Charlie G:From my own experience living in New Hampshire, there is a fantastic and blossoming activist community of agorists and anarchists living in the town of Keene, New Hampshire and surrounding towns. In a sentence, it's the place to be if you care about the future of liberty.
The Free State Project is a good thing. What is happening in New Hampshire bodes well for liberty. The point, however, is that the Free State Project needs to be like McDonalds or Starbucks. The objective is to drive down the street and pass five Free Subdivisions on your way to work.
Why not develop a system that can replicate itself and spread freedom around the world? Why should one country, one city, or one state be the ultimate goal.? Acheiving the ultimate goal of course involves convincing one individual and one home at a time.
The challenge appears to be getting paid to increase the amount of freedom in the world.
I'm new here, but I came expressly because I was told that mises.org is a great resource for learning about the viability of secession.
A year ago, I read 'Discipline' by Paco Ahlgren, which I'm sure most or all of you have read, since he in an Austrian (which is the reason I found this site), and I dismissed his prediction that the dollar would fail, to be replaced by a private currency, and that Texas would secede. The book is fiction so it seemed pretty ridiculous to me. He even has a scene where the Texas governor gives a speech about secession.
Obviously, lately I've taken his predictions much more seriously, and in doing more research I found out he wrote the book years ago. So I know there are a lot of people who have loosely predicted all this, but he actually wrote the story before it happened, which scares me even more, because there's a lot of other stuff in the book that hasn't happened yet. For those of you who haven't seen it, you can read an article he wrote recently at Seeking Alpha, where he ties secession to the dollar's failure. http://seekingalpha.com/article/117801-the-end-of-the-u-s-as-we-know-it-tracking-the-dollar-downward
I have a lot of questions, and I guess this is as good a place as any to ask them. I'll start here -- if a state were to secede, like Texas, how would it defend itself against an invasion from another power, like Mexico? Also, how will Texas fight a war against the U.S. One of Ahlgren's arguements is that the U.S. is stretched to thin to fight a long civil war that would be unpopular anyway. And what about nukes. Would a state like Texas be able to take over any nuclear weapons within its borders fairly easily, or could they be used by the U.S. against Texas?
My last question is this: is Ahlgren associated with the Mises Institute, and does he speak publicly that you know of -- if you know at all? I know he's speaking next month at an event in Las Vegas, but I can't make it, so I was hoping someone here could help me out with any other appearances. I wrote to him directly about all of this, but I haven't heard back.
Thank you in advance.
smelton:if a state were to secede, like Texas, how would it defend itself against an invasion from another power, like Mexico?
How does Switzerland defend itself against invasion by France, Italy or Germany?
smelton:Also, how will Texas fight a war against the U.S.
Why would Texas fight a war?
smelton:And what about nukes. Would a state like Texas be able to take over any nuclear weapons within its borders fairly easily, or could they be used by the U.S. against Texas?
I don't understand this. How could anyone possibly claim to know an answer to this?
smelton:My last question is this: is Ahlgren associated with the Mises Institute
I've never heard of him. Mises.org does not promote violence or violent solutions.
As you will find on the here mentionned links, the Hanseatic League's spirit has already been re-started in the city of Zwolle in the Netherlands, in 1980. You will find it at www.hanse.org The actual president is the Mayor of the city of Luebeck in Germany. Since 1980, you have in summer, Hanseatic Days, each year in another hanseatic city.
As Flemish-belgian, I also feel involved in this revival. Brugge, in Flanders, Bryggen/Norway and Veliky Novgorod/Russia were the 3 Main-Offices (Kontor) of the continent. This year the "Hanseatic Days' are held in Novgorod Russia.
In my eyes, an historical revival of an area must also have an historial social and economical vision in sight and this is what I developped on my website : www.HansaMarine.org that you are welcome to visit.
Best Regards from Antwerp^in Flanders.
Brandy.Hans@skynet.be
Hoppe is wrong. The only revolution required is a personal one. No one else has to agree or support you, you do not have to form any group of like-minded individuals, and you do not need a "microstate" however defined. Personal secession on your terms [not Hoppe's or anyone elses] is all that is required.
******************************************************************************************************************
Hello From a "Post- Austrian",Anarcho-Capitalist ,Taoist, 911 "No- Planer": http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/6714.aspxFinancial safety blog: http://www.onebornfreesfinancialsafetyreports.blogspot.com/Personal freedom blog : http://www.onebornfree.blogspot.com/
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Hoppe is wrong. The only revolution required is a personal one. No one else has to agree or support you, you do not have to form any group of like-minded individuals, and you do not need a "microstate" however defined. Personal secession on your terms [not Hoppe's or anyone elses] is all that is required.
