Why don't we buy an island from Greece and setup a libertarian community there? Its close to civilization, its not Somalia or something. What is the problem? Why do we need ariticial islands?
"Why don't we buy an island from Greece and setup a libertarian community there? Its close to civilization, its not Somalia or something. What is the problem? Why do we need ariticial islands?"
Good point. Anyone real smart have an answer?
Is Greece actually selling sovergienty rights for the islands, or merely government-owned land that remains part of the Greek nation?
I'll tell you why, Eugene. I'm sure the Greek government would be happy to sell off its sovereignty over an island that the Greeks have been inhabiting for millenia, and the people on that island would be happy to be subjected to an alien group of American anarchists for the purposes of a social experiment to once-and-for-all prove or disprove the viability of anarchism. But despite all that, we don't want to follow through with it because we know deep down that it wouldn't work and that the island would devolve into a morass of murdering warlords and rapacious con men and the experiment would end up proving that our most dearly cherished ideology of anarchism is, in fact, false and unworkable.
So, that's why. We're chicken.
Clayton -
Can't tell if sarcastic or just still a teenager.
No. Move to NH instead.
Having an anarcho-capitalist island close to civ would be a bad idea. Civ tends to be pro-collectivist by its nature so the best thing to do would be go as far away from civ as possible, homestead land and be 100% self-sufficient.
F4M, I think you're on the wrong forum, I'm sure everyone here enjoys civilization.
Eugene: Why don't we buy an island from Greece and setup a libertarian community there? Its close to civilization, its not Somalia or something. What is the problem? Why do we need ariticial islands?
How much are they?
EDIT: I found this one for 1.5M Euros, but its out of my price range.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Yeah, Bert, this guy would not even reason with me, and I even want to live in the wilderness at some point myself. I should point out that my desire to do so is actually more likely to be fulfilled than his, since all he seems to be actually doing is trolling on these forums. Also, I don't see why I can't mix bourgeois thought (the desire for "civ") and Transcendentalist/Thoreauvian thought in my ideas about this. I would like to experience both sides of the coin. And I don't see how he links any of this to Libertarianism either...
He even was contradictory enough to tell me "you should move to NH" when I expressed my desire to survive in the Alaskan wilderness for a time in my life. Well, who's more self-reliant? The man who takes nature's bounty and an easy climate, or the man who survives winters of 9 months and up to 40 degrees below fahrenheit?
I tried to defend him at first. Then I saw his discussion on Islam, and realized how irrational he was. So I'm going to "cross the floor" on this issue, as they say in political speak. Not that I am going to treat him like a jerk, but I will neither give him my support.
Why buy when there is a very large (+1,500,00 sq km) unclaimed and uninhabited territory still available?
It is a bit remote but does have a well educated but transient population nearby. Like New Hampshire though, the winters kinda suck (subjectively, of course), but wa do ya expect for free? Also, the surrounding territories do have governments which have pledged not to have any military operations nor nuclear experiments, etc. It has been surveyed and named but remains unclaimed.
This could be it? (elbavil yrev eb thgim ti tfihs elop eht dna 2102 retfa)
We are the soldiers for righteousnessAnd we are not sent here by the politicians you drink with - L. Dube, rip
I don't think anarcho-zionism is the way forward. If you want to smash the state, the best way to do it is through trying to educate people about the nature of the state.
I thought of moving to a small island but is still big enough to have one big town or two small ones and some where that is in a good climate. Then try get in to politics on the island and try to change it to anarcho capital system. There are a few islands that would be perfect for this. But you would have a lot of resistance on the island.
This sort of island, canary island, spanish owned, i think?
http://g.co/maps/p999u
All states would have in interest in this failing.
Well, who's more self-reliant? The man who takes nature's bounty and an easy climate, or the man who survives winters of 9 months and up to 40 degrees below fahrenheit?
Nice try. They're equally self-sufficient ;)
What's wrong with collectivism?
If all of the island is owned by one person and the owner invites people on to the island without selling them any part of the island. I am not sure if that could be classified as anarcho capitalist system.
Problem with islands is that you might be able to make an island of reasonable size anarcho capitalist in system. The larger owning territory or realy the government and its army would just come and take over again.
This, this, some capital, some security, and some brave, adventurous souls is all you need to create an earthly paradise. I will sign up if you can get a party organized. Let's do it!
I'm just going to find an shallow-water underwater island (such as in the background of this pict) and create a floating state achored to it. Much cheaper than buying an existing island. Doesn't count as land for territorial purposes. This will then transition into a permanently floating state, which can go anywhere thereafter.
Anenome:
Wow that really is beautiful.
They're equally self-sufficient
I agree, not equally self-reliant though. "Reliance on one's own capabilities, judgment, or resources; independence." I have to rely more on myself and my own energy to get the food I need and such. To show extremes, a guy living in Alaska, who has to stalk and kill a moose in the dead of winter, is more self-reliant than a guy who merely has to pick a bunch of berries from a bush to get his meal for the day and collects all his meat via traps. The former is more reliant on the self and particularly his capabilities, while the latter is more reliant on the bounty of nature (i.e., the former is far more of a hardcore survivor).
And just the fact that I would have to exert more calories in obtaining my meal here shows that I am more reliant on the self and less reliant on what Nature provides.
You are equally self-reliant. You do not rely on anyone else. Ergo, you are 100% self-reliant.
You might mean some standard of manliness you'd like to ascribe to (argghhhh, I can take down a bear with my bare fists), but that's not what you said.
I don't want to live under a gigantic red X in a self-imposed dissenter's ghetto, thank you very much. I think it's safer to hide amongst the corpses.
