and willing to transport persons and goods much cheaper than the
State railways, were forced to charge similarly high prices or were, sometimes, not licensed to offer their services
at all. In the early seventies, a private bus company around Sydney had installed modern air-line type seats in its
busses. The then ruling transport minister forced the company to throw out these much more comfortable seats,
arguing that this example would be dangerous: people might demand the same good service from the government

In some cases private railways might still have a natural monopoly position. In these cases the above discussed
principle of "open cooperatives" could be applied in order to avoid a monopolistic exploitation.

(After ca. 150 years of mismanagement of State railways in Australia it was finally revealed that during all that
time very much corruption and mismanagement had occurred! Some limited reforms did taken place afterwards.
Will we have to wait for the rest for another 150 years? - We still suffer under the effects of "Ministers for
Transport". A friend, B.C., many years ago, suggested that they should be renamed: "Ministers Against Transport".
- J.Z., 11.12.02.)


Large enterprises can easily be financed (for their current expenditures) with the goods warrants system. Dr. Walter
Zander has made a special study of this possibility - which was reproduced in PEACE PLANS No. 9. To my
knowledge no one has developed these ideas further. Otherwise, I am aware how much the above notes have
become dated during the last 20 years, after they were written. They are no more than the barest hints towards
some of the many options - under freedom. Many articles and even books have been published on this subject
during the last few year but all this material has still to be integrated and sufficiently publicised. For this microfiche
(& CD-ROMs!, J.Z., 02.) would be an ideal medium wherever copyrights are not restricting such an attempt. At
least the subject of private roads will be taken up again in a future peace plans issue.

                                      14. Private and Competitive Energy Supply

                                        14/1 No Monopoly for any Power Plant

It is economically desirable to produce and distribute energy cheaply. Every monopoly for either production or
distribution of power does unnecessarily increase the price of energy and reduce consumption - and thereby the
general standard of living. Where and to what extent private competing power plants could be successful could
only be decided from case to case and should be decided by those who invest their capital or labour in such
attempts. It is certain that energy monopolies will prevent the establishment of competing power plants even there
where they would be desirable and profitable. To force enterprises, which could otherwise obtain their energy
requirements much more cheaply, to purchase them from at high prices from monopolistic plants and distributors is
a severe case of abuse and exploitation.

That power plants can be privately run is still proven by the remaining private power plants in the U.S.A. That
competition among power plants is possible and desirable is perhaps best demonstrated by the conditions in Seattle,
Washington, USA, where a private and a municipal power plant have been competing with each other for years and
have produced, as a result, the lowest electricity rates in the U.S.A. and perhaps in the whole world. (Details in
John Gunther's book: Inside U.S.A.".

       14/2 Socialization (via Open Cooperatives) for those Power Plants with a Natural Monopoly Position.

The difficulties of transmitting electricity over long distances leads frequently to a situation where consumers have
no alternative power plants to choose from and the one nearest to them may have a natural monopoly position, like
e.g., the one and only suitable dam site. Once the transmission problem is solved and all power plants feed into a
network, many of them could compete with each other and the organization of an open cooperative would then
only have to be considered for this transmission network. In the meantime, all existing natural monopoly power
plants should be organized as open cooperatives, by a take-over bid as suggested above. Whoever can forget about
the class warfare notions behind the current threat of WW III should at least remember how strong the animosity to
corporations is even among present libertarians and how often unionised power plant workers hold whole nations
to ransom or put them under a state of siege.

                                           14/3 No Nuclear Power Plants

                                          They are Monopoly Enterprises

(By, e.g., size, centralisation, subsidies, privileges, unionisation, State licensing & guaranties, exempting them
from complete insurance cover, State contracts for the supply of material for nuclear weapons construction. One
might also consider them as mere branches of governmental bodies like the Atomic Energy Commission. They
served also as cover or excuse, under the description of "peaceful use of atomic energy" for the governmental
nuclear war mass murder preparations. Do they really require a formal and legalized monopoly status to be
recognized as institutions of privilege? Some libertarians still seem to think so and as technophiles and science fans
they favour them and ignore their wrongful and harmful aspects. These would largely become revealed if their
establishment and maintenance were subject to referendum approvals by those who live only a few hundred
kilometres around them, i.e., within reach of winds that carry radioactive materials emanating from them in case of
accidents or "normal" releases. - J.Z., 11.12.02.)

Although, apart from governmental licensing requirements these plants are formally not monopolies, they do have
a few features which give them a privileged or monopolistic position:
Their construction, together with the minimum of precautions considered necessary, makes them so expensive that
only a few large corporations and especially States can afford them.
Their fuel is scarce, expensive and will run out in a few decades at most.
The number of people running them is rather small. A union obeyed by these power plant workers could easily
come to rule the world - if the world would ever come to use nuclear power predominantly.
Governments have allowed them to go on producing radioactive garbage without the problem of this garbage
disposal having been solved yet.


Governments have also protected private power plants of this type and their own from class actions and damage
suits for air-, water- and soil pollution caused
by these plants, by the simple expedient of declaring all such pollution to be within supposedly acceptable and
tolerable limits - according to standards more or less arbitrarily set by those "experts" who are willing to offer
apologies for any government action. Usually they are not biologists concerned about long-term genetic

The fallacies spread by government propagandists, in favour of nuclear power generation, have been so numerous
and appealing that even most people of the world-wide libertarian movement have been captured by them.
The right of people, not to have these risks imposed upon them, is usually ignored, even by most libertarians who
consider contributing to these risks a "private enterprise" activity. Well, so was well poisoning - for all but the

This whole subject has become at least as involved as the debate on the Vietnam War, fluoridation, abortion and
limited government - so it cannot be settled here. But several future Peace Plans issues will take up this particular
issue in attempts to settle it.
I hold that neither a monopolistic nor a competitive production of nuclear power is the solution to the problem of
providing sufficient and safe energies.

                                    They Can Be Abused for Military Purposes

One of the main and all too often neglected threats of nuclear power production is that these reactors can be abused
and have been abused (like the Indian reactor for "peaceful research") to produce the material for nuclear weapons.
In case of war most of them would be as far as possible used mainly for this purpose. A sufficient control to
prevent this does not appear possible under present conditions.

It is thus nonsensical to speak of an exclusively "peaceful" use of nuclear power. For those requiring government
confirmation of their opinions: Bulganin spoke of the possibility to abuse nuclear reactors for nuclear weapons
manufacture already back in 1956. - Would he have lied on this?

Because of this potential, and possibly also because of the radioactive pollution this would cause, nuclear power
plants would be among the first targets in a large-scale war. No possible advantage from the use of nuclear energy
can counter-balance this danger. Citizens enlightened on this would rather pay a few more cents per kilowatt hour
than they do now for electricity than have it supplied free from nuclear power plants.
(If all their long-term costs, including their de-commissioning and those of the disposal of storage of nuclear
garbage were included, the rate for nuclear power production would not be competitive. - J.Z., 11.12.02.)

Lastly, all nuclear reactors as well as all stocks of nuclear weapons must be destroyed by the peace lovers in the
name of individual human rights. In the mean-time, referendums should be conducted wherever possible among the
people living within the danger zone around the sites of planned nuclear reactors as well as among the people
living around already existing nuclear reactors. At least after repeated referendums on this subject people will
become enlightened enough to realise that every such installation is a threat to life and health of every citizen now
and in future and must therefore be prohibited or destroyed. Such referendum should also decide that volunteer
militias, established on freedom principles, should realise and guarantee the referendum decision.

                                    14/4 Supply of Future Energy Requirements
                          through the Opening up of New and Development of Old, Cheap
                             and Contrary to Nuclear Power, Harmless Energy Sources

Apart from the dangers inherent in using nuclear power, other energy sources would anyhow have to be opened up
soon because the stocks of uranium would soon be exhausted. Even the unlimited breeding of more nuclear
materials would just multiply the already existing disposal problem for nuclear garbage.

Among these energy alternatives are especially: wind-power, tidal and sun energy, the internal heat of Earth,
wherever it can be tapped close enough to the surface, temperature differentials in ocean water levels and between
polar oceans and their atmosphere, tidal and wave energy not to speak of the options now possible in space to
gather much more sun energy. Moreover, as long as even the waterfall power of Earth is, in the average, only used
up to 10% of the total potential, it does not make sense to speak of a soon threatening exhaustion of our energy
sources. All that is required is the conversion of existing sources, at a price. So far we had certain highly polluting
sources like coal, oil and gas in so large quantities to tap that the price of energy had become almost negligibly
low. The new technologies may not be able to offer us energy as cheap but they could still offer them in


The sun power collected by Earth during three days corresponds to the energy contained in all known reserves of
coal, oil, wood and nuclear fuels. So far only small fractions of this energy have been tapped directly. There are
now many technological approaches known to tap this and other alternative power sources and many of them are
already close to economical at present prices and others will become economical as soon as the rising prices for
energy from conventional sources have reached their level.

Whoever believes that nuclear energy is the only way out of the government-produced "energy crisis" has not
realized that a rising price for conventional sources is the only "problem" and that alternatives are now discussed in
a very extensive literature, of which dozens if not hundreds of examples can be found in better bookshops.

Naturally, a complete revolution or reform of the social order as predicted by some advocates of the "peaceful" use
of "cost-free" atomic energy cannot be expected either from atomic or any other energy. What reforms advocated
in this book would for instance become unnecessary if "free " energy became available?

                                             15. Private Postal Services
It is obviously wrong to make communication and free expression by means of letters and telephone conversations
difficult or more expensive by monopolising the business of letter delivery and telephone installation and setting
the charges for these services so high that they become a considerable revenue source for the State.

The restricted services of this type and the high charges are then largely obstructions of freedom of expression and
information and penal taxes against these liberties. Moreover, the powers thus accumulated were always and
largely are still used for censorship purposes.

All postal services and telephone and other communication channels should be offered as cheaply and rapidly as
possible. This cannot be achieved any better than through free competition. If the State's corresponding monopolies
would be efficiently run, if all the benefits of large size organizations would be on the government's side, then it
would be unnecessary to give the government's service institutions any monopoly position.
Thus consistent advocates of government post- and telephone services should really desire free competition by
private enterprises - in order to prove the efficiency of their favourite. But as many illegal attempts have shown,
even one-man post offices were sometimes more efficient than the vast organisations run by governments - when it
came to provide locally required services. Within a few years satellite communication might make person to person
calls world-wide, simple, cheap and rapid, also electronic letter writing. In the interests of peace, such
communication channels should be kept out of the hands of all governments but instead by run privately and as
competitively as possible.
The same applies, naturally, to all broadcasting facilities. On the latter see plan 249 in PEACE PLANS No. 15.

                                   16. Private Water Works and Sewage Systems

State or municipal monopolies for the supply of fresh water and the disposal of sewage are also superfluous.
Whenever a natural monopoly occurs - where there is e.g., only one water source - then these enterprises should be
transformed into the open cooperative form discussed above. When water is really scarce, then the water
cooperatives of Spain and California could be taken as precedents.
(Governmental water works seem even unable to apply the advantages of free pricing to their product and
deliveries. I am charged about ten times as much for "availability" of public water than for usage of public water!
Likewise for sewage. Imagine your butcher or greengrocer charging you in this way. Water is scarce in Australia
and thus it is priced in a way that assures waste of it. - Complaints encounter complete non-comprehension of free
pricing. - J.Z., 11.12.02.)

17. Private Garbage Removal

There appears to be no rational argument for the establishment of State or municipal monopolies even for garbage
removal. That private competition in this sphere is possible is proven by the remaining private services of this kind.
It is obviously wrong and uneconomic to force upon the consumers any services which they can obtain better or
cheaper from others. Whoever contracted for private services of this type should naturally be freed of the
corresponding part of his tax burden. Under these conditions only the very few public authorities could remain in
business which are actually more efficient than their private competitors are. All these institutions would, naturally,
make profit-motivated attempts to recycle their garbage acquisitions as much as possible.
(How efficient and profitable is recycling likely to be under bureaucratic rule? Maybe truthful accounts on their
recycling efforts will appear only after a few more decades. - J.Z., 11.12.02.)

What does garbage removal, of all things, have to do with peace? People believing that governments are necessary


even to move garbage away from private residences etc., are hardly open-minded to the now very necessary insight
that governments are rather garbage producers than garbage removers, rather war makers than peace makers, rather
wealth destroyers than wealth providers. Not trusting themselves, they came to trust the least suitable
organisational form. The wrong beliefs, attitudes and methods involved in any territorial government versus citizen
relationship are also expressed here and they could be gradually dissolved starting even from this seemingly
insignificant and irrelevant activity.
                18. Local Federations of Exterritorial and Autonomous Communities of Volunteers

                                                18/1 Introduction

States and municipalities have taken over a great variety of tasks. To solve them privately and voluntarily, means,
ways and enterprises have to be gradually organised. At least for the period of transition, until finally private or
cooperative organizations can take over all these tasks - or agree on some very limited form of local government
(perhaps comparable to the original English one so well described by J. Toulmin Smith in his "Local Self-
government and Centralisation" - PEACE PLANS Nos. 22, the members of the diverse exterritorial and
autonomous communities of volunteers, which live together in a certain district, might combine in a municipal
organisation, or local progress association. (An alternative solution was explained in Peace Plans No. 19C.) This
local association should not be allowed to establish any monopoly for any of its services. At the same time, it
should not be prohibited from establishing with its subscribed funds any competitive institutions. The principle of
these territorial coops should be: The local volunteer community may not force any services upon any rational
being which that person wants to do without or wants to obtain elsewhere, under different conditions.
(Since then I have come more and more away from such territorial local government notions, however limited they
were. - J.Z., 11.12.02.)

                        18/2 Remarks on some Possible Tasks of such Local Federations

It would be their task to establish or maintain some public institutions in their area. The following may be some of
these. Actually, whatever institutions would be locally favoured could be thus maintained or established. As long
as no dissenter would be forced to contribute or to submit to them, there would be nothing wrong with them, even
if they retained all other external and internal features of local governments.

Roads and Street Lighting: Until private enterprises or foundations make the required means available, drivers and
householders will have to levy the required funds in one way or the other from themselves. Naturally, private
enterprises might take over these tasks at any time, even build and maintain new roads and refinance themselves
afterwards from direct and indirect takings. Up to half the total mileage of new roads in NSW is still built by
private developers within their developments - and upon sale handed over to the local governments! Roadbuilding
cooperatives could probably undercut the present public road building teams and the private road building
contractors. (A monograph on private roads is planned for a future PEACE PLANS issue. The longest article on
this subject so far published in this series was in "Free Enterprise", I/4 & 5, PEACE PLANS 36-39, 1/4.)
Airports: They would have to be maintained by the local association only for a short time. Then private airlines
will organise themselves to maintain and expand them. Some might have to be transformed into open cooperatives
because of their exclusive position.

Good municipal schools could be maintained by private contributions. The others will be replaced by private
competing educational institutions and systems. Some associations might insist that all their members send all their
children to school or that they acquire a certain minimum education in one way or the other. Whosoever utilises
private educational establishments should naturally be freed from that part of any levies raised for local public
schools. A few parents could impart the necessary minimum education to their children themselves. They should
not be prevented from doing so. PEACE PLANS No. 14 dealt with the financing of private education at some
length in plan 229, pp. 1-12 & 86.