How will you protect yourself?
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Hoppe is wrong. The only revolution required is a personal one. No one else has to agree or support you, you do not have to form any group of like-minded individuals, and you do not need a "microstate" however defined. Personal secession on your terms [not Hoppe's or anyone elses] is all that is required. How will you protect yourself?
From ?
********************************************************************************************Hello From a "Post- Austrian",Anarcho-Capitalist ,Taoist, 911 "No- Planer":Financial safety blog:
Personal freedom blog : *******************************************************************************************
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: Stranger: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Hoppe is wrong. The only revolution required is a personal one. No one else has to agree or support you, you do not have to form any group of like-minded individuals, and you do not need a "microstate" however defined. Personal secession on your terms [not Hoppe's or anyone elses] is all that is required. How will you protect yourself? From ?
Those that want to throw you in jail or kill you for not obeying their laws? You know, shut your business down for not getting a license. Or throw you in jail for smoking a joint. Etc., etc.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Oh, "Lord love a duck!"
I have now spent a good part of 3 days reading and considering this thread and I will here give you some of my thoughts on it. First, I note that pages 1-7 have a set of authors different from pages 8 and 9.
The first set of authors are, I believe, completely unrealistic and idealistic. This is common to the young and to the academic. They seem to be excited by the ideas but ignorant and uninterested in the practice (of the ideas). The second set are much more realistic but the first set did not respond to them, which says even more about the first set. As a teenager some of my favorite authors were Clark, Heinlein, and Asimov. And the island idea might make a good sci-fi.
Today an island without population would exist only because of no potable water or unbearable climate. To get potable water would require a de-salinization plant. To run the plant would require a nuclear generator. To use both would need a distribution system, whose support would require roads (if only graded and compacted). At this point no one lives there and billions (if not trillions) have been spent. I am an active investor and have occasionally taken some big risks, but this project would not get 1 penny from me. So suppose these improvements were all inplace and the first set moved there and homesteaded. As academics they have no skills and must be completely supported by a working population that must be paid and who will outnumber them. As NAPs they must also hire security including, probably, individual bodyguards, although not until they begin earning a sufficient income. There is no culture whatever to hold or guide them on one path. And finally, note that we currently have a government directed and primarily run by academics.
My thoughts here may be unjustly negative, but may spur some response, if only in anger. But I do challenge these first set of authors to take at least 1 class, during their schooling, in a trade. Try welding, woodworking, cooking, cleaning, gardening, shoemaking, gunsmithing, anything. A skilled welder taday earns $USD 200,000 - 250,000 in the Canadian oil sands, non-union. Also I strongly recommend that each of the first set of authors take a gun safety class. These typically last 1 day and don't cost too much, everything needed is provided, and there is a choice of pistol, rifle, or shotgun safety. See the NRA site for schedules.
I think the second set of authors is not only more realistic but can acturally be accomplished today. But is the commitment really there or is it all talk.
My idea is to do it by means of the currency. Gold coins are not taxed. Did you know that! So if you could create a sub-economy that dealt in gold there would be no taxes, legally. In order to consume the maximum possible of your desired consumption as economically as possible this sub-economy would have to be a physically geographic community - a small town or village. Each Libertarian would purchase a home and live there, hopefully resulting in all contiguous land being so owned. The village would, desirably, be as self-supporting as possible. Realistically most would have jobs outsice the village which earned income on which all taxes must be paid. All remaining income would then be converted to gold. In time the village would grow to be self-supporting. In this way legal secession could be postponed until the village had grown to be large enough and rich enough and therefore powerfull enough to defend itself, and would have other villages started on the same path.
The free-state project of the Libertarian Party has, by vote, selected New Hampshire and when 20,000 members commit to move there, it will be able to vote in the State Legislature, they propose.
I think that Montana is a better choice, for many reasons. The population is 1/2, and the current laws and population are much more supportive today.
I hope you will reply, both sets, please.
A revised edition of this essay is now online at my blog:
http://strangerousthoughts.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/imagining-and-creating-a-free-country-within-an-unfree-world-local-secession-and-urbanization/
I loved that post of yours and I subscribed to your blog on that account.
