Microsecession as a strategy and the prospects for a new Hanseatic League

krazy kaju:

Woah dude, for real? Shouldn't anyone be able to come as long as they share our values?

I was kidding.  He just seemed to be so enamoured in living there and naming it.  Assuming this was a "we" thing.

 

But you raise a good point.  No, not anyone should be able to come along.  It's not a commune.  You would have to buy property and/or invest in the company.  No free rides for libertarian gawkers.  This is for real, for profit, life and death.  If I'm there, I expect to deal with other people, who have the same material, free market goals I do.  I don't want to have votes and negotiate through and around people who have an opinion, but don't have a stake.

Another issue that just entered my mind:

Don't we need corporatist clubs like WTO, EU or NAFTA to engage in trade and exchange with most of the important economies of the world? If yes, how are we going to meet their standards without becoming a social democracy ourselves?

Nerditarian:

 That's all very true, and this seems to me to be a very good proposal in general. However, I read Murphy's Minerva and that's what concerns me. Sure the powers that be might leave us alone at first.  That's good. But, as we all know, very quickly this would likely turn into an economic (super)power. Once they do isn't the security of everyone at stake? This could result in a Minerva-type situation where the US/UN start picking a fight with our little unState land over nothing. You know how the feds pull stunts. If there's a risk of being nuked, it's going to be kind of hard to get long term investment in the island.

They won't do anything about Somali pirates and that's an activity that is clearly aggressing upon their subjects. The facts seem to say that they have no idea how to deal with non-state territories.

Think of Hong Kong. It is too valuable as a free territory to the Chinese for them to use force to take it over, even at the time when the U.K. was on its knees and unable to mount a credible defense. The same is true of Taiwan. Once a territory has slipped away and then turned itself into a fortress, militarily and economically, there is nothing to gain for short-sighted politician to re-annex them.

Nerditarian:

What about the Mises Institute and other hardcore libertarian organizations? Is the ground they will lose in the US worth an island the American government might blow up? Hell, might the Paulian movement have a better chance at weakening the state than we would have at building the stateless society? Or mgiht we allow these minarchist types to gain power in government first allowing us to gain a larger more permanent territory, perhaps in Wyoming or thereabouts?

The minarchists will never gain power. However, their presence in government is an important part of the defense of secessionist territories from these governments. Ron Paul would of course block any attempt to invade these territories by marshalling public opinion, making the option of using force against secessionists even less attractive. Over time the growing number of secessionist territories, and the loss of population to them, will force governments to give up their powers (the race to the bottom as the socialists call it).

Sphairon:

Another issue that just entered my mind:

Don't we need corporatist clubs like WTO, EU or NAFTA to engage in trade and exchange with most of the important economies of the world? If yes, how are we going to meet their standards without becoming a social democracy ourselves?

Russia is still not a member of the WTO, but that doesn't stop its trade flows.

liberty student:

But you raise a good point.  No, not anyone should be able to come along.  It's not a commune.  You would have to buy property and/or invest in the company.  No free rides for libertarian gawkers.  This is for real, for profit, life and death.  If I'm there, I expect to deal with other people, who have the same material, free market goals I do.  I don't want to have votes and negotiate through and around people who have an opinion, but don't have a stake.

This is why it's important to organize the venture as a company. Anyone can buy shares if they want.

liberty student:

Nerditarian:

But, as we all know, very quickly this would likely turn into an economic (super)power. Once they do isn't the security of everyone at stake?

Wouldn't "we" have the means of an economic superpower to defend ourselves? 

Nerditarian:

What about the Mises Institute and other hardcore libertarian organizations? Is the ground they will lose in the US worth an island the American government might blow up? Hell, might the Paulian movement have a better chance at weakening the state than we would have at building the stateless society?

Most of the Paulians are not libertarians.  They are statists.

Nerditarian:

I'd want to live in "Rothbardia".

You haven't exactly indicated why you would be of any value to the community.