Universities: Universities or Technical Colleges should as far and as soon as possible be kept out of the hands of
any governmental institution, since they would always more or less restrict or abuse their academic freedom. They
should as soon as possible be made self-financing, either based on foundation funds, or bond-issues, which are


lastly paid back when student loans are repaid, e.g. through certain liens on their earnings, after their tertiary
studies are finished. Academics and students might also form credit unions, in which academics inside and outside
of universities would largely appear as creditors and students as their debtors. Between them, they should earn
enough to finance the costs of tertiary education. But until sound alternatives are arranged, university life should
not be interrupted and the proposed municipal volunteer communities should help to continue these institutions, at
least on a loan basis.
Libraries, parks, sports fields, health services etc., to the extent that they could not immediately be made to pay
their way through fees and charges and before other private financing arrangements can be made, should also be
continued by these local federations. Referendums among the members might decide to what extent they want to
be involved in such affairs.

                                  18/3 Community Assembly as the Supreme Body

The community assembly should be the supreme organ of this voluntary federation. Precedents are set by the
numerous plebiscites in Swiss cantons, which also decide on matters like the financing of a new sports stadium,
swimming pool or power plant from municipal levies in the district. The voting could be simplified by the voter
sending his contribution only to his favourite public works project.

                                      18/4 Financing of Common Expenditures

How should exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers contribute towards the costs of such local
federations, for institutions used by all or most people living in an area? One way would be to simply charge every
local voluntary member of this federation, no matter what personal law association he or she belongs to, the agreed
upon membership fee.

Exterritorial communities that do no want to join such local federations - or their members - and who, nevertheless,
utilise the facilities provided and maintained by the local federations, should either be barred from them or forced
to contribute according to their usage. Arbitration courts could settle the amounts involved.

If a municipal federation charged too much for its services, the dissenters could easily set up a competing
If not individual members but exterritorial associations paid these federation fees then they might levy them from
their members in a variety of ways.

To the extent that the above hinted at public institutions will not be self-financing through charges and
subscriptions, nor subsidised out of rates, taxes or contributions to exterritorial communities, many of them, at least
in the long run, will probably be financed by foundations. The philantropic expenditures in the US alone, in 1961,
amounted to 9,000 million dollars. One intermediary aim must naturally be to exempt all such contributions from
all taxes.

I am aware how imperfect these notes on local governments are. The topic will probably be taken up in future
PEACE PLANS issues. In the meantime, I just want to stress the need for individual secessionism even towards
these organizations and refer the reader to Peace Plans 22, which reproduces J. Toulmin Smith's excellent work
"Local Self-Government and Centralisation" and Robert W. Poole Jr.'s booklet produced by the National
Taxpayers Union : "Cut Local Taxes".

                                             19. Summary of Section IV

In the above an attempt was made to demonstrate that government interference with the economy is wrongful and
harmful and that all social and economic institutions today established and maintained by the State are either
superfluous or even harmful (like housing commissions and central banks) or could easily and competitively be run
as private enterprises, cooperatives or open cooperatives.

If this much is admitted then one can no longer maintain that one needs as bad, outdated, immoral and dangerous
institution as the State, and has to put up with the danger of war associated with it - just because the economy
would have to be directed, planned, controlled and restricted by a government.

In short: Territorial governments ought to be competed out of existence - in every sphere!


                                             PART TWO
               HOW CAN THE REFORMS
               BE REALIZED?


                                   SECTION V:


'When the government offends against the rights of the people
then the uprising of the people, and of any section of the people,
is the holiest of their rights and the highest of their duties."
- Article 35 of the French Constitution of 24.6.1793.

"The contract with the government is so thoroughly dissolved by despotism
that the despot remains master only as long as he is the stronger.
He has thus no right to complain about the use of force against him
when he is removed." - J. J. Rousseau

'When dictatorship is a fact, revolution becomes a right."
- Victor Hugo, quoted in TIME, June 3,1957.

"Can it be a matter of surprise,
since governments usurp the rights of life and death over the people,
that the people from time to time assume the right
of life and death over their governments?"
- Victor Hugo: "Sur L'Eau", quoted by Leo Tolstoi: Civil Disobedience, p. 244.

"Revolution and civil war are the ultimate remedy for unpopular rule."
- Ludwig von Mises: Omnipotent Government, 50.

"We've had 200 years of "revolution" and yet we aren't free."

"A revolution, to be permanent, must first be mental."
- Benjamin R. Tucker

"Most revolutions are simply revolting -
through their suppression of individual rights.
The revolutionaries with all the knowledge
on what is worth fighting for
and how to win, must win." - J. Z.

"The point is that a well-handled revolution
can take place so easily, so gently,
that many do not even realize it has happened.
Such, of course, is the desirable way."
              - Mack Reynolds: Time Gladiator, p. 153.

              "For when lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom,
              the gentler gamester is the soonest winner."
              Shakespeare: Henry V.

              "... we don't want to overthrow the nation;
              we simply want to restore the Bill of Rights."
              - Poul Anderson: Sam Hall, p. 87.

              "A rightful, comprehensive
               and successful revolutionary programme
              can be extrapolated from the failures and successes
              of all past revolutions." - J.Z.


                                                   Section V:

                                           MAIN SUBDIVISIONS
                     1. Introduction

                     2. What Is a Revolution?

                     3. When Is a Revolution Justified?

                     4. Against whom and what Shall a Revolution Be Directed?

                     5. Who Should Carry out the Revolution?

                     6. A Programme Is Necessary

                     7. Final Aims of the Revolution Necessary Today

                     8. What Means and Methods Must not Be Used by Revolutionaries?

                     9. What Means and Methods Should Be Used by Libertarian Revolutionaries?

                     10. What Con Already Now Be Done in the Free Countries
                         to Prepare a Revolution against a Dictatorship like that of the Soviets?

                     11. Suggestions for Resistance Groups
                         before the Outbreak of the General Revolution

                     12. Tasks for the Resistance Groups

                     13. Open Word to the Soviet Government, the Rulers of Red China
                         and to all other Despotic Regimes

                                              1. INTRODUCTION

The greatest danger of war emanates today from the dictatorially organised and ruled States, especially from the
Soviet Union and Red China.
Smaller dictatorships can become a similar danger when they are backed by the great powers or when they
themselves dispose of nuclear "weapons".

Democratic States possessing nuclear "weapons" can likewise start a nuclear war, even if unintentionally, e.g. as a
result of a wrong radar observation, drunkenness of some officers or a conspiracy among them, or mental defects
among those having their fingers on the nuclear triggers.

Moreover, every democracy in which not the people themselves but only some rulers and representatives decide
about war and peace, armament and disarmament, where lives are confiscated by conscription, property and
earnings by taxation and in which anti-people weapons like the ABC weapons are held in readiness - might also
be considered as a dictatorship but with the following difference: In these States nuclear weapons could still be
destroyed peacefully, without violence, as a result of plebiscites against them, while in the openly dictatorial
regimes this kind of disarmament could only be achieved in a revolutionary way.

                                               2. What Is a Revolution?

A revolution is a forceful change in the political, social and/or economic order.

Any revolution which merely leads to a change in the leadership and soon establishes an as bad or even worse
regime is no true revolution, rather a counter-revolution, and ought to be resisted even by dissenters and opponents
of the present regime. A revolution just for the sake of revolution makes no sense at all.

                                          3. When Is a Revolution Justified?

A revolution is justified only when it is undertaken to protect individual human rights and the natural rights of all
rational beings and also carried out with strict regard to these rights. All other revolutionary endeavours deserve to
be suppressed. What degree of suppression of these rights would justify a revolution?
As long as freedom of speech, press, assembly and association still continue to a large extent, almost every
necessary reform could be then realised peacefully, in an evolutionary way. Then, in most cases, revolutions are
not justified and most revolutionaries are then rightly classified as terrorists. But this does not mean that particular
acts of forceful resistance would always be wrong in such a "democracy":

               "To say that I have no right to revolt against government coercion as long as freedom of speech and
               free elections exist, is to say that I have no right to violently restrain a burglar, so long as he is
               willing to converse with me on the ethics of burglaring while gathering up my silverware."
                              - David Friedman in "THE NEW GUARD", May 1969.


But all such actions, however forceful they might be, do not by themselves change the whole establishment,
although they might stop some abuses, and should thus not be classed as revolutions or small revolutions but only
as rightful acts of self-defence or resistance against oppression. Thus a general revolution is generally only justified
when the above basic human rights are generally suppressed, i.e., when there appears to be no peaceful and non-
violent way out.

The situation would be different once volunteer militias for the protection of human rights are established. Then
some reforms could be realized merely by the threat that the militia would mobilise in their favour and would hold
those responsible who attempt to prevent or delay them.

The situation would also be quite different once "one-man revolutions" via individual secessions and exterritorial
and autonomous associations of volunteers are constitutionally recognised. Then general revolutions would become
unnecessary, unpopular and prevented in most instances. Until this decisive reform has been realized, the following
rule could be rightly applied:

       "Governments which do not recognize human rights are to be considered as a group which has
       declared war against mankind.
       To destroy their means of power and enlighten their subjects that subordination under such
       governments must never be voluntary, and to think already now seriously about the new order of
       society, once these enemies of man have been rendered harmless, is a religious duty inborn to every
       human being." - Ulrich Von Beckerath

                            4. Against whom and what Shall a Revolution Be Directed?

Dictators not only suppress the rights of their own subjects but also endanger the rights of citizens of all States in
their neighbourhood and of all exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers - as they threaten them,
continuously with war and intervene in relationships which their subjects and outsiders might want to have
between them. Thus revolutions should be directed primarily against dictatorial regimes and their oppressive
(Capital and property are here not considered as an oppressive machinery but rather as means by which even the
poorest proletarian can speed up his own emancipation and liberation if he acquires them rightfully, peacefully, by
exchange acts and credits.)

Revolutionaries must never rise against whole nations or other ill defined groups (collective enemies, i.e.
revolutionaries in East Germany, Poland and Hungary should never ever mix up again Soviets with Russians and
hold Russians collectively responsible for the crimes committed by the Soviets or ordered by the Soviets within a
system based on the strictest military discipline in the world.

                                     5. Who Should Carry out the Revolution?

That should be self-evident: Those who are obviously oppressed and deprived of their rights. What is less obvious
to most is the fact that among these are often most of the members of the oppressive institutions: their policemen,
soldiers, party members, union functionaries and public servants.

As the people themselves are usually insufficiently armed, organised and trained, most rightful revolutions ought to
begin and could begin with military uprisings. Subsequently, the citizens could form militias and ally themselves to
the insurrectionist soldiers.

History teaches that already a minority of the population suffices to carry out a revolution. The Soviets supplied
perhaps the best known example for this rule.
Not only is a minority sufficient to carry out a revolution but most revolutions are carried out by minorities. Only a
minority of 5-10% need somewhat actively participate in a revolution. The majority of the population need merely
sympathise with the revolutionaries.
One fact, which anyone interested more in facts than in myths, can ascertain, is that the regimes in Russia and
Mainland China are not only unpopular with a minority but with the majority of their subjects and really hated by a
large percentage of the population, including the conscripts.
All that this situation requires is the sufficient broadcasting of an ideal revolutionary programme.
As their oppressors pride themselves in being "revolutionaries", they could hardly and publicly object to that.

Totalitarian regimes and also ruling majorities do not only turn one or two but usually dozens of minorities into
their enemies. Combined, these minorities could be numerically and in other ways stronger than any shifting


majority based on temporary party coalitions. United by a common platform upholding all claimed individual
rights and exterritorial autonomy for all volunteer groups, the minorities in this world could be overwhelmingly
stronger than any national majority - and no national majority would have to be afraid of such a minority federation
- because it would also be offered exterritorial autonomy for its voluntary members.

                                           6. A Programme Is Necessary

       "Nothing is more terrible to behold than active ignorance!" - W. v. Goethe

       "A revolution without a well worked out programme is lost even before it has begun.
       People will lastly resort even to the most primitive programmes in order not to starve to death,
       as e.g. the Russians did in 1917: They replaced private monopoly capitalism
       with State monopoly capitalism. This happened to be nonsense -
       but it worked to some extent." - Ulrich von Beckerath

       "A revolution without a programme is lost
       even when, militarily, it wins.
       Naturally, the programme must not just be a Hussite one
       for a plundering and killing spree.
       The belief that it would be sufficient to win
       and everything else would then settle itself,
       is not confirmed by any historical experience." - Ulrich von Beckerath

       "Attacks on persons, as a reaction to social abuses,
       are inevitable when the people have no programme
       on how to overcome these abuses.
       The people then look for culprits, not causes.
       When a revolution wins under these conditions
       (and this does not mean that the people will have won)
       then it does not practise social policies but revenge.
       (Hitler against Jews, Soviets against Kulaks,
       revolutionary France against the aristocrats,
       Franco against non-Catholics.) - Ulrich von Beckerath

As the ultimate aim of a rightful revolution a new, comprehensive and consistent declaration of individual human
rights should be proclaimed.
For a draft of such declaration see appendix No. I.

Although this declaration should already imply a rightful and satisfactory economic and social reform programme,
such a programme should also be spelled out in detail.

Moreover, libertarian revolutionaries should possess a detailed plan on how to carry out and finance a rightful

The following chapters will make some suggestions along these lines.

In the dictatorships, where these revolutions must take place, a sufficiently free and wide exchange of opinions is
not possible - although it would be required to develop such a programme. Thus such a programme must be
developed in the relatively free countries. From these it is then to be spread in the dictatorship, through under-
ground channels for outlawed literature, e.g., by leaflets dropped from balloons and via broadcasting. Long wave
broadcasts are hard to jam and short-wave broadcasts can't be jammed.
Thus the West should supply the Russian anti-communists and the Chinese anti-communists not with weapons and
military advisors etc. but merely with the ideas of liberty in a ready-for-use form.
At least a considerable minority in a totalitarian country must become thoroughly familiarised with all aspects of
such a programme.
It must be propagated at least months and better still years before the outbreak of the revolution and all possible
objections must be thoroughly discussed and these discussions must be similarly broadcast or otherwise spread.

The totalitarians have developed the art of organising totalitarian revolutions to a science, have even established
tertiary institutions for the training of their type of professional revolutionaries. Anti-totalitarian revolutionaries
will have to do the same and turn their kind of libertarian revolutionary endeavours similarly into a true science.
Otherwise, the totalitarian professionals will continue to win, all too often and for all too long.