I can only add that without said free cities acquiring nuclear weapons, the whole concept is pointless. Hoppe seems to put far to much credit into the idea that states are constrained by their public appearance, and would not attack a peaceful community. Think again, if that was true, the state itself would not have arisen. It would not take logn for some demagogue to convince the mob that that filthy-rich neighbor city is truly ‘exploiting’ us, by ‘taking our jobs’ and the usual arsenal. They will ask for war, let alone making it impossible for the state to get one.
So, let’s hope some smuggles sells nukes on the black market, otherwise this whole thing will end in a bloodbath.
Better tell Monaco to accelerate its nuclear armaments program.
If you’re French and live in Monaco you still must pay French taxes. If Monaco stopped trying to be as cooperative as possible with its neighbors tax policies the story would change, I’m afraid. “The filthy tax heavens must be punished” and such, not to mention what could happen if suddenly drug selling would be legalized in Monaco.
As Jorg Guido Hullsmann points out, secession does not mean breaking all relationships with the central power, it means negotiating them on your own terms. The protection and citizenship of France is not free, yet despite paying for this, Monaco has one of the highest GDP per capita in the world.
Sure, I’m not saying that Monaco is just like France. Still going from ‘somewhat more free’ to ‘network of global free cities’ is a long shot which, I believe, cannot be achieved by mere ‘diplomacy’.
Maybe, but would having a mass-murder machine be a good idea? Might be a better idea to stock up on cheaper anti-military weapons, especially since delivering a nuke without an ICBM is a dicey proposition unless you're installing them preemptively.
I may be a little late as the discussion has shifted.
Firstly, attempting to establish a anarchist society on an island has been attempted several times. Werner K Stiefel financed several attempts.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/maccallum2.html
I also think much of the discussion underestimates the difficulty of establishing a new society, not just in escaping from the current constraints of the state. Institutions that protect private property must be in place, as well as commercial law and dispute resolution. It will be difficult to attract investors without ensuring them that their property is secure. In literature this is referred to as social software.
The best person to fund any of these ventures is probably Peter Thiel. He founded PayPal and has a 25% share in Facebook. I heard him speak at Libertopia and he said he was interested in funding libertarian projects that are not intellectually oriented. He has also pledged one million dollars to the SeaSteading institute.
The military is not the enemy, the state is. In a duel you attack your opponent's body, not his arms.
Libertarians seem eager to die in glorious battle without learning any of the subtleties of war.
Islands are isolated and remote. They are not good locations, unless the island is already densely populated.
BioTube: Maybe, but would having a mass-murder machine be a good idea? Might be a better idea to stock up on cheaper anti-military weapons, especially since delivering a nuke without an ICBM is a dicey proposition unless you're installing them preemptively.
Monaco, no matter how rich, will never be able to defend itself against France. Nor Hong Kong against China. Only nukes can help equalize the playing field. And actually nukes are, even today, much cheaper than any decent conventional build-up. I can only hope that, in the future, the technology will only become cheaper.
Finally, delivering nukes by ICBM’s is well nigh impossible. First the missile is very, very expensive (much more than the bomb itself) and hard to maintain. Second, no one will ever sell a decent missile to a city. Third, it’s easy to intercept nowadays. Delivering nukes by commercial vehicles, containers or truck, is the real deal: those cannot be intercepted.
Stranger: The military is not the enemy, the state is. In a duel you attack your opponent's body, not his arms. Libertarians seem eager to die in glorious battle without learning any of the subtleties of war. If you’re referring to the ‘battle of ideas”, I would not put much hope in that, except for a few individual who are naturally inclined towards freedom. Otherwise, masses can be swayed for the worst, no matter how enlightened they might be in the beginning. Unless the physical act of aggression is made overtly costly, by nuclear deterrence, you’ll never have a free city, I’m afraid. It was only the swamps that kept Venice and the Netherlands form being overrun, and the mountains helped Switzerland. The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms. | Post Points: 5
If you’re referring to the ‘battle of ideas”, I would not put much hope in that, except for a few individual who are naturally inclined towards freedom.
Otherwise, masses can be swayed for the worst, no matter how enlightened they might be in the beginning. Unless the physical act of aggression is made overtly costly, by nuclear deterrence, you’ll never have a free city, I’m afraid.
It was only the swamps that kept Venice and the Netherlands form being overrun, and the mountains helped Switzerland.
Merlin, your strategy is mad for a very obvious reason: nukes do not target the state.
Possessing nukes makes it more likely you will be targetted for getting nuked. Being party to a MAD scenario is not good for security.
I beleive he was joking.
missclick... don't ask...
Stranger: Merlin, your strategy is mad for a very obvious reason: nukes do not target the state.