 

That's true, look I'm sorry if I offended you. I'm a noob and I thought the thread was a really good idea. Should I have use "we" so promiscuously? Definately not. I understand that "we" can sometimes be used assumingly and for statist propaganda purposes. I used "we" because I would definately by land there though I understand the collectivist way that could have been understood. What I meant to say if, as in Murphy's novel this Hanseatic League or any number of individual cities became a threat wouldn't the establishment folks in the Pentagon or the District of Criminals writ large simply turn it into plate glass, economic power or not? And if this is a concern why would business X invest in anarcho-island-whatever? That was my point. Not to offend you or anyone else here. I'm sure there's a good answer to it. I just can't think of one. I'm merely trying to be socratic. I hope that's of some value. To be clear from reading these forums I do respect your opinion.

As far as the Paulians go, I don't know if its fair to exclude minarchists from the libertarian movement or philosophy or whatever. Sure, they are more moderate. But does that make them unlibertarian? Personally, I am an anarcho-capitalist, make no qualms about it. Even if he's not a pure libertarian he has certainly introduced millions to the libertarian community. I know I wouldn't have been brought into the movement if it weren't for him. I can't speak for anyone else. And I can't tell you as of yet why I am of any value. But assuming I am of the most marginal value as a libertarian, the least important libertarian around and all Paul brings in are just schouches like me, that's something right? Even if I disagree with the minarchist rhetoric by most who identify as libertarians I can understand where they are coming from and see them as libertarians. That is if what I see is of any value. And even if Paul isn't a  libertarian, it still isn't unlibertarian to work within and with his movement to accomplish common goals and try and convince those within his movement that he's in staunch agreement with ancaps on. In your opinion, and I'm just asking, was it a mistake for Rothbard to ally with both the New Lefties and the Palecons? What would a better course of action been.

As far as the whole Rothbardia goes it was a quack humor light hearted name. It was corny. Sure, my naming sense is corny. I promise even if I invest in any such company I won't try and name it or any of its neo-Hanseatic cities. Also, I won't participate in any of those rename anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism for pop appeal thread.   I hope I provided something of value. Then again value is subjective so I guess it's in the eye of the beholder friends.  Next time I come up with a attemptedly humorous name I'll add an emoticon or something.

Sorry to offend.

Great thread.

I think that an anarchist microsecession is long overdue. From a purely entrepreneurial standpoint, this would be a huge profit opportunity. Just think of the returns for a company that bought a territory from a state and then sold lots (which would be extremely valuable). Here's my overall view of this strategy:

Pros

• incentive driven (doesn't require commitment from anarchists, just adventurous businessmen, so it wouldn't create the problem of concentrating large numbers of anarchists)
• would create extraordinary wealth, attracting capital and brains from out of the statist territories
• self-sustaining: as it grows wealthier and more tantalizing to states, it would also grow more capable of defending itself against such states
• could be done right now
• would create a precedent and pave the way for more microsecessions
• would be a current example of anarchy, demonstrating to statists that it does work and is not chaos

Cons

• at risk of being nuked (as in Minerva), although entrepreneurs may be able to solve that problem
• hard to get a state to accept and respect the secession, especially the first one (targeting failed states will alleviate this somewhat)
• businesses within states will surely complain about the "unfair advantage" and push for protectionism against the free territory
• may be difficult to raise the initial capital for such a radical enterprise

Overall, I'm very optimistic about this strategy. This would be a wonderful complement to the educational side of our strategy.

Nerditarian:

That's true, look I'm sorry if I offended you. I'm a noob and I thought the thread was a really good idea.

You didn't offend me, sorry.  I should have used a smilie or something.  I did want to make the point that this is not just some pioneer or escapist fantasy.  People who come to whatever the location of such a place would be, need to be loaded with capital, or loaded with skills.  We pay a lot of lip service to free markets, but I don't think many people are prepared to compete for their job every single day.  In a commercial atmosphere like that, academics and philosophers will not be in high demand.  People with technical skills, security experience, finance etc sure.  Marketing, leadership absolutely.

But dock workers?  Expect to compete with the cheapest labour "the company" can find.