                                  7. Final Aims of the Revolution Necessary Today

Realisation of individual human rights and the natural rights of rational beings, thereby abolition of the danger of
war, especially through:

1. the revolutionary overthrow of all dictatorial regimes,

2. replacement of all territorial States by exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers - by means of the
  right of individuals to secede,

3. establishment of militias for the protection of human and natural rights,

4. a complete disarmament with regard to all weapons which are inherently offensive to human rights, especially
   nuclear, poison and bacteriological weapons, carriedout by the armed people themselves,


5. full employment, largely by means of the freedom to issue private exchange media, not only for the own
   nationals but especially for refugees and deserters,

6. aboliton of exploitation and industrial "warfare" through the establishment of productive cooperatives, repeal of
   all legally established monopolies and transformation of all enterprises with natural monopolies into "open"
   cooperatives and

7. an end to inflation and housing shortage by means of the repeal of legal tender, issue freedom for private
   exchange media, free choice of value standards and value preserving clauses for all contracts.

Compare the other short summary of the peace programme in this book which is given in appendix V.

                 8. What Means and Methods Must NOT Be Used by Libertarian Revolutionaries?

                                          8/1 Mass Extermination Devices

As these revolutionaries are supposed to fight for individual human rights and the natural rights of all rational
beings, they must not use any weapons which would inevitably kill or injure non-participants and innocents in the
This ruling would especially exclude the ABC (atomic, bacteriological and chemical) "weapons".

                                                  8/2 General Strike

A "general" strike in the meaning of its proponents is not a general strike or a strike of all - because it is assumed
that it would not include the police, security forces and armies of the regime to be defeated by a general strike.
Thus it can, as a rule, relatively easily be suppressed by military measures (if it is not already collapsing, after a
few days, through the chaos and shortages it causes) unless the armed forces would make it a really general strike
by joining it.

Why do some people assume that the armed forces must be on the opposite side? Because they have been
conscripted into it or hired for it, trained, armed, uniformed and ordered to fight for the regime?
If the programme of the revolutionaries is rightful and clear, then it should also appeal to most of the members of
the armed forces of a dictatorial regime - and if these went on "strike" or began a well thought-out military
insurrection, then other strike or resistance actions would become largely superfluous - for who would remain to be

The "general strike" theory assumes that any dictatorship could be defeated merely by the passive and
demonstrative resistance of the workers in form of a "general" strike. The Dictator would, supposedly, not be
willing to execute all striking workers. To that extent the proposal is identical with that of "conscientious objec-
tion" and as ineffective. For how many strikers or conscientious objectors have to be threatened, imprisoned,
injured, tortured or killed - before the rest go back to work or obedience? Not everybody is made out to be a hero
and the heroism of the few could be better utilised.
(Soldiers are to some extent effectively trained to fear death in battle less than military disobedience. Historical
experience has shown that "decimation", i.e., the murder of every tenth of mutinous soldiers, who were
unsuccessful in their uprising, usually brings the survivors back into obedience to their military despots. They do
then, at least temporarily, fear such deaths more than continued obedience. - J.Z., 11.12.02.)
Another aspect these "revolutionaries" have overlooked is the fact that even in countries like the Soviet Union most
of the (relatively few) consumer goods produced are not destined for the government, the ruling party and their
armed forces. These are still only well organized minority groups. Moreover, the government and its main
functionaries and especially its armed forces, are well supplied not only with the usual power paraphernalia but
also with consumer goods, for weeks, months or even years, whilst the larder of the average worker's household is
exhausted within a few days! Thus the armed forces could largely sit back and enjoy themselves in relative
comfort, until the striking workers have starved themselves and their families into submission! Close observations
of most general strikes that were attempted show that within a few days many of the striking workers come to
realise how much they are harming themselves and begin to propose that this or that public or important service be
kept operating. Few of them want to deprive their own children e.g. of milk or warmth.

Apart from its demonstrative value (and here I do prefer demonstrations and marches, after working hours), which
could be countered by terror measures of the government (for which there exists a well developed science), general
strikes are self-defeating by interrupting the supply of essential goods and services to the striking workers while the
despotic government hardly suffers at all - in the short or medium run.


One could compare this nonsensical aspect of a general strike with the behaviour of an army which would see to it,
before a long campaign, that the production and supply of arms, uniforms, vehicles and food and drink is stopped
as soon as the campaign begins.

Two World Wars have demonstrated that the power of a nation lies largely in the productive potential of its
economy. Why then should resistance fighters or revolutionaries deprive themselves of most of their power by
organising a general strike? (The action thinking of most unionists, like that of most voters, is all too narrowly
focused on very limited and quite insufficient as well as wrongful options, namely, on strikes and voting. - J.Z.,

It would only make sense if they attempted to stop the further supply of goods and services to their true enemies
(i.e., not just to anyone who is supposed to obey and support a dictatorial regime, e.g. as a soldier or functionary).
A detailed programme of that type, including but going beyond a tax strike and the refusal to accept a dictator's
paper money, might be developed. It would be worth discussing, while a general strike proposal is just a
declaration of intellectual bankruptcy.

Why, e.g., should not the workers, including all employees, managers, professionals and businessmen, keep almost
all factories and other enterprises going (all those producing the goods and services they want!) on their own
Why shouldn't they, in their own interest, once they produce for themselves, even increase the productivity of their
enterprises, rather than stopping them?
Why shouldn't they ensure for themselves employment and sales, profits and capital growth, by private issues,
value protected investments and transformation to cooperative or partnership production?
Why shouldn't they immediately begin to privatise the assets so far held by the bureaucrats of the regime they hate?
Why should these social revolutionaries postpone the beginnings of an era of un-exploited and free labour - by
engaging in a general strike?
Whole books in favour of general strikes have been written but without answering such simple questions.

That everyone will be ready to risk his life in general strike actions should not be expected. Nor is mass-heroism
required for the success of a revolution. Revolutions are mostly made only by minorities, although, ideally, in the
interest of the majority, and of most other minorities, and with their tacit approval or consent. If one has a large
enough revolutionary minority on one's side, then one should give it the best chances possible, should recruit for it
largely from the armed forces of the regime and otherwise as far as possible arm, organise, instruct and train it in
effective fighting groups and methods, designed to overthrow dictatorships and tyrannies.

The most promising attempts would be large-scale acts of military disobedience, turning into military insurrections
and strikes and sabotage acts in particular enterprises like nuclear bomb factories, in firms which are essential for
e.g. mass-murderous plans of a regime. Factories producing light arms, including e.g. portable guided missiles
against tanks and air craft, should be kept operating - producing weapons for the insurrectionist soldiers and the
new volunteer militias to be established by the revolutionaries.
Strikes like tax-strikes and refusals to accept a regime's paper money (discussed later) are also limited and
discriminating strikes, i.e. they are directed not against the revolutionaries themselves but exclusively against the
supporters of the ruling regime. But when, instead, surgeons, fire fighters, printers, postmen, farmers, truckies or
power plant workers go on strike then, quite obviously, the human rights of innocents and even friends and
sympathisers get infringed.

       "A strike against single private employers can be useful and rightful.
       A strike against private employers which hurts also other citizens,
       like a railway or postal strike does, can be useful to the strikers but is not rightful.
       'A general strike is general nonsense' said Legien.
       Thus even its supporters limit it sometimes, once they have learned from experience.
       "A general strike is an example how an originally not quite useless idea
       can be expanded to become a wrongful measure and finally,
       through uncritical overuse or application beyond its inherent limits,
       an immoral act and lastly even a nonsensical action." - Ulrich von Beckerath

                                                  8/3 Conscription

Whoever would not volunteer to fight for the protection of human rights and the natural rights of rational beings
but would have to be forced to do so would never be a good and reliable militia man. He could harm the cause of
the revolution more than he could help it. Thus the revolutionaries, although many of them will believe in a moral
obligation to risk one's life for the protection of such rights, should not attempt to forcefully recruit neutrals or


       "I cannot accept that people must be conscripted, trained, manipulated …
       that freedom of movement, choice of employment, freedom of association,
       freedom of belief and observance of those beliefs etc.
       must be negated to be preserved." - John Scott

       "I object to conscription the way a lobster objects to boiling water:
       it may be his finest hour but it's not his choice." - Robert Heinlein: Glory Road, p. 5.

       "A draft card is like a deed of ownership." - David Harris in PROTOS, 1111970.

       "Conscription is slavery. Regardless of whatever its purposes may be -
       conscription is always slavery." - Robert Champlin, LIBERTARIAN OPTION, 1/75.

       "Drafting is the identification process
       during which owners sort out and regain their own cattle." - AUSTRALASIAN POST, 1516172.

                                          8/4 Plunder and Requisitioning

Revolutionaries who support themselves by plunder and requisitioning turn, naturally, most of their victims into
enemies, even when before they had sympathised with the revolutionaries. This kind of support will reduce the
number of supporters and increase the number of enemies from day to day and has led to the failure of many
revolutionary attempts.

Revolutionaries who thus infringe property rights cannot rightly say that their aim is to protect human rights and
natural rights. The end is predetermined by the means.

Moreover, due to this procedure, the costs of a revolution are spread unequally and unjustly as they have to be born
only by the inhabitants in areas which are militarily occupied or fighting zones. Furthermore, with this method the
revolutionaries would depend upon the relatively limited stores in the fighting zones or the areas through which
they march - and they can be certain that many of the stores in these areas will be hidden from their grasp before
they approach.
Consequently, it becomes impossible to assemble many troops in one area and keep them there. Their fighting
force at any particular place will be down to relatively small numbers and many of these soldiers will at any time
be engaged in requisitioning raids rather than soldiering. Discipline will deteriorate while requisitioning will tend
to become plundering and lead to violence against local citizens.

If, at the some time, the army of the dictatorship were to pay for all its food and other requirements in cash (not too
deteriorated by inflation) then it could, at the same time, dispose over most of the stores in the country and could,
although its total numerical strength might be lower than that of the revolutionaries, confront them in any particular
locality with superior numbers of well supplied troops, could thus defeat the revolutionaries militarily and rapidly,
moving from place to place, always locally superior.

As such effects can be foreseen, this kind of behaviour must be avoided. In one way or the other revolutionaries
must pay their way.

                      8/5 Payment with Requisitioning Certificates or Inflated Paper Money

Payment with requisitioning certificates or inflated legal tender paper money can replace cash payments only if it is
accepted as such by the sellers of goods and services. But this is almost never the case when a revolution takes
considerable time, its success is uncertain and the redemption of the certificates is indefinitely postponed.

When all expenditures are paid for with legal tender paper money, fresh from the note printing press and when,
consequently, this paper rapidly deteriorates, then this kind of "payment" will also no longer be gladly accepted.
Finally, the owners of goods will refuse to part with them for this kind of money and, when they have to be afraid
of forceful acts, they will proceed to hide as much as they can.

There are only few examples of revolutions which succeeded in spite of such measures and many revolutions
which failed because of them: the French Revolution and almost all revolutions in South America. (Naturally, the
mere take-over of power by yet another clique cannot be considered as a successful revolution.)


                                                8/6 A State of Siege

A state of siege (martial law), in essence, is nothing but a system of suppression, operating against especially
important basic rights: freedom of movement, freedom of assembly and association, freedom of speech and press.
A state of siege is the method of an unjust regime used to keep the people down. Members of Kapp's coup
(Germany, 1920 ) intended to proclaim a severe state of siege on the morning after the coup. Most military take-
overs resort to this means. Revolutionaries who fight for human rights and the natural rights of rational beings, do
not consider all citizens as their potential enemies but rather as their potential friends and allies and will therefore
have to operate without such methods.

Instead of suppressing human rights libertarian revolutionaries should maintain these rights as far as possible and
utilise them to publicise their programme.

                                               8/7 Blockade Measures

A blockade hurts everyone, the ones who impose it, and among those blockaded, not only the followers of a
dictator but also his opponents. Those who impose it do thereby restrict also their own trading opportunities and
can only wish to hurt the other side more than they hurt themselves. Moreover, since in a justified revolution a
dictator would have less followers than opponents, a blockade of the areas still occupied by him, would harm the
revolutionaries more than the regime.
Furthermore, no matter how short of necessary supplies some of the subjects of dictators might run, the regime, to
be overthrown, will usually have still sufficient power to secure the livelihood of its supporters.

Blockade measures are thus not only wrongly imposed, under the principle of collective responsibility, but they
also defeat their own purpose. They could rather strengthen than weaken a dictatorial regime.
                        8/8 Measures Based upon the Principle of Collective Responsibility

As long as anyone is compulsorily member of a State, an army, a union or a party, or is because of his descent or
beliefs automatically grouped with certain communities, somewhat racially or ideologically distinguished, one
cannot hold him rightly responsible for actions of other members of these communities. Great harm would be done
to the cause of a libertarian revolution if e.g., every member of a communist party were considered and treated as a
fanatic communist, every policeman and warder as a torturer, every officer as a loyal subject of the dictator and
every public servant as a believer in a planned economy, opponent of a free market and productive cooperatives
etc. Revolutionaries would thus drive many potential friends and allies into the arms of the dictator and would only
thereby turn them into enemies of the revolutionaries. (A monograph detailing the support successful
revolutionaries have received from people close to a throne, members of the armed forces of a regime or of its
bureaucracy may still have to be written.)

With such methods only a terror regime can be established or maintained. Rightful revolutionaries would consider
and treat everyone also as an enemy who applies the principle of collective responsibility to people who are
innocent or were only forced to participate in crimes of the decision-makers.

                                    8/9 Annihilation of the Army of the Dictator

It must be the aim of these revolutionaries to dissolve or win over the army of a dictator, not to crush it. See on this
the later chapters on militia warfare.
If the conventional destruction and killing methods were applied then the revolutionaries would cease to be
liberators, would have to pay a high price and might even become defeated by professionals fighting with the
dictator for their lives, although they are not his fans.

                                       8/10 Torture, Rape and other Cruelties

Even the worst criminals still possess some basic human rights, e.g. the right not to be killed without good cause,
not to be treated with unnecessary cruelty. Moreover, if they would have to expect such treatment after their
capture, then they would resist with the courage of desperation and exact a high price from the revolutionaries for
the commission of such crimes. Thus revolutionaries committing cruel acts, assaults etc. against prisoners, should
be charged before militia or other revolutionary courts. They thus committed treasonable acts which endangered
the cause of the revolution. If ever the majority of the revolutionaries should commit such cruelties or such a large
minority that it could not be successfully restrained, then I for one would rather wish for a victory of the old-


                                                     8/11 Arson

       "The inclination of mobs to burn down, when they are angered, their own dwellings, their own food stocks
       and other stores, is very wide spread and yet it has escaped the attention of historians. During the Algerian
       War it has been frequently observed and one should also remember the Paris Commune ... "
       - Ulrich von Beckerath

       In 1905 the Russian people rose in Odessa and burned storehouses and ships: "It was thus - in Odessa -
       only a mutiny and a riot, not a social revolution. True revolutionaries would have put signs on storehouses
       and ships, stating 'people's property' - and would have shot all arsonists ...
       "The cases of arson during the Berlin uprising on 17/6/1953 harmed the case of the insurrectionists very
       much. The burning down of buildings and of shops belonging to the government, e.g. food stores and the
       looting of bakeries, in combination with the thick smoke in the streets and the sight of flames must have
       convinced many Russian soldiers and officers that this time the Germans would have to be protected from
       themselves. The burning Columbus building, with its great stock of consumer goods, which was destroyed,
       could have given Russian soldiers the impression that enemies of the workers were at work, who wanted to
       cause shortages in essential supplies." - Ulrich von Beckerath

In most instances there is no rational case for arson. In the very few cases where it might be justified, the sites, and
the people who are to burn them, ought to be very carefully selected. One is here reminded of the "Red House" in
the Friedrich Strasse under the Nazi regime. Here were registered all German Jews, according to their names and
addresses and in many cases the registry cards supplied the only proof that certain families were of Jewish descent.
German Jews and other opponents of the Nazis knew about it and yet did not organise a suicide squad or night time
secret raid to burn this building down. The right and duty to resist would have justified this kind of arson.
(I heard about the case of a Gestapo man who worked there and who took every working day many of these cards,
out in his briefcase - to burn them at home. The Soviets, after the war, treated him just like any other fanatical Nazi
and he died soon from maltreatment in one of their concentration camps. I must admire his so far unsung heroism
in which he risked his life daily for a long time, for the benefit of numerous Jewish fellow citizens, quite unknown
to him. At the some time, I do have the suspicion that he was otherwise pretty much the average law-abiding
German who would have been horrified upon hearing the suggestion to risk his life just once - for burning the
whole building down. He might have replied: "But I can't do that! That would be arson!" People are all too often in
the power of words or other incomplete or faulty ideas.)