My argument though, which you have not addressed, is that the latter case is relying more upon Nature's Bounty than strictly himself. They are equally self-sufficient, but I am relying more on the capabilities of myself, if that makes sense. If an eagle hypothetically flew down from the clouds with a plate of bacon and eggs for a man every day, are you seriously saying that person would be just as reliant on himself? Anyway, don't see why you have to nitpick semantics about this? I meant it more in the sense of manliness anyway, probably.
+1 James
These "anarcho-zionism" (props on that term!) proposals all ignore economic reality. There's a reason why New York is New York... it has a large, well-protected harbor and is almost the exact closest point on the American continent to the UK/Europe, by far the largest trading partner that side of the Atlantic. For any large economic center you investigate, you will find similar reasons why it exists. Throwing a dart at a map of the Pacific ocean and saying "Let's build a Laissez-Faire City here!" is nuts.
I've always had a fancy for building a libertarian city near Iceland. Would anyone else be interested?
A practical consideration; do you speak Greek? Another little matter to possibly consider is that historically a depression is followed by war, relative to the size of the depression. This is a big depression and will be followed by a big war in the Northern Hemisphere, quite probably nuclear. Ducking below the equator is possibly not such a silly idea. In the Southern Hemisphere are quite a number of islands; Vuanuta, Tokolau, Australia, New Zealand to mention but a few. The latter are run by big money puppets and the former by IMF diktat. Southern America, Argentina Chile etc but all Spanish speaking and unless your Spanish is very fluent every encounter with officials and purchase of even the most basic goods, a challenge. English speaking South Africa has large tracts of open space in the Northern Cape with some complete villages for sale, ex agicultural hubs now taken by factory farms. Botswana & Namibia too dry with Zambia as an option being sparsely populated, friendly people, no pollution of any kind and a mild climate. In the USA you have no civil rights left after bill S1867 and you can either risk the USA or run to fight another day advises Sun Tzu. The Nazi's passed a similar law accompanied by "nacht und nebel" the arrested person just disappeared into the system. I wish you fortitude for those that remain!
Greece is probably in for a period of military rule and/or war with one/all of its neighbors, so it’s not the best place to be. Also, the government never said it intended to sell sovereignty, just property.
But most importantly, “Zionism” has no hyphens for a reason: there has been only one instance of a directed mass migration for ideological purposes in the history of mankind, namely the Zionist movement.
I think that we libertarians are not any less ‘fanatical’ in our ideology than Jews where as a group, so what we lack is 1) our Baron de Rothschild and 2) a major crisis in the country with the larger libertarian population, the US.
1) Groups never self organize: some rich dude will have to purchase the land, prepare the economic activity to be followed, and invite everyone for any kind of ‘anarcho-zionism’ to work.
2) Hm, probably on the way.
All told, this is probably the project that could be closer to actually taking off, I’m afraid. There may be no substitute for pure geographical concentration.
Clayton: +1 James These "anarcho-zionism" (props on that term!) proposals all ignore economic reality. There's a reason why New York is New York... it has a large, well-protected harbor and is almost the exact closest point on the American continent to the UK/Europe, by far the largest trading partner that side of the Atlantic. For any large economic center you investigate, you will find similar reasons why it exists. Throwing a dart at a map of the Pacific ocean and saying "Let's build a Laissez-Faire City here!" is nuts.
(cool term)
Nah, there's no call for an outright dismissal of the island nation concept.
You can focus on jobs that don't require physical resources. You could grow algae bio-diesel on the ocean. You could do underwater mining. There's all sorts of things that could be done more productively on an island nation.
The problem, as other highlighted, is that Greece is not selling off the islands as Russia did with Alaska or Napoleon did with the old Louisiana. These are government-owned lands that will simply become "private property", hence they will be subjected to the same laws as the rest of private properties in Greece. In short you'll end up buying land in Greece. At that point is just better to buy property in a country in better conditions: New Hampshire in the US, Chiang Mai in Thailand, Los Lagos in Chile (which I am currently looking into) are all better calls at the moment and there are plenty more.
Kakugo: The problem, as other highlighted, is that Greece is not selling off the islands as Russia did with Alaska or Napoleon did with the old Louisiana. These are government-owned lands that will simply become "private property", hence they will be subjected to the same laws as the rest of private properties in Greece. In short you'll end up buying land in Greece. At that point is just better to buy property in a country in better conditions: New Hampshire in the US, Chiang Mai in Thailand, Los Lagos in Chile (which I am currently looking into) are all better calls at the moment and there are plenty more.
This is why we need to build free-floating platforms on the ocean surface, not tied to an island.
Anenome: Kakugo: The problem, as other highlighted, is that Greece is not selling off the islands as Russia did with Alaska or Napoleon did with the old Louisiana. These are government-owned lands that will simply become "private property", hence they will be subjected to the same laws as the rest of private properties in Greece. In short you'll end up buying land in Greece. At that point is just better to buy property in a country in better conditions: New Hampshire in the US, Chiang Mai in Thailand, Los Lagos in Chile (which I am currently looking into) are all better calls at the moment and there are plenty more. This is why we need to build free-floating platforms on the ocean surface, not tied to an island.
Well, good luck with that. I am not coming because I get violently seasick.
Kakugo: Well, good luck with that. I am not coming because I get violently seasick.
Thanks, but I think you'd be fine! These platforms are very large, heavy, with laterally distributed floats making them extremely stable--plus they are interconnected making them even more stable and self-supporting. You wouldn't even realize you weren't standing on land much less have a chance to get seasick!
Oil rigs use floats directly above the drogue-weight, and because of this can be very unstable and bobby. Not so with the hex-platform design where the floats are distributed out to the edges of the platforms.
There's also a wave wall around the whole structure creating harbor-like calm inside them.