Nerditarian:

What I meant to say if, as in Murphy's novel this Hanseatic League or any number of individual cities became a threat wouldn't the establishment folks in the Pentagon or the District of Criminals writ large simply turn it into plate glass, economic power or not?

That's a threat for every nation/group.  Effective marketing and propaganda will be good tools for defense.  And maybe the company needs to hire a security firm with access to nukes for a MAD scenario.  I don't doubt such groups exist already.

Nerditarian:

To be clear from reading these forums I do respect your opinion.

Like I said, misunderstanding, probably my fault.  Don't think twice about it.

Nerditarian:

As far as the Paulians go, I don't know if its fair to exclude minarchists from the libertarian movement or philosophy or whatever. Sure, they are more moderate. But does that make them unlibertarian? Personally, I am an anarcho-capitalist, make no qualms about it. Even if he's not a pure libertarian he has certainly introduced millions to the libertarian community. I know I wouldn't have been brought into the movement if it weren't for him. I can't speak for anyone else.

I think Paul is great.  But again, this isn't a libertarian social experiment.  It's business.  You either have capital, skills or preferably both.  That's how the market works.

Nerditarian:

As far as the whole Rothbardia goes it was a quack humor light hearted name. It was corny. Sure, my naming sense is corny. I promise even if I invest in any such company I won't try and name it or any of its neo-Hanseatic cities. Also, I won't participate in any of those rename anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism for pop appeal thread.   I hope I provided something of value. Then again value is subjective so I guess it's in the eye of the beholder friends.  Next time I come up with a attemptedly humorous name I'll add an emoticon or something.

Sorry to offend.

Think nothing of it and please accept my apology.

liberty student:

It's business.  You either have capital, skills or preferably both.

Really, I think all we need is capital.  Skills can be purchased.

When the first colonists came to America, the operation was usually based around two groups of people. The backers financed the colony and imposed some rules upon the colonists, while the colonists were hired to build the colony for their specific skills.

Many of you probably won't have any role to play as a colonist in the short-term, however you can have a role to play as a backer for The Company (let's call it that for now).

liberty student:

That's a threat for every nation/group.  Effective marketing and propaganda will be good tools for defense.  And maybe the company needs to hire a security firm with access to nukes for a MAD scenario.  I don't doubt such groups exist already.

The best idea for security is to hire a firm that also has infiltrated the political structure of powerful nations. Blackwater, for example, has enormous influence over U.S. policy. If they insured the security of a secessionist territory, they could likely leverage their influence on the U.S. government to intervene to protect the secessionist territory.

Stranger:

They won't do anything about Somali pirates and that's an activity that is clearly aggressing upon their subjects. The facts seem to say that they have no idea how to deal with non-state territories.

Think of Hong Kong. It is too valuable as a free territory to the Chinese for them to use force to take it over, even at the time when the U.K. was on its knees and unable to mount a credible defense. The same is true of Taiwan. Once a territory has slipped away and then turned itself into a fortress, militarily and economically, there is nothing to gain for short-sighted politician to re-annex them.

 You have quite a point. That''s as good an answer as any. I wasn't satisfied with that ending anyway. Too sad. That's true. What about back taxes? Wouldn't they, meaning the federal government seems like they are pretty serious about those taxes. And then the lefties always are able to work up a furor about US companies with offshore addresses. All in all though great plan, to both you and Hoppe and whomever else is responsible.

Stranger:

The minarchists will never gain power. However, their presence in government is an important part of the defense of secessionist territories from these governments. Ron Paul would of course block any attempt to invade these territories by marshalling public opinion, making the option of using force against secessionists even less attractive. Over time the growing number of secessionist territories, and the loss of population to them, will force governments to give up their powers (the race to the bottom as the socialists call it).