                                               8/12 General Sabotage

Anti-communist saboteurs in the Soviet Union often believe to destroy Soviet property while in reality they destroy
their own and that of their fellow citizens. (Admittedly, presently they have only little if any control over it, but
they do thus destroy all their chances of controlling this property in the future!    In the long run, their fellow
citizens will wake up to this fact and will thus become - although they may not like the Soviets, either, enemies of
these "revolutionaries".

Mostly, sabotage acts have no military value. Economic disadvantages from them are mostly to be carried by the
general population - the fellow victims of the regime. The standard of living of those in power will hardly be
reduced by them. However, there are a few exceptions and they ought to be clarified long before a revolution
happens: E.g., sabotage measures to render harmless:
1. nuclear weapons, or the places where they are produced,
2. furnaces,
3. ball bearing factories.
Such specialised jobs of destruction follow from the right and duty to resist. The above instances are important to
prevent wars or bring them to a speedy end.

What particular institutions ought to be sabotaged by revolutionaries? A long discussion would probably unearth
some other examples than nuclear installations. Think about it and help promote the new science of rightful

For instance: If someone knew of the locations of all tax records of a dictatorship, all files on political opponents, if
they were all on magnetic tape and someone could artificially induce a sufficient magnetic disturbance to wipe
these records - then quite a few people might be inclined to say: "That's a relief!" or: "Thank God!"

One Australian Ham Radio operator told me once, many years ago, that he could overpower radio Moscow or
Peking for small districts, even the sound of their TV stations, for up to 20 minutes. Only then would he be
jammed. Well, repeated 20 minute sessions could get much across, in one small district after the other!


                   8/13 Treatment of ALL Officers and Public Servants of a Dictator as Enemies

Admittedly, officers and public servants of a dictatorship are also among its relatively few beneficiaries. Against
this, one would have to weigh their higher risk of falling victims in the next purge. Moreover, one should take into
consideration that they belong, usually, to the better educated groups of the population. They have also more access
to information revealing mistakes, errors and crimes of the regime. Many of them may are also, in their official
capacity, better informed about the true and rightful aims of the revolutionaries than may be many of the ordinary
members of the revolutionary movement itself. Not all of them study their own literature or think deeply about
their aims and principles. For these and probably many other reasons, many resistance and revolutionary attempts
were helped by people in high positions in the regime to be overthrown.

This is also likely to happen in the future. It might even be that the percentage of true enemies of the regime is
higher among these people than among most other groups in the general population. They are also often in the
ancient dilemma of executives in dictatorships: Great successes as well as small failures can cost them their heads!
Stalin ordered the murders of Tuchatschewsky and Trotzky. Hitler ordered the murder of Roehm. Kruschtchow
deprived Bulganin and Chukow of their power. (Please excuse the German spelling of Russian names.) Such cases
are repeated over and over again and most generals are aware of them. The numerous purges in the Soviet Union
proved that the public servants (party functionaries) are there in no better positions than the generals and that they
are not trusted by the regime. Both groups should thus rather be considered as being as full of potential allies as of
certain enemies. The large number of opportunists can also be won over. More on this under point 9.

8/14 The "No Pardon!" Practice as well as the Treatment of those, who were Conscripted, as Enemies and
Prisoners of War

Revolutionaries today fight too often like partisans or guerrillas and due to such methods their civil wars draw out
into years of fighting. Already merely due to the long duration of this fighting, one could expect that the hatred
between these guerrillas and the soldiers of the regime will grow and grow. Combined with today's ignorance of
and lack of interest in rightful resistance methods and in the absence of a well developed moral sense and moral
reasoning, both sides are then likely to commit wrong and unnecessary cruelties. One of the worst of these is the
practice not to grant pardon, a practice that is also based on the belief in collective responsibility.

From the point of view of revolutionaries, who want to win over the soldiers of a dictatorship to their side, this is
obviously a great mistake. Most of the soldiers of a dictator will only become true enemies of the revolutionary
resistance fighters when some of their comrades did not receive pardon from the "revolutionaries" but were
murdered by them, after capture, possibly even after torturing them. Such atrocities were so for all too frequently
committed - as if revolutionaries could thereby frighten a dictator!

Most dictatorships, apart from the atrocities they commit and which help to recruit more people for the
revolutionaries, proceed against freedom fighters according to well established practices: For instance, against the
resistance fighters of one province they do not use the conscripts from this province but rather those from a far
away one, preferably one with a different dialect or even separate language. Mass fraternisation becomes thus less

Resistance fighters and revolutionaries must finally become aware that most of the foreign soldiers used against
them are not volunteers but also conscripts and that they have very similar reasons for desiring the overthrow of the
dictatorial regime. Based on this insight, they should grant pardon to all soldiers falling into their hands, even the
volunteers, should appeal to them to join them, and, if they do not want to do this, should let them return, naturally,
without weapons and other equipment excepting only necessary clothing. They should persist in such a policy even
when e.g. Soviet officers should, furthermore, force Russian soldiers to shoot captured revolutionaries. The soldiers
who were captured and returned will see to it that they and their comrades become worse and worse Soviets and
better and better Russians and will finally induce mass fraternisation with the freedom fighters, or start their own
military insurrections. The dictatorship would have no reliable policies against such a treatment. Punishment for
these returned soldiers would gain them the sympathies of those so far unaffected. Transferring them would further
spread the good impression they had gained. Allotting them particularly dangerous tasks might only speed-up their
inclination to rebel or desert.


Even the so far fanatical fighters against the revolution will lose some of their zeal and will no longer fight with the
courage of desperation when revolutionaries proceed in this way. In other words, the demobilisation of the army of
a dictatorship might well begin in this way. Once these fanatics, for many of whom the existing dictatorship is still
not radical enough, come to understand the offer of these revolutionaries, not only of pardon but of whatever
economic, social and political system they prefer, as an exterritorial and autonomous system for themselves, in a
community to be established by themselves, their fanaticism against this revolution and their will to fight it will
begin to evaporate. Thus even these fanatics and true believers should be granted pardon when captured and should
be released, after being disarmed and interrogated (without any tortures or threats of torture!). They would thus
become, whether they want to or not, propagandists for the revolution - merely by having survived capture and
being returned.
No hard and fast rule should be made about this return of the fanatics: If certain areas are already secured by the
revolutionaries then they might keep those as POWs who, with a probability bordering on certainty, would come to
fight against them again, as fanatically as before.

At the same time, those declaring that they fought the revolutionaries only under coercion and who are at the some
time not prepared to join the revolutionaries, nor willing to return to a dictator's army, should be released into the
already liberated areas, given some food, pocket money, transport ticket and job recommendations. That should be
considered as part of the demobilisation action of the revolutionaries against the dictatorship's armed forces.

                                 8/15 Unlimited Central Revolutionary Authority

The supreme power among the revolutionaries should never lie in the hands of one or a few authorities. The danger
that just another new dictatorship would result from this would be too great. In the revolution here proposed, the
ultimate power would remain with the new local militia forces for the protection of human rights and the natural
rights of rational beings. Whatever limited and local or centralised authorities would be established, would be
organised only for a limited time and specified purposes. Moreover, they would compete with each other, apart
from their common defence federation, and be restrained by the right of recall, by plebiscites and by individual
secessions. The ideal: To each the government or the no-government of his dreams! - could unite them sufficiently
for military defence purposes, while at the same time disuniting them in a new way to make them militarily
superior. This seeming contradiction will puzzle only those who never pondered why e.g., a free newspaper
reporting all news without bias and offering all prejudiced opinions likewise an airing, is, like a free market,
everyone's friend.

                                                  8/16 Espionage

Revolutionaries desiring to overthrow a dictatorship like that of the Soviets, should not bother with espionage. It is
no suitable means to overthrow the Soviet regime or even to weaken it. The intelligence which they might require
for their purposes would probably be volunteered by refugees and deserters.

                                                 8/17 Intoxication

Revolutionaries who take themselves serious, would interdict all alcohol and other drug consumption while on duty
or on call and would destroy or remove all such substances from the front or fighting area. They would never
organise premature victory celebrations in which they would render themselves senseless and could be beaten or
captured by weaker but sober government units.

If liquor stores are not destroyed along the front and not even guarded by the own troops, then one could come to
see a repetition of what happened during the Hungarian uprising: Russian soldiers were given so much drink before
they were used against the revolutionaries that they fought half-drunk, largely only from the inside of tanks, and
could not, in this condition, be induced to desert. Many, in this condition, came even to believe the propaganda lie
that they would be employed in Egypt, against an invasion by imperialists!

The owners of destroyed liquor stores should be indemnified. If the resistance against the destruction of these
stores should be too strong (seeing the present tendency to consider it as a basic right to drown one's reason and
incapacitate one's body then these stores are at least to be put under guard.
Any restrictions of this kind should be accompanied by a notice that they would apply only for a limited and
specified period.


                                                  8/18 Barricades

How valueless barricades are during street fighting was already pointed out by Theodor Fontane, in his memoirs on
street fighting in Berlin on March 18th., 1848. Berliners did again acquire more experience on this in 1945. The
barricades established then, by the Nazis, carefully and long in advance, constituted no serious obstacle for the
Soviets in their occupation of Berlin. But the barricades had one particular and undesirable effect: They turned
almost all those into enemies who, due to the placement of the barricades, had to expect the destruction of their
homes and other property.
                                                      8/19 Flags

The flags of the enemy should be left flying while the fighting goes on. They are not worth risking the life of a
single man. They are symbols and nothing more. Revolutionaries fighting for basic rights will neither fear not hate
nor value them highly. Leaving them flying might even help to avoid air attacks or mislead counter-attacks.

                                               8/20 Abuse of Prisoners

Even officers opposed to the revolution or neutral towards it should not be abused after their capture, e.g. by
depriving them of insignia of rank, verbal abuse or assault. If not released, as suggested above, then they should at
least be granted all the rights of prisoners of war. The new elected officers and those confirmed in their positions
by elections, should be given different uniforms or insignia when this becomes necessary and there is time for it.

The above listing enumerates just some of the worst abuses. A complete revolutionary programme would list them
all and would make such a list very well known and would state more reasons why such practices should be

                 9. What Means and Methods SHOULD Be Used by Libertarian Revolutionaries?

                  9/1 Strict Respect for Human Rights and the Natural Rights of Rational Beings

As the aim of this revolution is to protect all human rights and natural rights of rational beings, this requirement
should be self-evident for all not believing in current practices and premises. Respect even for the rights of
members of the enemy's forces is a new feature in this programme.
If and as long as the revolutionaries respect these rights, then they are to be considered as rational beings and can
thus claim not only the ordinary human rights but also all the natural rights of rational beings. (They are listed in
appendix I.)
While and to the extent that the enemies of this libertarian revolution fight against it, they are not to be considered
as rational beings (unless they were forced to fight) and can thus not claim the natural rights of rational beings for
themselves. Thus this appeal for respect for human rights and natural rights of rational being is not to be interpreted
as an appeal for equal rights for totalitarians and other criminals. On the contrary. Their rights, like those of
madmen and infants are at least temporarily forfeited as a result of their own criminal actions or ignorance of and
disinterest in human rights.

Not only are these soldiers and revolutionaries to respect these basic rights in others, nay, they are to enjoy them
themselves and make the most of them for their purposes.
Soldiers knowing their fundamental rights, respecting them and claiming them for themselves, tend to be militarily
superior even to enemy forces which outnumber them. Moreover, consistent application of these rights in
revolutionary warfare does lead to new forms of revolutionary warfare and the revival of sensible old practices
which would increase this superiority further. More on this below.

                                            9/2 Organisational Measures

       "Indeed, the desire of all individual people to live with each other under a lawful constitution in
       accordance with freedom principles (the distributed will of all), is not yet sufficient for our purpose.
       Required is also that all and together want this condition (the collected unity of the combined will ). This
       solution of a difficult task is required to establish a civil society as an entity. As the particular wills are all
       different, a uniting cause must be added to draw out the common intentions. As no one can easily do this,
       one cannot, for the realization of this idea (in practice) count upon any other beginning of this rightful
       condition than one by force. Upon that coercion public justice is afterwards to be established." - Immanuel
       - Kant, Eternal Peace.

One could attempt to simplify and clarify this abstract description of the main requirement for the transition from a
totalitarian to a free society (in answer to the popular argument: "if they disliked it so much, they would have
rebelled!") by simply stating: Someone will have to take the first step, in public, under suitable circumstances,
which will induce others to join him fast. and he will certainly risk his neck - but will the totalitarian situation
thereby be really better understood? Perhaps, as a thought experiment, one should consider a conventional military
unit under strict military discipline. The purpose of that discipline is to prevent the expression of the common will
and interest of the soldiers and to impose upon them decisions and actions contrary to their will, rights and
interests. Cutting this kind of Gordian Knot is certainly not easy, especially when it is not even clearly seen! (That
and how an ideal militia organization will be different will be stated later on.)

Mignet reported in his History of the French Revolution (Reclam edition, in German, 11th. impression, p. 357 on
the uprising of 20.5.1795:

       "On this day one saw quite clearly how an immeasurably large material force and a clearly defined aim are
       still not sufficient to assure success. Required are also a leader and an authority to support and guide the
       insurrection. In existence was only a single legal authority, the convention: the party which had it on its
       side won."

The terms he used will not please those with almost infinite trust in spontaneous and anarchistic mass actions. Let
them speak rather of "catalysts" and "coordinators" to initiate and guide the insurrection and of widely respected or
popular "councils" like the original South American republican "juntas" were (respected discussion clubs on pub-
lic affairs which were almost forced into the role of a new republican government, the old royal one being widely

Thus as focal points, condensation points, information centres and initial self-governing local units, meetings of
soldiers, workers and local citizens should be organized. Precautions must be taken. Armed protection of these
meetings must be arranged.