I do not enjoy such terms so please try not to use them when we debate.
Nukes do not ‘target’ as other weapons do: they are not meant to be used (at least nowadays), but as a credible threat. Their very existence prevents war. If you know of any counterexample, do tell.
And still, tactical nukes have been designed to be cause confined damage: those can be used against armies, and this is important.
geniusiknowit: Possessing nukes makes it more likely you will be targetted for getting nuked. Being party to a MAD scenario is not good for security.
Give me one, just one example of a possessor of nuclear weapons which has ever been attacked, not only by nukes, but even by conventional means.
Please do tell, and I take it all back. Otherwise, let us see that ideas are not going to stop armies, or the dumb masses behind them.
The difference between micronations living off of big nations and what we are aiming for is that the micro nations generally operate in the framework of the larger nations. As someone else said, Monaco pays its French taxes. If it didn't, France would do something drastic (or else its businesses would all head for Monaco). Diplomacy with the state isn't going to work because the state doesn't need to negotiate to succeed, whereas you do. If, for example, you declare yourself independent and refuse to pay US taxes (assuming you are in the USA), the police will come and arrest you, they won't send diplomats seeking negotiations because they know that they stand to gain nothing from that. At any rate, that doesn't solve the problem of you still using state provided services without paying for them (primarily water). Admittedly they SHOULDN'T be run by the government, but the fact that the government runs such services means that they have all the excuse they need.
The last time something along these lines was tried, the Minerva project I believe, thugs from a nearby country came, claimed the land, and forced the Libertarians to leave without bothering to negotiate. The libertarians, might I add, didn't bother defending themselves (something that probably could have been done, seeing as how the invasion was coming from bloody Tongo, not the US marines). The state will NOT allow people to just leave. If that was the case, we wouldn't be here, would we? We would have long since seceded, the government would be of far less relevence, and this institute would be pointless. Also, somewhat on topic: I believe Mises once said that if a gang declares independence inside a country, it cannot truly be considered a new nation; if the government rejects its independence and crushes it, it didn't exist long enough to be considered a nation; if the state tolerates it, it is existing by the force of a stronger government, not by its own might (we would, if we seceded in tiny groups or as individuals, be in the second category).
Seccession IS possible, but it requires a reasonably sizable portion of people in one area, as the FSP is trying to accomplish. That way, the state can't simply squish it when they try to declare independence. Ideally, it would be in a place where a region CAN make good justifications in seceding (if the FSP succeeds and gets New Hampshire to secede, the US government would have a harder time ignoring it and destroying it than if a couple thousand people spread out across the US declared independence and waited for the cops to arrive, this being because one can make constitutional arguments stating that seccesion is okay).
Also, we can NEVER assume the state will simply negotiate. That is an incredibly naive view to take, and counter productive to boot; How can we justify an anarcho capitalist society's superiority to a state if we must assume the state is willing to accept an ancap society on its borders without invasion? This is a HUGE issue that we can't sweep under the carpet. If we don't figure out what happens when a state decides to absorb an ancap area ("For its own good" or to prevent all the businesses from leaving), we are making the same mistake as Communists when they don't ask "What if the socialist utopia arises with no government and some people want to work as wage slaves?". Yet every time I ask this, I either get an answer I would expect from a damned Marxist on the subject of freedom of choice ("The state WON'T attack") or I get a bunch of sophistry and word play ("Without a government, they cannot surrender") (on that subject, it seems like we resort to word play and definitions far too often, something that isn't good; whenever I see someone doing that, they seem like they are trying to weasel out of a serious concern).
However, seccession IS our best option (as we don't have the numbers for democratic reform, violent revolution, etc).
You're mistaking correlation for causation.
The nations that have nukes have massive, well-trained, well-equipped militaries. They're not attacked not because they have nukes, but because engaging in even conventional warfare with them is too costly and risky.
The only time any country was hit with nukes was before the world knew about nuclear weapons. Anyone crazy enough now to nuke a non-nuclear capable country, despite certain worldwide condemnation and isolation, is crazy enough to not be deterred by the threat of nuclear retaliation.
Twice the US and USSR have come within minutes of launching nukes at each other. TWICE. Since the end of WWII, what other non-nuclear country has been hit or come close to being hit with nukes?
Haven't India and Pakistan gone at it since they've both gotten the bomb?
BioTube: Haven't India and Pakistan gone at it since they've both gotten the bomb?
Contained skirmish, not war.