I didn't mean that they would gain power per se. I have no pipe dreams about that. However, as of the moment Ron Paul has been a pretty good recruiting agent for libertarianism. Now, people atleast know that libertarianism is not some soft theory for wealthy Republicans who like to do coke.  Since the Paul thing happened I have encountered less people saying those kinds of things to me. Have they gotten more polite or has Paul dispelled any rumors? Couldn't tell you. I can tell you that he got a lot of people interested, planted a lot of seeds in peoples heads. Anyways, I always pictured the State falling in a manner similar to USSR. As the feds run out of money and if Paul and others can turn on enough people then people can simply start setting up an ancap society.  The value of a guy like Paul is mostly educational. And if his verbal smackdowns of Guiliani and others has brought in as many people as it appears than the man is worth his weight in gold. Keep in mind outside ot the campaign his day job is to verbally beat down whatever Fed chairman who dares to sit in front of him. That he's getting the word out their that way to CSPAN/CNBC viewers isn't a lot but it's also something. Even if most of his convertees don't make the jump to Rothbardian anarchism he's still turned plenty of soft-socialists and red state fascists and apathetic disconcerned people into minarcho-capitalists and light libertarians. That's got to be worth something. Even Paulian constitutionalist minarchist libertarians who think anarchism is impossible or "can't work" may be sympathetic enough to be more likely to make initial investments in the aforementioned island.

It could be said that Ayn Rand has had  the positive function of bringing many youths into the ideas of freedom/capitalism and was overall heroic in this accomplishments even if she didn't see the full picture herself. If I remember correctly more than  a few people in the LRC biography series cited her as a main influence.  But Paul is so much closer to Rothbardianism and especially the whole LRC/Mises community that his effect is even greater and even more powerful. Don't forget its easier more than ever also to look upwhere "this Paul fellow is coming from".

Sorry to drone on. Best of luck. Your idea is pretty plausible and I hope it pans out nicely.

Stranger:

Blackwater, for example, has enormous influence over U.S. policy. If they insured the security of a secessionist territory, they could likely leverage their influence on the U.S. government to intervene to protect the secessionist territory.

Haha. At this point it's clear this is just misguided fantasy.

Juan:

Haha. At this point it's clear this is just misguided fantasy.

My brain is on fire with ideas associated with this topic Juan.

Shame you're not capable of that.

 

Oh, I do like the idea and the business side of it surely is interesting. But hiring Blackwater ? Come on...

liberty student:

Think nothing of it and please accept my apology.

Sorry about the whole thing. Bygones?

liberty student:

It's business.  You either have capital, skills or preferably both.  That's how the market works.

To be fair, Paul seems pretty good at marketing to me. The young male demographic is quite valuable, is it not? If he'd be willing, which I doubt most minarcho-constitutionalists tend to develop a strong attachment to the US.  And he knows a thing or two about raising capital. Again theres the whole anarchy vs. minarchy thing or the US vs. The Company thing. But I mean he has bought in all these rebels (who are now) practically without causes, so to speak. On RPF their always talking about '10 and '12. I think his most important victories have been in changing minds and raising money which could be converted into the later for the purposes of this scienario. If the whole microstate falls threw, the Paul movement is certainly the next best thing. Rothbard had to ally with pinkos and paleocons. While most paleocons aren't that bad and TAC/takimag tends to publish good stuff from Raimondo, McCarthy, Gordon and others having Paul is, in my opinion, the coolest thing since white bread. The paleocons and the pinkos are trying to tap into our (and by that I mean our common libertarian) movement.The fact that, on another thread several people talked about the importance of Paul and how he changed their minds only shows how Paul has grown the likely consumer base for this product or stateless society.

As far as I go, I would probably put all the money to my name into the place and move their and try and work my trade. At the very least I could speculate on whatever pieces of property I am able to purchase. Would I make it on the market? Who knows. Worth a shot. I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't try.

liberty student:

That's a threat for every nation/group.  Effective marketing and propaganda will be good tools for defense.  And maybe the company needs to hire a security firm with access to nukes for a MAD scenario.  I don't doubt such groups exist already.