The fact that they have assembled with revolutionary intentions must immediately be communicated to all troops,
factories and communities in the neighbourhood and in the country, also their first resolutions and actions must be
continuously reported.

The assembled proclaim their belief in or subscription to a new version or declaration of individual human rights
and natural rights of rational beings (ideally circulated secretly, long before the outbreak) and swear then and there,
in public, to uphold it and to convene a constitutional convention to further improve upon it as soon as the
revolution has won. They also resolve to spread the text of this declaration by all available means as far and
thoroughly as possible. (For a draft see appx. I.)

Then they should declare their secession from the dictatorial regime and that they favour individual secessionism
and personal law associations for the future society.

These declarations are to be made public and in writing only after the revolution has won, at least in certain areas -
because such name and address lists could get into the wrong hands, while the civil war is on.

Most of the assembled will then declare themselves to be, for the time being, members of a single exterritorial and
autonomous community of volunteers which is based on the recognition of all human rights and natural rights of
rational beings (which have so far become known) while reserving to themselves the right to establish their own
and somewhat different ones, according to their choice, as soon as peace and liberty are assured by the
Some other exterritorial communities of volunteers ought to be established or suggested immediately, especially


the ones prepared to realize the full programme of the adherents of the dictatorship - among voluntary members!
(To promote the desertion and insurrection or secession even of fanatics. How many different communist parties,
groups and movements are there in existence now? I have lost count long ago.)

Wherever it can already be safely done, the establishment of more and different exterritorial and autonomous
communities of volunteers should be promoted, as far as is possible. Especially, and in all areas already liberated,
registry offices are to be set up to note down and certify the community, government or no-government choices
made by liberated people. The more citizens will thus be registered, the more the future tolerant and diverse society
will become believable and realized, the more will this revolution be promoted and those will join who so far stood
aside, doubtfully. Naturally, communities with people holding largely conventional views will form the largest new
bodies and will calm the fears of people with conservative views.

The first revolutionary meetings can do much but not everything. Thus they can largely only proclaim the option of
exterritorial organisation but can definitely not fully realise it immediately. But they can definitely state: As far as
we are concerned, governments and no-government associations are now competing enterprises, all with authority
only over their voluntary members.

For the period of transition, and for current business, not to be decided in periodically repeated similar assemblies,
representatives, delegates or councillors are to be selected and elected and announced, as rapidly and informally as
possible and for short terms only, subject to recall during the next assembly, in case of serious abuses.
Normally, they should be elected for the duration of the revolution, however short that period might be, and for at
most 6 months when it lasts longer. Afterwards, under the usual control measures and whatever election systems
are desired by members of different communities, elections are to be conducted for constitutional assemblies.
(Naturally, among the exceptions from this rule would be hierarchical volunteer communities, whose members all
believe already in a certain leader and his programme.)

The initial delegates form from their ranks whatever local decision-making bodies might be required and also
select delegates to a central coordinating and advisory body for the duration of the revolution. But it should not be
granted any exclusive decision-making powers.

They should also and everywhere form small committees or set up arbitrators to decide the numerous rather trivial
cases which would otherwise occupy too much time of the leading heads of the revolutionary movement.

These delegates, especially those of the soldiers of the newly formed militias and of the old armed forces during
the period of transition, should form committees to which those outlaws could appeal for mercy whose amnesty
period has expired. They should e.g. check whether someone should be freed from the outlawry declaration
because he may have heard of the limited amnesty period too late. On amnesty and outlawry see below.

These revolutionary committees should as far as possible be thought about and prepared in advance. Preparations
might include the preparation of letter heads and rubberstamps - so that such items would at least be available
within hours. Small causes have often large effects. Without such small items the revolutionaries would e.g., have
difficulties writing dismissal notices for soldiers, authorities and identification papers, certifying certain decisions,
writing notices etc.

Public servants of the old regime, whose departments have not become superfluous as a result of the revolution or
at least not immediately, should not be considered as enemies and be automatically dismissed. On the contrary, the
revolutionaries should appeal to them to keep working but this time taking the new declaration of human rights and
of natural rights of rational beings as their main manual of regulations. They should also be induced to swear to
uphold these rights, should do this publicly and under threat of dismissal and forfeiture of all their pension claims.

This should especially apply to policemen and other members of the armed forces of the regime. (On judges and
other officials suspected of having sanctioned or applied tortures see under amnesty and outlawry.)


If all these public servants were instantly and automatically dismissed, then not only much confusion would result,
temporarily, but the revolutionaries would have turned a large number of people, among them many highly
intelligent ones, who may otherwise have been on their side or at least sympathetic or neutral, into enemies.
Moreover, they frequently could not fill all thus vacated positions which temporarily may still fulfil a necessary
function, with suitable people.

This procedure, with the exception of the oath upon human rights, was successfully applied e.g. by the Romans in
occupied territories, by the English in India and even by Napoleon I and by Hitler,
Their oath must clearly express that in future they will, in their official capacity, always respect all individual
human rights and natural rights of rational beings, that are declared and claimed., and that they will not follow any
orders whose execution would infringe these rights.

The revolutionaries, assembled in productive enterprises, military camps and municipal parks or meeting rooms,
should also orally, publicly and clearly declare their peaceful and friendly intentions towards all those other States
and exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers which are prepared to respect individual human rights
and natural rights of rational beings, if not within their own organizations then at least towards the members of
other States and communities.

They should declare that they are any time prepared to sign a formal treaty with them on the protection of these
rights. This can be done once they have their own particular institutions established and in the meantime
informally, orally, in large public meetings or by mass signatures comparable to those under the "Agreements of
the People" circulated by the Levellers (who were actually rather conservative civil rights advocates).

Such treaties should contain clauses on: Free Trade between the allies, supply of food and printed matters,
weapons, prefabricated housing, use of broadcasting facilities of the allies for broadcasts into areas still not
liberated, asylum for refugees and deserters, full recognition for volunteers wanting to practise among themselves
the system of the allies etc.

Those assembled should resolve to meet again in relatively short intervals and to keep open a continuous
discussion and information centre on their affairs.

Larger cities are to be temporarily "subdivided" for this purpose into communities with about 5,000 inhabitants.

One of the most important task of these first revolutionary meetings would be to clarify their rightful relations
towards the soldiers and officers of an occupation force. The workers of East Germany, in their insurrection on
17.6. 1953 failed to do this. This led to the following comments by Ulrich von Beckerath:

       "The workers had not considered that a hostile attitude towards Russia was out of the question for the
       insurrection itself and for later on. Right from the beginning, the workers should have attempted to achieve
       friendly economic cooperation with the Russian people. Exchange via clearing certificates would have been
       a means to achieve that. The workers should also have taken special care that no interruption would occur
       in the supply of the Russian occupation army. Payment of the troops in clearing certificates, in money
       denominations, might have been neces-sary. They should have considered for acceptance the Russian Gold
       Ruble as a general value standard. Under these conditions the Russian troops would probably not have
       fought the insurrectionists. This would have been more certain if the workers had published the draft of a
       constitution essentially based on the model of the Russian one but without the dictatorial elements now
       contained in it.
       The workers did not consider, either, arresting the East German government and handing it over to the
       highest Russian commander. (Most likely, he would have sent them to Moscow and they would have been
       punished there.)

       It was a very serious mistake to assume as self-evident that the Russian troops would be hostile towards the
       German workers. The Russian army has been indoctrinated to see itself as the advance guard of workers
       fighting for their liberty everywhere in the world.
       ... The insurrectionists of 17.6. 1953 ... should also have approached some high-ranking Soviet officers with
       the request to take over the military conduct of the uprising. If they had succeeded in this with some
       officers, then soon larger sections of the Red Army might have joined the insurrectionists.


       "The occupation army should also have been officially asked to send its delegates to the soldiers' councils.

       All announcements of the workers' and soldiers' councils should, as far as possible, be done in German,
       Russian, French (or English ) and in the Chinese written language. The latter would be very desirable as in
       the East there are many troops from East Asia and one can expect that they would be used if for certain
       people the Russian troops would not be sufficiently "reliable". But the Russian troops would arrest these
       certain people when they hear daily from the proclamations of the councils of workers and soldiers that
       these will only continue what the October Revolution had begun.
       These proclamations will also impress the East Asian troops.
       They will also instruct the Russian and other soldiers how they can finance themselves without resorting to
       plundering. Holzhauer's work: "Barzahlung in Besetzten Gebieten", (Cash Payments in Occupied
       Territories ), Fischer, Jena, will become of great political importance."

                                                9/3 Military Measures

                            a) The Revolution Should Begin with a Military Insurrection

For the military initiation of an insurrection against a dictatorship the people must largely be counted out at first.
They are unarmed and not militarily organized and trained. Thus this aspect of the revolution should begin as a
military insurrection. This has also the advantage that soldiers are mostly courageous people whose readiness to
risk their lives for an ideal is different from that of most of the civilian population.

The Red Armies are not truly loyal to the communist regimes. But they do have to become convinced of our
peaceful and rightful intentions. Most of them obey the communist rulers only because so far they always asked
themselves in vain: What should we do? Their mistake is that they do not have a programme deserving the name.

Military insurrections are rendered difficult by military discipline. It has been said that the Soviets have the strictest
military code in the world and I presume that they have their reasons for this. That these difficulties can be
overcome is proven by numerous military insurrections and mutinies. The main fault of most of them is that they
have no clear programme that is rightful, practical and attractive enough to appeal to most of the soldiers and of the
general population.

                                             b) Initial Meetings of Soldiers

A military insurrection could begin with assemblies of soldiers in which the soldiers take for themselves the liberty
of speech, assembly and association which was so far denied them. They put out guards and take their arms into
these meetings.

                            c) Secession from the Army and Establishment of the Militia

In these meetings the soldiers and officers resolve upon secession from the armed forces of the dictatorship and
from the dictatorship itself - and decide to reorganise themselves, for the duration of the revolution, in form of a
militia army. (After the revolution this army would dissolve itself and its members would most likely join their
local militia organization where their professionalism would be welcomed.)

They swear, during these first meetings, to uphold the new declaration of individual human rights and natural rights
of rational beings (Draft in appx. I. It should have been sufficiently publicised and discussed long before!), and
make public their choice of officers, who were already secretly determined in advance. At the same time, they
recall and dismiss all officers who do not want to join them (either releasing them or treating them as POWs) and
confirm or even promote those capable officers who stand on the side of the revolutionaries.

If necessary, those soldiers and officers of the dictator who do not want to join them will be granted protective
custody. Those who have not made themselves hated by many of their subordinates and who declare that, although
they will not join the revolutionaries, they will give their word not to fight against them, will be given their
dismissal papers, travel money and provisions to get them home.

The pay of the revolutionary soldiers should be doubled for the duration of the revolution. As the officers are
already paid much more and a doubling of their pay could cause envy, it should only be increased by 50%.


The military code of the dictatorship is to be immediately repealed, by oral declarations of these assemblies. Until
militia courts have been established and a military code provided, based on individual rights, these soldiers and
officers should be under the jurisdiction of the ordinary criminal courts and act in accordance with the rightful rules
of international law on warfare.

                               c) The First Small Actions of the Revolutionary Militia

The first assemblies notify by messengers, broadcasts, telephone and any other way all other military units they can
reach that they have begun the revolution and that they appeal to all other armed forces to join them.

To call for and protect factory and local citizen meetings, they send off small detachments of soldiers.

All artificial barriers between soldiers and civilians are repealed or destroyed so that an understanding between
them becomes easier to achieve and maintain.

They help citizens in their endeavours to establish local volunteer militia forces by sending them surplus arms,
ammunition, uniforms and some military instructors.

One of their most important and urgent steps should be the occupation of the special food and raw material stores
the dictatorship has established for its armed forces and followers. In the Soviet Union (and in the West) such
stores will probably last them for months. Thus the revolotionaries should first of all obtain the addresses of all
these stores (this should be done before the outbreak) and send detachments to occupy and guard them in order to
have sufficient supplies for the revolutionary forces.
The mutiny of 45 French divisions in May 1917 failed because the mutineers omitted doing this and were also
foolish enough to throw away their arms and get themselves drunk. The "Rote Armee an Ruhr und Rhein" (Red
Army near the rivers Ruhr and Rhein) constitutes another and almost completely forgotten chapter in world history.
Within a few days and under the leadership of two N.C.O.s, a revolutionary army of more than 100,000 men was
formed and laid siege to Wesel. But it dissolved itself as rapidly as it had formed itself - because it ran out of food
and had mode no provision for financing its enterprise - which would have enabled it to purchase supplies from
other localities.

If possible, all stocks of alcoholic drinks should be destroyed. At least they should be guarded against pillage.

All prisoners held captive because they claimed or applied their individual human rights and natural rights of
rational beings, should be immediately released. When there is doubt then the closest local militia organization
should decide. All sentences imposed by the dictatorship should be reviewed as soon as possible.

All communication centres should be occupied and protected - radio and TV stations, newpapers, printing shops,
post offices and telephone exchanges - to ensure that they are available for use by the revolutionaries.

All these media are also, as far as possible to be made available for use by the public. This does, naturally, not
mean that the revolutionaries should always transmit messages for the dictatorship to those still loyal to it. But in
any case, they should not, as a rule, prevent the enemy's orders being transmitted by destroying transmission means
which could also, later, be used for peaceful purposes. Often it will suffice to listen to these orders, translate them
and to take the corresponding countermeasures.
The jamming stations are to be occupied. The jamming should be stopped. Wherever possible, the necessary
technical changes should be made to use them rather for the broadcasts of the revolutionaries. Some of them should
be utilised especially for broadcasts to the free countries, so that the revolutionaries have at least some direct
channels to free citizens in foreign countries.

All revolutionary actions and happenings, appeals and proclamations, the whole social, economic, political and
peace programme of the revolution and the new declaration of human rights should be publicised with all media

The special police and security organizations of the dictatorship, which served especially to suppress the
opposition, should be disarmed and dissolved. Their files should be confiscated. But not all of their members
should be automatically excluded from joining the local militias - although such cases should be checked quite
carefully. One can find friends and supporters in some of the least obvious places and organisations.
On the purely military aspects of the confrontation with the dictatorship's loyal forces see Section VI.

                                             e) Amnesty and Outlawry

Once it becomes obvious that the revolutionaries will win, almost everyone will become inclined to join it. Not so
in the beginning of the revolution, because of fear or vested interest. Thus the revolutionaries should provide right
from the beginning special incentives and disincentives.

They will attempt to win over to their side especially some of the leading heads of the dictatorship - or, if they do
not succeed in this or if these heads would be no assets for them, they will try to render them harmless. This should
be done in as humane a way as possible and killing them is by no means the only method.

They could, for instance, threaten them with punishment. One old and proven method of punishment is outlawry, a
procedure which not only exempts certain individuals from legal protection but also appeals to as many as possible
to kill them or render them otherwise harmless. Acts committed in answer to these appeals are then not subject to
punishments. On the contrary, these executioners will deserve praise.
Moreover, prizes should be proclaimed for rendering harmless one of the leading men of the dictatorial regime. For
handing-in one of these leaders alive, double this prize amount should be promised. As proof for the elimination of
one of these enemies, a declaration under oath should be sufficient. False declarations of this kind could be
severely prosecuted as perjury and fraud.