That didn’t stop Germany from attacking the Soviets. Or Japan from attacking the US, or Napoleonic France from attacking Russia and Spain, or every European power from attacking one another in WW1, or Prussia form attacking the Second French Empire, or half of Europe from attacking imperial Russia in the Crimea, or…heck you name it: the bigger your army is, the more likely you’re going to get attacked, according to worldwide experience. That does not mean that small countries are not attacked, but those ‘wars’ seldom make history. But really, taking a look at the dismal human record for peace, I fail to see how could anyone be against nukes.
Anyone crazy enough now to nuke a non-nuclear capable country,
To repeat myself, tactical nukes are deigned to be used against armies, not cities. I would not blink before nuking an armored column massing at the border (that was, for years, the French nuclear strategy and it kept France out of harms way even if it was not a part on NATO). Nuking cities is both stupid and a dangerous threat. Stick to armies.
is crazy enough to not be deterred by the threat of nuclear retaliation.
It’s not the decision of one man. It never is. But, akin to guns, in a fully nuclear-armed world, I would not say that eventually someone would not launch. What I’m saying is that, on the long run any deaths from such isolated incident would be just a fraction of those occurring from the wars that nukes have prevented.
As an analogy to gun rights, if everyone has guns I cannot guarantee that the occasional a**ole won’t go on a shooting spree. What I can say is that such deaths would be far less than those due to crime that would have occurred has guns been banned.
So we make up for the lack of historical data showing nukes to be dangerous by taking such stories to the fight? The fact is simple: where there was war, there is peace. The rule has not been broken one, nor will ever be. What else do we want?
Again you confuse correlation with causation. There are distinct causes for why each of those countries were attacked, none of which was the size of their armies.
India and Pakistan have been intermittently warring with each other despite both having nukes, albeit on a relatively small scale.
Having nukes draws attention - too much attention to bear for any nation not possessing enough conventional military strength. No one but other an-caps would think twice about supporting the invasion of such a place.But if you're correct that nukes are necessary for secession, then this is a catch-22. Session would need to be on the scale of a large to medium country.
But the breakup of the USSR shows that having nukes isn't necessary. It even shows that any nukes possessed can be given away as part of the secession, rather than being kept as a deterrent.
To repeat myself, tactical nukes are deigned to be used against armies, not cities.
To repeat myself, armies are not our enemy, the state is. Armies must be evaded.
Nukes are not necessary for a country to secede. But without nukes a world on Monacos would aggregate anew amid terrible wars immediately. Its is something for Europe to tolerate a few micro nations that mostly do the bidding of the internationalists. It would be something else entirely to have 500 city-states draining your tax-base daily.
I can see no other way to maintain, not achieve, a world of city-states. How to get there is something I do not discuss, how to keep it like that, that’s easy: nukes and only nukes. I see no other way.
That is because you cannot imagine any way that the state itself can be hurt. This has obvious historical reasons: every state has cultivated its army to conquer, and by necessity preserve, other states. If you do not aim to preserve the state, your strategy is much simpler: attack the organs of the state directly.
Stranger: I can see no other way to maintain, not achieve, a world of city-states. How to get there is something I do not discuss, how to keep it like that, that’s easy: nukes and only nukes. I see no other way. That is because you cannot imagine any way that the state itself can be hurt. This has obvious historical reasons: every state has cultivated its army to conquer, and by necessity preserve, other states. If you do not aim to preserve the state, your strategy is much simpler: attack the organs of the state directly. Perhaps I’m indeed low on imagination. But I can see no way to avoid conquest. Ideas do not seem to work on masses. May I be proven wrong. The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms. | Post Points: 20
Perhaps I’m indeed low on imagination. But I can see no way to avoid conquest. Ideas do not seem to work on masses. May I be proven wrong.
Stranger: I can see no other way to maintain, not achieve, a world of city-states. How to get there is something I do not discuss, how to keep it like that, that’s easy: nukes and only nukes. I see no other way. That is because you cannot imagine any way that the state itself can be hurt. This has obvious historical reasons: every state has cultivated its army to conquer, and by necessity preserve, other states. If you do not aim to preserve the state, your strategy is much simpler: attack the organs of the state directly. Perhaps I’m indeed low on imagination. But I can see no way to avoid conquest. Ideas do not seem to work on masses. May I be proven wrong. The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms. | Post Points: 5
If a campaign of conquest is met with a campaign of assassination, it drastically raises the cost to the people in power. Remember, when dealing with a state you don't need to cow the masses, just the people who control the guns.