 That's true, good point. I wouldn't be concerned if a minarchist state or Hong Kong was under consideration. But a full blown anarchist society could show a lot of emperors to be naked. It could hurt a lot of powerful people in a way a minarchist country or a Hong Kong or something doesn't. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done (Tu Ne Cede Malis...) all it means is that precausions need to be taken. I'm not one to judge what those precautions are. However, as a potential consumer/stock holder I would be very, very concerned before investing my money, time and life. Especially considering those who go live on The Company's land aren't likely to be welcomed back to the States with open arms if things sour even the slightest.  And if things get heavier than that well, international tensions may force international libertarian institutes and societies, like the Independent Institute or the Mises Institute headed for Company land. the fact that this thread is happening on Mises servers and is a riff off of stuff that the Mises institute has published could be used to hang 'em if you have a public furor whipped up about working conditions in Company land.

Juan:

Oh, I do like the idea and the business side of it surely is interesting. But hiring Blackwater ? Come on...

To be clear, are you suggesting we just make "campaign contributions" to the necessary parties directly?

 

Nerditarian:

 That's true, good point. I wouldn't be concerned if a minarchist state or Hong Kong was under consideration. But a full blown anarchist society could show a lot of emperors to be naked. It could hurt a lot of powerful people in a way a minarchist country or a Hong Kong or something doesn't. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done (Tu Ne Cede Malis...) all it means is that precausions need to be taken. I'm not one to judge what those precautions are. However, as a potential consumer/stock holder I would be very, very concerned before investing my money, time and life. Especially considering those who go live on The Company's land aren't likely to be welcomed back to the States with open arms if things sour even the slightest.  And if things get heavier than that well, international tensions may force international libertarian institutes and societies, like the Independent Institute or the Mises Institute headed for Company land. the fact that this thread is happening on Mises servers and is a riff off of stuff that the Mises institute has published could be used to hang 'em if you have a public furor whipped up about working conditions in Company land.

For things to get this bad, you have to assume that the protection of intellectual freedom would reach levels lower than those of Nazi Europe, when the first exodus of Austrian economists took place.

Nerditarian:

Sorry about the whole thing. Bygones?

Better than that.  Neverwas (a problem).  lol

 

Nerditarian:

To be fair, Paul seems pretty good at marketing to me. The young male demographic is quite valuable, is it not? If he'd be willing, which I doubt most minarcho-constitutionalists tend to develop a strong attachment to the US.  And he knows a thing or two about raising capital. Again theres the whole anarchy vs. minarchy thing or the US vs. The Company thing. But I mean he has bought in all these rebels (who are now) practically without causes, so to speak. On RPF their always talking about '10 and '12. I think his most important victories have been in changing minds and raising money which could be converted into the later for the purposes of this scienario. If the whole microstate falls threw, the Paul movement is certainly the next best thing. Rothbard had to ally with pinkos and paleocons. While most paleocons aren't that bad and TAC/takimag tends to publish good stuff from Raimondo, McCarthy, Gordon and others having Paul is, in my opinion, the coolest thing since white bread. The paleocons and the pinkos are trying to tap into our (and by that I mean our common libertarian) movement.The fact that, on another thread several people talked about the importance of Paul and how he changed their minds only shows how Paul has grown the likely consumer base for this product or stateless society.

I was as big a RPer as any other Canadian.  I know the score.  The RPers are awesome at organizing and action, something I felt was missing when I came here from RPF.  But I realize now that they are ideologically shallow when it comes to liberty.  Everything is American/Constitution centric.  Sure, a lot of libertarians and ancaps have come from it, but there are still so many minarchists who believe political (electoral) victory is necessary.

I'm a big Ron Paul fan here.  But he's like marijuana.  Just a gateway drug.  We need liberty on heroin.  Radicalism.

Nerditarian:

As far as I go, I would probably put all the money to my name into the place and move their and try and work my trade. At the very least I could speculate on whatever pieces of property I am able to purchase. Would I make it on the market? Who knows. Worth a shot. I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't try.

A lot could be done by libertarians in the statist world concurrent with the development of the New Hanseatica.  Not everyone has to go.  But it is necessary that those best suited do go and participate to have a shot at success.