Only the most influential and criminal men of the dictatorial regime should be singled out with outlawry.
Involuntary helpers of the regime or voluntary but minor assistants, like most officers, soldiers and policemen and
public servants, should, even if they do not join the revolution, merely be disarmed and sent home. For ordinary
members of all communist organizations one could simply promise: Everyone of them can claim amnesty.

The fact that many relatively minor criminals would thereby escape their deserved punishment, is a lesser evil
when compared with the further damage they could do if they continued to serve the dictatorship with courage born
of desperation. For instance, the members of the political security forces in the Soviet Union may number 2-3
million people!

Under special conditions, even the leaders of the dictatorial regime should be offered amnesty because rapid
liberation and not revenge is the main aim. Thus already during the first meeting of insurrectionist soldiers, the
dictator and his most important helpers are to be given an ultimatum: Abdicate, claim asylum and swear to uphold
the human rights and natural rights or rational beings and do so within 24 hours and amnesty will be granted. Those
concerned might even join the revolutionaries then - in an assigned position. If they are very much hated, then a
guard will be given them, passports and air transport to a foreign country of their choice. Even a small pension
could be offered to them - a bargain for their surrender compared with the harm they might otherwise still do. If
they should not claim asylum and amnesty under these conditions, then they should be automatically become
outlawed, once the 24 hours are up.

A similar ultimatum is to be proclaimed regarding all criminal judges and other persons involved in the prosecution
of political prisoners and under suspicion of having used torture to extract confessions. They, too, should be given
only 24 hours for appearing before a revolutionary authority for imprisonment as POWs. Otherwise, at the
expiration of the 24 hours period, they should be also become automatically outlawed.

If they cannot be convicted afterwards of having used or authorised torture or having inflicted cruel or unusual
punishments going beyond their totalitarian legal authorisation, then they should also be released as soon as the
enquiry in their case is finished.

The councils of workers, soldiers and citizens can prolong these 24 hour periods according to their discretion.

A special problem is posed by the existence of nuclear weapons. Should those possessing e.g. nuclear weapons also
be outlawed in every case, once the ultimatum has expired? They might still possess nuclear weapons then and in
their desperation might be inclined to use them. Although it would be rightful to outlaw them also, without
qualifications, this would not be a wise thing to do. At the same time, as long as they have not yet given themselves
and their weapons up, they should remain under the threat of outlawry and not feel safe in their wrongful position.

For such special cases the following offer should be proclaimed: The outlawry will be lifted for anyone who, after
the amnesty period is expired, surrenders at least one ABC mass murder device or proves that he has destroyed at
least one of these devices. If e.g., a general would no longer have one such device left, in order to save himself,
then he is no longer a large threat and there is no need to remove the outlawry.

This special amnesty should apply even in those cases where the culprits have already used some nuclear devices
against the revolutionaries. Naturally, while they are still in power and in possession of some of these devices and
have not surrendered, no efforts should be spared in attempts to execute them. The arsenal now available to poten-
tial executioners of tyrants is now larger than ever before and a determined small group, with suicidal courage,
could eliminate almost every one of them soon. Even among their most loyal guards there will be some who will be
strongly tempted if the prize put on the heads of their charges is, let us say, 1 million gold dollars plus full amnesty
for the executioner.

                                  f) Peace Declarations towards Foreign Countries

At the end of the first meeting of revolutionary soldiers they should proclaim a Peace Declaration towards all
freedom loving people in neighbouring countries and appeal to them to support them in their fight against the
dictatorship, e.g., by founding, together with them, an international militia federation. If such an organisation
should already exist, then these soldiers would merely join it, by unilateral declaration.
Their peace declaration should also contain an assurance that they have no territorial aims and desire free trade
relationships immediately. Moreover, they should declare that all special acts and clauses directed against "aliens"
would be repealed and that as many foreign observers should be sent as possible, that these would be welcomed
and in no way restricted.

                      9) Disarmament with Regard to Weapons which Infringe Human Rights

One of the first and most important tasks of the revolutionary militia forces would be disarmament with regard to
all weapons whose very nature is contrary to human rights, i.e. weapons which cannot be used without also injuring
or killing innocents and non-combatants, especially all mass extermination or anti-people weapons like the ABC
mass murder devices.

This kind of limited and yet far-reaching disarmament should be resolved upon in referendums during the first
revolutionary meetings.

The destruction of these "weapons" and of their production facilities, by the militia, would mean their destruction
by the armed people themselves and not by the government. The monopoly of governments to decide upon
disarmament measures, on nuclear arms and their production and use, of bacteriological and chemical weapons,
should be immediately repealed - by their potential victims.

Governments had their chance to conduct an effective disarmament long enough. They have not used this
opportunity and could not use it because they are governments of territorial States. (See Section I.) All territorial
States are therefore, by means of individual secessionism, to be transformed into exterritorial and autonomous
communities of volunteers. As such they neither could nor would want to produce nuclear weapons or would want
to use them or have motives or targets for using them, as was discussed above. Thus the nuclear arms race would
come to a stop and these new communities would engage in nuclear disarmament even unilaterally.

But libertarian revolutionaries should not wait until these new protective communities are completely organised
and finally become effective in this respect and destroy the nuclear and other weapons which are superfluous for
them and dangerous to possess. These revolutionaries will want to destroy these weapons immediately, as far as
possible. For this purpose they must, first of all, occupy and guard the nuclear weapons stores and all nuclear
reactors (as their radioactive material is sometimes being used for weapons manufacture or could be so used).

Already before the revolution, they should have noted all these places and drafted plans for their occupation. They
must also see to it that they have enough nuclear technicians, bomb disarmers and radiation screening material on
hand to permit them to disarm these weapons fast and to handle the thus released radioactive materials relatively

As these nuclear weapons materials cannot be destroyed (except by chain reaction and as we can hardly wait until
their radioactivity is naturally exhausted, these stocks of nuclear materials should be subdivided into sub-critical
masses of which at least a dozen should be required to construct a single primitive nuclear explosive device. Each
local militia organization should then be given the task to guard one of these units, in lead containers, until their
final disposal can be arranged.

Heavy water might be the only material which could be safely disposed of by dispersal in the seven seas. If fine
dispersal in the oceans would be to risky, would increase the radioactivity of ocean water too much or increase the
risk of gradual biological concentration of these materials in the food chains of the ocean, then some of the better
disposal methods proposed for the disposal of large quantities of radioactive garbage from nuclear reactors might
be applied to these materials - all under close supervision by militia forces. Most of these materials are probably
still not artificial but just concentrations of natural deposits and could be buried again with the same relatively
small risk we suffer by the mere existence of such deposits in the ground. One ideal disposal method would
naturally be to shoot these materials with many rockets into the sun.

Nuclear weapons stores and factories (including the "peaceful" reactors) can only be protected against external
enemies with nuclear weapons. Against an attack by revolutionary forces from their neighbourhood, an attack
carried out with conventional firearms, they would be hard to defend. If the defenders used in this case nuclear
weapons they would have to be suicidal.

But why should they want to guard and defend nuclear weapons and nuclear installations when this would only
lead to their outlawry and they would be able to claim amnesty merely by surrendering some nuclear weapons?
The propaganda against these weapons and installations, begun already long before the revolution, should have
convinced many of them that nuclear weapons are superfluous for defence and are rather a threat to basic rights and
liberties. The revolutionaries would continue this propaganda, as far as it should still be necessary, and
consequently, there will be only few serious fights for the possession of such installations. Often it might be
enough to blockade these installations to achieve their submission.

It is not impossible that the employees in such institutions are most receptive for the revolutionary's freedom and
peace programme since they are truly sitting on "powder kegs" and would be among the first to die during the next
large-scale war. Thus they might not even wait until militia units "knock at their doors" but might destroy their
nuclear devices and installations on their own initiative.

One could expect that, once the revolutionary militias in the dictatorially governed States have destroyed all
nuclear weapons in these countries, then, in the relatively free countries, few would hesitate any longer in
destroying all nuclear weapons, and places for their production, as well.
(The case for unilateral nuclear disarmament is discussed somewhere else. On the whole question see especially
Peace Plans Nos. 16-17: An ABC Against Nuclear War.)

Wouldn't there still be the danger that a considerable number of nuclear weapons would be hidden by fanatics and
later used by them, in terrorist threats - to become the rulers of the world? Wouldn't many nationalists want to hide
some in order "not to make their fatherland defenceless"? How could a complete nuclear disarmament be achieved
and a disarmament with regard to similar mass extermination weapons of the chemical and biological type, and
who could carry it out?

During one of the first nuclear disarmament conferences, when no one could come up with workable suggestions
on how to discover hidden nuclear weapons, the famous nuclear physicist Robert Oppenheimer stated that he knew
of a simple means to find them. Excitedly, his colleges clamoured that he reveal, instantly, what means he would
propose. His reply was, that everybody would already know the means and how to apply it: A simple but strong
screwdriver - with which to unscrew or break open every box or cupboard in the world, large enough to hold a
shielded nuclear device - in order to find whether they would contain one. There would be no other means.
Otherwise, one might stand 1 meter away from a lead-insulated nuclear explosive device, be equipped with the
finest instruments, and still could not point it out.
This more serious than joking reply points out the impossibility for any government to control the nuclear
disarmament of its opponents sufficiently. If his answer is basically correct then from it results a duty for every
adult citizen to become, at one stage, like all other adult citizens, an honourable disarmament inspector! No hiding
place in the world would escape the watchfulness and industry of all citizens in the long run.


From the right and duty to resist follows, in my opinion, a right of every rational being to search any suspicious
places, including private buildings, for hidden ABC mass murder devices. The right to privacy, private property
and inviolability of the home does not include, I hold, the right to possess and keep in readiness nuclear weapons or
even considerable quantities of radioactive materials, regardless of the purpose one has for them. I presume that as
a rule, in practice, these rights will be exercised as follows:
Anyone who has some reasons for believing that at any particular place some nuclear weapons etc. might be
hidden, notifies the nearest volunteer militia organisation, which considers the case, decides on it, orders a search
and carries it out.

       "One can generally assume that whenever any government, authority, army or group of fanatics hides some
       atomic weapons, after a referendum has decided against them, then there will be some witnesses and
       collaborators. They are people and can be influenced. They live with relatives, friends and families, meet
       with others at social gatherings and will often hear opinions on this kind of referendum which are new to
       them and place the whole question into a new light. After a while, at least some of these people will act like
       the air force members who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. One became a mental case, the other retired
       into a monastery. These guards and other witnesses will not become mad or try to retreat from the world.
       They will simply point out the hiding places of these weapons, e.g. to the local militia authority, citizen
       forces would mobilise, occupy these stores and see to it that these weapons, also, are disarmed under their
       supervision." - Ulrich von Beckerath.

As an additional precaution, high prizes should be promised for the destruction of every nuclear weapon or other
mass extermination device as well as for revealing their location.

                                     h) Timing the Beginning of the Revolution

The revolution should, ideally, begin during long daylight hours, i.e. in summer and during dry weather. Moreover,
it should rather begin during the middle of the week, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, and not shortly after or
before a weekend because at the latter times the purely private interests predominate.

Because already on the first day as much as possible should be achieved and the regime should be given as little
time as possible for its counter actions, it should begin as early as possible, maybe at sunrise.

As it would be dangerous if too many persons would know the exact date, a very small number of persons should
be selected whose first revolutionary acts are to serve as signals, in every district for the general rise against a

                                       i) Where Should the Revolution Start?

The revolution against the Soviets should begin in Moscow and in all other Soviet government centres, as well as
closely as possible to all nuclear rocket bases and air fields for nuclear armed bombers and ships - so that those in
power would have the least incentive and opportunity to use nuclear devices against the revolutionaries.

They are unlikely to act suicidally if they are granted an amnesty (when they surrender within 24 hours) as well as
guards, a pension, and an aeroplane to fly them to a country of their choice. If the revolution is started in this way,
then the revolutionaries could also immediately proceed with their nuclear disarmament programme. (The same
applies, naturally, to bacteriological and chemical weapons.)

Other suitable starting points for the revolution would be places close to the national border, provided only that a)
the revolutionaries do not receive military assistance from across the border and b) the fact that they are not
receiving assistance from a "national enemy" is sufficiently publicised - so that this action cannot be interpreted as
a foreign invasion. These starting points would have the following two advantages: The dictatorship would hesitate
in using nuclear weapons in these areas, in order not to become involved in a nuclear war and in case the revolution
should fail. Then the participants could retreat across the border - as many Hungarians did towards Austria when
their revolution failed. Naturally, the inclination of dictatorships to begin wars when revolutions threaten, should
also be taken into consideration - and countered as far as possible by demonstrating the "unreliability" of the armed
forces of the dictatorship. Some people might consider it a drawback that a friendly frontier would be so close to
these revolutionaries. They might not fight with the courage of desperation but rather retreat across the border.
There is something to that but at the same time: a mass escape from a dictatorship must also be considered a large
victory against it - and the West should welcome, nay even invite it in many ways. Moreover, the revolutionaries
could and should facilitate the escape of noncombatants across a border.


The danger of nuclear weapons (of still "loyal" troops) being used against the revolutionaries) is very much
reduced when the revolution would start simultaneously in very many different and widely spread locations. For
this the fact that the Soviets, for instance, have already widely dispersed their own troops (in order to give no mili-
tary commander too much power against them and some rightful ideas, and, perhaps, also as a precaution against
nuclear war) will be helpful for the revolutionaries. Ideally, the revolution should begin simultaneously in all these
military camps, as a military insurrection. The revolutionaries should make certain, as far as is humanly possible,
that at least all units armed with nuclear devices (and B & C weapons) are involved.

What should happen if the dictatorial government were to decimate, with the nuclear weapons and troops
remaining loyal to it, every tenth insurrectionist garrison and give an ultimatum to the others: surrender, or else!?

This case is unlikely because the revolution is to begin in the government centres and is to include all nuclear
installations. Then the loyalty of loyal troops cannot be relied upon if the threat, they are to exert, implies a nuclear
pattern bombing of their own country and even of themselves, being surrounded by the revolutionaries.

Moreover, all decisive supporters of the dictatorship would in this situation be under threat of outlawry - while an
attractive amnesty offer is made to them.

To this must be added the courage of desperation of the revolutionaries who, knowing the dictatorial regime, would
not expect "mercy" from it, even if it were verbally offered to them in such a situation. They would rather rely on
the solidarity and disobedience of their comrades, who are given orders to murder them.

Naturally, a 100% security against this happening cannot be obtained. Here one should be aware that even now all
countries are engaged in a huge game of Russian Roulette with regard to all ABC "weapons" and that we do have
to take some risks to end this in-tolerable situation - which in the long run offers only the certainty of disaster.

                                    j) How to Prevent a New Military Dictatorship

The insurrectionist soldiers would not be the only military power. Instead, everywhere volunteer militias will be
formed. Moreover, the revolutionary army is to be dissolved, by a resolution of its members, as soon as it has
fulfilled its purpose - and, like after the defeat of the Czar's regime , the over-riding interest of these soldier will be,
in most instances, to go home. Due to monetary and financial and general economic freedom, they will not have to
be afraid of unemployment.

An important factor will be that these soldiers will not be sworn in to obey certain leaders and their instructions
absolutely but rather to defend the human rights and natural rights of all rational beings against all such instructions
(whenever they are in conflict with them). They will be under military obligation to disobey and render harmless
anyone who attempted to usurp sovereignty over them or others.

Moreover, these revolutionaries will know, appreciate and use the right to secede from the revolutionary army and
from the State, like from a church. They will be prepared to defend this right as one of the main achievements of
the revolution.

I am well aware how limited my military knowledge and revolutionary knowledge is and how sketchy,
consequently, the above programme must appear. But I am also aware that it requires only the pooling of available
knowledge of a more or less informal libertarian General Staff to compile a comprehensive and detailed
programme of this type, one with a very good chance to achieve a libertarian, largely non-violent "blitz" revolu-
tion. Efforts in this direction are long overdue and I hope to promote them with the above.
Some more details will be found in Section VI on the Militia.
The following chapters deal mainly with the economic and social reform measures of these libertarian

                                     4. Economic Measures of the Revolutionaries

                                                A) Monetary Revolution

                                    a) Occupation and Closure of the Central Bank

One of the mainstays of modern dictatorships is their central bank. It can, e.g. by blocking all wage payments, all
insurrections within a few days - unless the revolutionaries are prepared for such attempts.

With the aid of the central bank every dictator can finance his machinery of power especially through inflation,


foreign exchange control and the "exchange" of government promissory notes for privately accumulated capital.
Through these insidious policies their subjects often become expropriated without becoming fully aware of the
factor, or only when it is too late for resistance.

It is very instructive to ponder the fact that the Communist Manifesto worked out by Marx and Engels in 1847/8
demands precisely the present condition and this as a means to expropriate the bourgeoisie and to establish the
dictatorship of the proletariat. It said explicitly:

       "The proletariat will use its political domination to deprive the bourgeoisie by and by of all capital and to
       centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e. the organized proletariat as a ruling
       class, and to increase the quantity of the productive powers as fast as possible.
       "Naturally, this can at first only be done by means of despotic intervention with property rights and the
       bourgeois conditions of production, thus only by measures which appear economically insufficient and
       untenable but which, during the course of the movement will exceed themselves and are essential as means
       to revolutionise the whole method of production. These measures will, naturally, vary in different countries.
       But in the more advanced countries the following steps could be rather generally applied: .....
       5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State by means of a national bank with State capital and an
       exclusive monopoly."

In 1848 this point was further clarified by a leaflet of the Communist Party which said, under point 10:

       "A State bank whose paper has legal tender will take the place of all private banks."

Even without thus intentionally abusing the central bank, the mere fact of the centralization and monopolisation of
the issue of money tokens leads to a shortage of means of payment, especially in revolutionary times. The resulting
blockages in exchange and production do then soon lead to conditions under which the previous life under the
dictatorship appears in a much better light. A counter-revolution by the followers of the dictatorship would thereby
be greatly facilitated.

Thus the central note-issuing bank is to be occupied and dissolved. To prevent that the dictatorship could abuse it
again, after a temporary military success has put it again in possession, all note stocks not yet issued and all
printing plates should be destroyed. The printing press itself should be used by the revolutionaries to produce their
own tax- or contribution-based revolutionary paper money without legal tender.
It is also quite possible that the dictatorship will rather destroy the central bank than let it fall into the hands of the
revolutionaries, under the assumption that these revolutionaries would, like other revolutionaries, want to abuse it
as a means to inflate the currency further and thus to finance themselves. The regime, due to its very nature, is
unlikely to understand that these revolutionaries could finance themselves much better than by an inflation.
(Compare also the last part of 4B-d.)

                                                  b) Proclamation of:
                                              the Repeal of Legal Tender,
                                    the Monopoly Position of the Central Bank,
                                   the Freedom to Issue Means of Payment and
              the Right to Engage in Clearing whenever this is Possible, and by any means available.

                 c) Establishment and Initiation of Numerous Clearing Centres and Banks of Issue,
                  Especially of Cooperative Banks of Retailers, and for Paper Means of Exchanqe.

That these revolutionaries would in no way obstruct free private coinage and 100% gold or silver covered gold or
silver dollar certificates, should by now be self-evident. But they should not be dependent on possessing sufficient
gold or silver for monetary purposes. Sound means of exchange, even those reckoning in gold and silver weight
units, can be cheaply produced with certain techniques, using as raw materials only paper, ink, printing presses and
skilled labour and some office space. Other "capital", apart from some intelligence, would not be required.
The revolutionaries could issue sound tax-foundation or contribution-foundation paper money.
(They might also declare that taxes and contributions paid to the revolutionaries would ultimately be converted by
them into shares in privatised assets of the regime. - J.Z., 12.12.02.)

The revolutionaries should also declare that private note-issuing banks, clearing centres and similar institutions are
no longer limited by any compulsory licensing requirements.

Here is a short summary of the subsequent monetary revolution:

The goods warrants issued by the associations of retailers and the tax- or contribution-based paper money of the
revolutionaries between them are to take the place of the regime's paper money, but without its legal tender flaw
and its monopolised and centralised issue.


One suitable way to direct the private, optional, market rated and competitively issued notes into the hands of wage
earners would be to discount with them and for the employers of the wage earners the promissory notes,
commercial bills and IOUs etc. they have received in payment for their products from their customers, mainly the

Those employers working for orders, e.g. ship yards and builders of large machinery, should only receive these
banknotes in return for short-term payment promises of the customers, obliging them to make regular and
periodical advance payments for the order.

In some areas the canteens of large enterprises will have to take the place of a retailers' association, e.g. in case of
mines in outback areas.

The banknotes or goods warrants issued in this discounting of bills etc., would be used for wage payments and pay-
ments to suppliers. From these they would stream to the retail shops in payment of goods and services, from there
to the bank, where they establish a credit upon which the retailers can draw cheques to pay for their orders from the
wholesalers. Then the bank clears these cheques against the bills and IOUs of the wholesalers. Bills and IOUs from
other localities will go into bank clearing and those claims which can be locally utilised will be obtained in

                        d) Proclamation of Freedom in the Choice of Standards of Value and
                                     Establishment of a Free Gold Market and
                                    Introduction of the Gold Clearing Currency

All currency laws and laws on the trade with gold and other rare metals should be repealed with this proclamation.
But until people have adapted to this new freedom, trading will largely still go on using the old currency units until
they are competed out of existence:

       "On the day the revolution begins all inhabitants will still reckon in the currency which the regime has
       forced upon the country, regardless of whether its forced value can be considered as reasonable or not.
       In the Argentina of Peron, for instance, everyone would reckon in Pesos although the news from foreign
       exchanges show that the Argentine Peso is a bad and almost continuously depreciating money.
       At the same time, in Greece, the Drachma has been so much depreciated that in this country gold coins
       circulate almost in the same quantities as before 1914. For gold pieces one can buy anything there and the
       gold prices of almost all articles are well known to most people.
       But in a country like Argentina one would probably follow the path of least resistance if the first issues of
       goods warrants were still expressed in Pesos. A better currency standard, e.g. the value of a freely traded
       weight unit of gold, could then be used in new issues to the extent that prices in shops etc. become marked
       out in gold weight units (or whatever other currency unit is found acceptable), i.e. to the extent that prices
       are no longer expressed in Pesos." - Ulrich von Beckerath.

                                         9/4 B) Financing of the Revolution

       a) Some Remarks on the Importance of the Ability to Pay as Foundation for a Successful Revolution

A precondition for the ability of revolutionary troops to operate is that they are sufficiently supplied with food,
uniforms, weapons and quarters. Provided the revolutionaries can pay for these necessities with a means of
payment that is gladly accepted by the population and not only hesitatingly, for lack of a better one, as is, for
instance, the case with the continuously depreciating legal tender paper money, then they would possess a means of
power against the regime to be overthrown that was already feared by ancient heads of States and quite rightly so.
Caesar, for instance, prohibited the possession of more than 100,000 Sesterces. Any subject possessing more could
have endangered his position. The Jesuits in Paraquay went further and prohibited their Indian subjects the
possession of any means of payment whatsoever. Goethe commented to Eckermann on the saying by Byron:
"Much money and no authority!" (re-translated from the German) that, indeed, the possession of much money
would emancipate a man from authority.

Today's governments are also frequently afraid of the independence people could acquire through the possession of
gold (still the most stable means of payment) or other cash.

Thus shopkeepers in East Germany are under legal obligation to deposit their takings, apart from small change,
every day at the State bank. Generally, in countries ruled by communist regimes, the possession of means of
payment in form of gold or other currency not authorised by the government is outlawed.


As gold draws, among other things, food from distant districts with greater force than a magnet draws iron from
close proximity, any army whose own means of payment would be accepted like gold would be independent.

It does not require proof that a revolutionary army would not be able to get any credit for its purposes from the
only creditor in a totalitarian State, that State's central bank, or from any of its branches. At the same time, any
revolution has to be regularly financed because it lasts usually at least several days, if not for weeks or months, like
a war.

Moreover, the dependants of the revolutionaries must be supplied.

Furthermore, the rest of the population will be much more sympathetic towards the revolution when it can have the
justified confidence that the new revolutionary government (or the various new autonomous and exterritorial
communities of volunteers) will be able to keep up social services and to avoid a money shortage which would last-
ly lead to a barter and subsistence economy and a slavish dependence of most people on the few who still have
means of payment to spare.

Ulrich von Beckerath commented on the East German uprising of 17.6.1953:

       "The next and most important step should have been to establish a means of payment independent of the
       Soviets. Apparently, no one had thought of that. In political affairs the one who masters the means of
       payment wins. The Soviets mastered them, before and after and the German workers did not even dream
       that this could be otherwise. Lenin, once he had regiment P … on his side, first of all occupied the note
       printing press. Now he had to win because he was the only one in Russia who could pay. None of the other
       revolutionaries had pondered the question: 'How does one pay one day after the revolution and how is one

                       b) What Is the Influence of a Revolution upon Payments and Credits?

Almost every revolution leads to an extensive hoarding of means of payment. Under a centralised and monopolistic
money-issue system this hoarding leads inevitably to a catastrophic money shortage.

Why does so much hoarding take place at such times? Most people attempt to accumulate as much cash as possible
for emergency cases, like unemployment or escape. Thus all purchases of goods not urgently needed are
postponed, likewise the payment of debts. Banks do no longer grant credits because they believe that the revolution
would endanger repayments. Money transfers do not take place when there is no certainty that the delivery or
crediting will take place at the other end. As soon as it comes to fighting, banks (and retail shops) are as a rule
closed and their books and accounts are removed, secured or destroyed. Thus, at least temporarily, the whole
system of non-cash transactions breaks down and, consequently, the need for cash grows enormously - while the
supply of it is drying up.

Moreover, refugees fleeing the fighting zones take much cash with them and thereby increase the currency

Furthermore, all regimes will attempt not to let any cash amounts collected at any government office fall into the
hands of the revolutionaries.

Add to this the fact that most revolutions bring extra taxes with them, which requires that, at least temporarily,
more means of payment are withdrawn from circulation.

The consequences are sales difficulties and thereupon production stoppages and unemployment. These
consequences do further increase the tendency to hoard all available cash.

Thus, based on the general experience that cash becomes short, quite suddenly, in revolutionary times, the
revolutionaries must consider how they can replace the missing and needed means of exchange.

                               c) Financing of a Fighting Revolutionary Militia Army

                                        c/1) Cash Payments instead of Pillage

Revolutionaries fighting for human rights must not loot or requisition but must, instead, pay for all equipment and
stores they need in cash and that with means of payment that are free of legal tender and subject only to a free
market rate.

For this only means of payment are to be considered which are so well founded that everyone takes them readily
and at their nominal value. Then the population will no longer hide its food stores etc. from the revolutionaries end
will be less inclined to offer information to the regime because it is embittered about plunder or similar coercive
acts. On the contrary, it will then rather endeavour to obtain more supplies for the revolutionaries, from other areas.


The revolutionaries should also pay any price asked for. All the greater will be the supply and the competition
among the suppliers. Thus the prices will soon fall towards general market levels.

       "Wellington, in the Spanish Campaign against Napoleon I, paid the peasants any price they demanded - in
       gold coins. These gold coins he had previously obtained through war taxes, which were not high but had to
       be paid in gold. He paid, without argument the price demanded. But in practice, naturally, the lowest price
       was paid first. Soon the peasants came in crowds, with their supplies and undercut each other. Finally, the
       market price and a good supply were achieved and the troops could be kept together."
                                                                                     - Ulrich von Beckerath
The military disadvantages of pillage were recognized, among others, already by Shakespeare. In King Henry V,
Act 3, scene 5, he lets King Henry V state:

       "We would have all such offenders so cut off: - and we give express charge
       that in our marches through the country there be nothing compelled from the villages,
       nothing taken but paid for, none of the French upraided or abused in disdainful language;
       for when lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom the gentler gamester is the soonest winner."

                                        c 2) Issue of Tax Foundation Money

These revolutionaries will finance themselves mainly by the issue of tax foundation paper money without legal
tender, which they will accept at all their pay offices in payment of a revolution tax. Compare on this the excellent
essay by Holzhauer: "Barzahlung und Zahlungsmittelversorgung in militaerisch besetzten Gebieten" (Cash &
Means of Payment Supply in militarily Occupied Territories), Fischer, Jena, 1939, 115 pages with bibliography. (In
PEACE PLANS 428ff, S. 935. Reproduced as manuscript, with some notes by my, in PEACE PLANS 531.)

The imposition of special taxes would be necessary as otherwise the continuing expenditures, e.g. for pensions and
salaries, could not be covered and because there is no certainty that the revolutionaries will come soon or
completely in possession of the current government revenues. (Compare on this Peace Plans 19 C and the essay on
financing defence in Peace Plans No. 41.)

       The text of this tax foundation paper money should contain, among other things:
       the number, day of issue, sum of the issue, amount of the due taxes etc.

       It should ex-press: Treasury certificate of the Militia Army xyz,
       worth x units of the current standard or y grams of fined gold.

       Acceptable means of payment for all revolution taxes.
       Acceptance at all pay offices takes place at any time at their nominal value, regardless of their market rate.
       Other means of payment will only be accepted at a discount of X %.

       These means of payment are neither subject to compulsory acceptance nor to a forced rate (legal tender) in
       private transactions or when used by the Militia Army or some of its members.
       (For some more details see the section above on tax foundation money.)

                                    c 3) Tax Levies and the Use of these Funds

Taxation is continued for the time being but no longer by the dictator or for his benefit but, instead, by and for the
revolutionaries. The tax departments and local tax collecting agencies will then be organised or induced to transfer
the collected funds no longer to the dictator, his authorities and armed forces but to the revolutionary authorities,

Should some of the tax departments refuse to act like this, then the revolutionaries would establish their own tax
collection agencies (until voluntary taxation has become general) and will declare that all public servants, who
continue to work for the dictatorship, do thereby lose all their pension rights and that anyone who continues to pay
his taxes to the dictatorship, without being under immediate coercion to do so, would have to pay the same amount
again, to the revolutionary authorities.

The paper money of the dictatorship is not simply declared invalid but will be accepted at the pay offices of the
revolutionaries only at its market value. It will there be retained and replaced by the tax foundation money of the
revolutionaries. (Compare: C a & b.)

Goods warrants of shop associations, transport societies etc. as well as foreign currencies will also be accepted in
tax payments - but only at their market rate.

Who should receive the tax means thus collected? A central council of worker, soldier and citizen delegates would
require at least a few days to constitute itself. At the same time, the means acquired must be spent immediately for
the current State expenditures (those which can be somewhat justified for the time being), e.g. for social service
payments and to cover the costs of the revolution. The means to be used for civilian purposes should thus be
transferred to the local citizen councils, until central parliament is established, if desired


(and perhaps even afterwards, seeing that this time, perhaps, in accordance with the wishes of the liberated citizens,
and as long as any taxes are raised at all, the local citizens rather than the central government should hold the purse
strings, hiring only as many central services as they like, and to the extent that they want them).              1

The means collected through the special revolution tax should be directly transferred to the local militia
organisation or the revolutionary army. In most cases these taxes will anyhow be collected by the militia
organisations themselves.

Naturally, all taxes paid for the time being to the local authorities of the revolutionaries should be taken into
account in all future tax collections.

The revolutionary militia army might not collect the revolution tax itself but rather authorise the new civilian
authorities to collect this tax for them. This would remove some of the objections of those who do not sympathise
with the revolution.

What should happen with the tax foundation paper money of the militia forces and the other new revolutionary
authorities, once they received them back in payment of taxes? They should be destroyed. The issuing centres are
to be informed about the total amounts concerned and the numbers of the destroyed certificates, likewise, about the
amount of the still outstanding taxes, so that they can take these amounts into consideration for further issues.
The destruction of these notes would facilitate the control of their circulation. They have already fulfilled their
function when they returned to the tax offices: the revolutionaries received the corresponding values when they
issued them. The loss involved in this destruction amounts only to the relatively small printing costs.

All liberty bonds issued secretly by the revolutionaries before the outbreak of the revolution, for preparatory
expenditures, should be called up and a gradual repayment plan should be worked out. Some percentage of the
current tax income should be set aside for this purpose to allow some immediate repayments.

                                            c 4) Use of Rare Metal Coins

Everywhere, where the population expresses a great distrust towards all paper money, especially in countries with
many illiterates or many different languages, known only to a few of the revolutionaries, they should as far as
possible utilise silver coins made of fine silver. For this purpose the revolutionaries should have purchased or
ordered silver coins before the outbreak, in foreign countries, or should, at the very latest on the day the revolution
begins, coin silver coins themselves.

Acceptance of full-weight silver coins of fine silver is rarely ever refused. Silver can today be obtained in sufficient
quantities and relatively cheaply. Important for the revolution against the Soviet regime would e.g., be the use of
rare metal coins to pay for the weapons of deserted Mongolian soldiers.

                          c 5 ) Issue of Shop Foundation Money and Clearing Certificates

Using the techniques of monetary freedom, in the area of West Germany alone, according to present (about 1958 )
figures, up to approximately 5,000 million gold marks could have been mobilised for a revolution against the Hitler
regime. (If they had been mobilised before he came to power, and deflation and the threat of inflation had thus
been removed, then he would not have come to power at all!)

To finance not only the costs of the revolution and those government payments which are being continued for the
time being, with paper money that has tax foundation, as suggested above, but also to keep all normal economic
exchanges going in spite of a shortage of the old government money, all those who could act as private issuers
should proceed to issue their own exchange media.

Ulrich von Beckerath had this to say on this subject, with special reference to the East German uprising of
       "The workers had not considered that they had only one kind of ready war fund: namely the goods in the
       factories, workshops, stores and farms. Through the sale of their products to farmers and to foreign
       importers the workers could have obtained food and other consumer articles in daily demand.
       The workers had not given any thought at all to the technique of selling their products and purchasing food
       from foreign countries - indirectly with their own products. Consequently, they had not considered using
       clearing bills to mediate these exchanges. They did not realize that, in large denominations, such clearing
       certificates can replace the commercial bills used in wholesale trading and that, in small denominations,
       like money, they can serve as means to pay wages with.


       "Naturally, the workers did not consider, either, that not every enterprise could issue its own certificates for
       general circulation and that it would be along the lines of least resistance if shop associations issued the
       certificates and gave them to the employers (including cooperatives) as loans, or used them to purchase
       various short term claims and bills which the employers have received from their distributors. The workers
       were still less familiar with the techniques of such procedures or had ever paid attention to them.

       It would have been necessary for all shops having consumer articles in daily demand for sale, especially
       food stores, to give loans in form of goods warrants to employers, goods warrants which they would have
       accepted afterwards, from the workers, paid & paying with them, like ready cash.

       As even the management in the shops is usually quite untrained in monetary questions, while their
       readiness to supply their fellow citizens with consumer goods can hardly be doubted, the workers' and
       soldiers' councils should combine the shops of a district in shop associations, based on clearly worded
       Every member would have to be obliged to accept the certificates issued by the association. The association
       would then undertake the issue of the goods warrants, partly to individual stores and mainly directly to the

Some more details of such issues were discussed above. More can be found especially in Peace Plans Nos. 9-11, 40
& 41.

        d) The Importance of the Monetary Revolution for the Financing and the Victory of the Revolution

The additional shortage of means of payment caused by the revolution must be abolished or prevented and the
previously existing shortage must be ended to avoid an economic collapse. The best way to do this would be
through the issue of new means of payment without legal tender, especially those with tax or shop-foundation.

The shop association banks would primarily serve to supply wage payment means and to keep production and
distribution going, so that the population remains able to support the revolutionary army by a corresponding goods

The tax foundation money, issued by the militia army and the revolutionary authorities, should serve, primarily, to
pay the costs of the revolution and the normal government expenditures (which are continued for the time being).
For the mediation of all other economic exchanges it is not sufficient. But without this tax foundation money the
revolutionaries could not pay for their requirements in cash while at the same time the taxpayers, due to the
currency shortage (brought to extremes by the revolution) cannot fulfil their tax obligations.

Without a simultaneous monetary revolution of the kind hinted at above (compare also PEACE PLANS No. 8, pp.
31-37) the dictatorship could easily defeat the revolution, even without military force, simply by refusing the
means to pay wages with in all areas of an insurrection. This happened in the uprising in East Germany on
17/6/1953 and led to the following comment by Ulrich van Beckerath:

       "The insurrectionists failed completely in their task to maintain the system of payments. The famous
       question brought up about half a century before by the revolutionary French Federation of Trade Unions
       (Confederation Generale du Travail, CGT): "Workers, with what will you pay for your bread, your
       tramway travel and all your other requirements, on the day after the revolution?" - was obviously not
       discussed by these insurrectionist workers and was probably unknown to them.

       Yet, the workers should have been aware that, unless they would have established, within a few hours after
       the revolution, a new and sound payment system, the old government could win merely by using the East
       German central note-issuing bank.
       They could have foreseen what actually happened: The central bank stopped the payment of wages to
       enterprises. Then the workers are in a worse position than during a lock-out from a capitalistic enterprise...
       The small stocks of cash are usually exhausted within a few days and from then on "General Hunger"
       works for the dictatorship."

The logic and ruthlessness with which these communist rulers applied their means of power, including the central
bank, is perhaps only comparable with their method of rapidly ending hunger-strikes of their political prisoners.
They did not force-feed them - nay, they cut off their water supplies. Consequently, their victims had to submit
within a few days.

Alternatively, the dictatorial government could simply declare that all its currency in the insurrectionist areas
would be invalid. Then 90% of the citizens could no longer make any legally valid payments. They would thus
refuse to accept this money even from the revolutionaries. Wages could no longer be paid, nor pensions etc. For a


time almost the whole economy in these areas could be thus paralysed. Consequently, the revolution would most
likely fail.

Among the necessary countermeasures of the revolutionaries should be:

Issue of their own means of payment and repeal of the decree of the dictatorship, if necessary (for the period of
transition), acceptance of the paper money of this regime at tax offices at its nominal value, until the crisis has been

Even if no other factors were involved: Merely due to the fact that the revolution will interrupt many business
transactions and payment transfers and thus the country, at least for the time being, cannot be sufficiently supplied
with means of exchange from any centre. In fact, this cannot ever be done, not even during peace times, in spite of
all the pretences of the central banks and of the legislation upon they are based.

Thus, especially during revolutionary times, any local means of payment crisis should be overcome through local
issuing centres. Central banks do not solve the problem at all when they merely declare that any need for means of
payment and credit that is not satisfied by them is "not legitimate".

Moreover, the financing of a revolution with the aid of a central bank, through the over-issue of legal tender paper
money, with its inevitable subsequent price increases (reckoned in this inflated money) must be totally avoided.
Otherwise, the revolutionaries would turn many citizens against the revolution who would otherwise have been
neutral or sympathetic. Moreover, the revolutionaries would then have betrayed their cause: to restore and protect
human rights and natural rights of rational beings.

Thus the revolutionaries should demonstratively and publicly destroy the printing plates for the production of the
paper money of the dictatorship, both, to show that they do not want to engage in an inflation and to disable the
dictator. The same applies to any stocks of so far uncirculated notes.

As soon as well founded private exchange media without legal tender are available in sufficient quantities, the
dictatorship could no longer inflate its currency, not even with the worst intentions. (See below under C/b.)

If the dictatorship itself destroyed the note printing press, then only monetary freedom and immediate use of this
freedom could help the revolutionaries. The councils of workers, soldiers and citizens formed by the
revolutionaries for the transition period should see to it, already during the first hour of the revolution, that
nowhere will there occur any currency shortage.
Quite apart from these advantages for the revolutionaries, the realisation of monetary freedom, and the abolition of
the danger of unemployment, depressions and inflations which will be the result, will be one of the main aims of
this revolution. There is no reason to delay the realisation of this aim in any way.

(Please note that I have recently partly re-written this and some other chapters while I was digitising, i.e.,
scanning and proof-reading, the original German manuscript, which was microfiched in PEACE PLANS
399-401. - For the time being I will not attempt to harmonise these two editions. - J.Z., 12.12.02.)

                                       e) Shortening of Wage Payment Periods

Wage payment periods should be shortened, at least temporarily, immediately after the revolution begins. In West
Germany wage payments amount presently to about 3,000 million gold marks and stores in shops to about 5,000
million. In the dictatorships these relationships are likely to be similar. Thus it might happen, under these
circumstances, that the wage earners might, immediately after receiving their wages, want to exchange them
immediately into food and other consumer items. Thus they could, within a few hours and at least in some stores
empty the shelves of most items. This would cast a bad light upon the goods warrants system which is essential for
the victory of the revolution. Even today, on special shopping days, either Thursday night, Friday or Saturday
morning, and also just after pay days, the turnover is much larger than on the other days. Restocking requires some

As a result of shortening these payment periods, the shops would also gain more regular sales. Moreover, if the
revolution suffers some setbacks in some areas, with subsequent confiscation of the there circulating exchange
media, the losses would not be as large.

             f) Financing of Larger Resistance Groups before the Outbreak of the General Revolution

Resistance fighters fighting for human rights and the natural rights of rational beings should attempt to raise
voluntary contributions or taxes within their area of operations. They should insist that these taxes are only paid in
certificates issued by them.


Often, even with the best of will, the population could not supply them with e.g., sufficient Rubles because in the
East there are, as mentioned above, severe regulations on the handing in of "excess" cash.

Then, based on this tax foundation, these resistance members could issue their own tax foundation money and pay
with it most of their purchases in cash. Naturally, these notes must not be legal tender or they would soon lose

Whenever this kind of issue is not feasible, then they could issue bonds, in small denominations, with a gold clause
to preserve their value. These should have a text like the following:

a) This loan certificate will be redeemed from the x-th. month after the beginning of the revolution, by being
accepted by the revolutionary governments in the payment of all taxes.

b) Its redemption in cash will take place only if and to the extent that these governments have conventional cash
available for this purpose.

c) The repayment of this loan will take place at the latest within 10 years after the beginning of the revolution.

d) The interest rate is 6% p.a. and also reckoned in gold weight values.

e) Loan certificates or bonds handed in before the above date will only be accepted at their market rate.

Most likely such bonds would circulate for a few years and then be gradually redeemed by acceptance at the
government pay offices or by exchanging them into shares of some public assets which are being denationalised.
(On the latter compare Peace Plans No.19 C.)
If resistance fighters finance themselves in this way, then their resistance is much more likely to turn into a general
revolution and the debt contracted by them will not become too large.

If it should also be too difficult to issue such loan certificates then the resistance fighters should at least try to issue
some kinds of warrants, tokens or tickets or scrip, on a gold reckoning basis, which the holder could utilise in
future to buy with them gold loan certificates or assets of formerly nationalised enterprises. The black market is
very well developed in Soviet Russia and will have some use for such certificates.

Some Russians taking the long view, perhaps some high Soviet officials and officers, who have some spare cash
available, will consider the purchase of these warrants, bonds or tax certificates as a good business and also, at the
same time, as a premium towards their life insurance. Such pieces, when presented to revolutionaries on D day,
could indeed save them their lives.

Many of these certificates will flow into foreign countries. Tourists will be offered this kind of money when they
sell some of their property to these people starved for foreign goods, and they will sell this money here - or even
keep it. The many friends, which a free Russia has in the West, will obtain these notes and certificates through
underground channels and invest in them, often with the intention never to present them for redemption. (If the
latter is the case, then they should notify by broadcasts - through the few channels available for this - or the many
which ought to be opened up - the numbers of these certificates which they have invalidated or destroyed. Then
correspondingly more could be issued without depressing their market rate further.

Such acceptors will see to it that the rate for such loan certificates will never fall too low. Naturally, the lower their
rate falls, the greater becomes the speculative incentive to purchase them. For instance, a tourist selling some item
for 20 Rubles in Soviet Government paper money could, if these underground loan certificates had fallen to 10%,
reckoned in government paper money, purchase with these 20 Rubles a loan certificate nominally worth 200
Rubles, which finally promises redemption in accordance with a certain gold weight value. This kind of thing
might be a tempting deal for many.

Public meetings in the West, in which subscriptions are asked for to such loans, would not remain altogether
ineffective. Western governments might be prevailed upon not to tax such investments.

The issuers should number the certificates and keep lists on the issued certificates so that forged certificates can be
recognized later on. Naturally, such records should rather be buried in some reasonably safe places than kept at
home. For the some reason, the certificates should be printed on greased papers soaked with pesticides - and carry
corresponding warnings.

                    4 C ) Various Economic and Social Reform Measures of the Revolutionaries

                                                       a) Tax Strike

The aim of a tax strike organized by the revolutionaries must be to render the dic