Nerditarian:

That's true, good point. I wouldn't be concerned if a minarchist state or Hong Kong was under consideration. But a full blown anarchist society could show a lot of emperors to be naked. It could hurt a lot of powerful people in a way a minarchist country or a Hong Kong or something doesn't. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done (Tu Ne Cede Malis...) all it means is that precausions need to be taken. I'm not one to judge what those precautions are. However, as a potential consumer/stock holder I would be very, very concerned before investing my money, time and life.

Well, that is the whole challenge here.  To establish security for whatever commercially profitable and viable enterprise which might occur.  The League creates private law and security, the market will take care of profitability and the mundane details of trade.

 

Nerditarian:

Especially considering those who go live on The Company's land aren't likely to be welcomed back to the States with open arms if things sour even the slightest.  And if things get heavier than that well, international tensions may force international libertarian institutes and societies, like the Independent Institute or the Mises Institute headed for Company land. the fact that this thread is happening on Mises servers and is a riff off of stuff that the Mises institute has published could be used to hang 'em if you have a public furor whipped up about working conditions in Company land.

I think your imagination is getting the better of you here.

I've been thinking about some of these "issues" and will post my thoughts on them tomorrow.  It's getting late here, and the lamp is shy of oil.

To be clear, are you suggesting we just make "campaign contributions" to the necessary parties directly?

Rather I'm suggesting that hiring mercenaries or making 'campaign contributions' are actions not very likely to work. If the US government decides that you are a threat, then Blackwater or similar mafias, sorry, honest entrepreneurs will be fighting against you, not for your side. Buying off the US government doesn't sound realistic either.

Juan:

Buying off the US government doesn't sound realistic either.

Tell that to AIPAC.

 

Nerditarian:

That's good. But, as we all know, very quickly this would likely turn into an economic (super)power. Once they do isn't the security of everyone at stake? This could result in a Minerva-type situation where the US/UN start picking a fight with our little unState land over nothing. You know how the feds pull stunts. If there's a risk of being nuked, it's going to be kind of hard to get long term investment in the island.

Why? What would be the incentive? The place would be an economic power and that means people would have the capability of defending themselves? Moreover any attacking state would do a great deal of damage to itself economically.

Moreover an attack on the island would merely further the damage the credibility of the US government.

Nerditarian:

On the other hand, may I put forth the name "Rothbardia" as the name we give to the theoretical island? Then residents would be "Rothbardians".  That'd be pretty cool, eh? I'd want to live in "Rothbardia". And then each new free city could be named after an Austrian economist. And one would be  "Misesia" and the residents would be "MIsesians". And the founding corporation that buys these properties could be called the Austrian Corporation or something along those lines.

Why? This would have nothing to do with Austrianism in reality, it would have to do with money and that's it. The truth is this: it's far easier to buy people with money than it is to sell them ideas.

krazy kaju:

Woah dude, for real? Shouldn't anyone be able to come as long as they share our values?

No, not necessarily. As Stranger pointed out there'd need to be a policy of highly selective immigration.

Juan:

Haha. At this point it's clear this is just misguided fantasy.

Don't worry, we get it: too much work.

How perfectly you fit Rothbard's modal libertarian. You don't dislike the state, you just dislike rules.

GilesStratton:

Why? What would be the incentive? The place would be an economic power and that means people would have the capability of defending themselves? Moreover any attacking state would do a great deal of damage to itself economically.

Moreover an attack on the island would merely further the damage the credibility of the US government.

 I don't know because anarcho-capitalism anywhere is a threat to States everywhere. Just being pessimistic on that score, that's all.

GilesStratton:

Why? This would have nothing to do with Austrianism in reality, it would have to do with money and that's it. The truth is this: it's far easier to buy people with money than it is to sell them ideas.

.

So long as people feel safe business will obviously move to the least regulated land in the word, no? It wil obviously have to do with money. It was just a quasi-serious idea to pay some homage, that's all.

liberty student:

But you raise a good point.  No, not anyone should be able to come along.  It's not a commune.  You would have to buy property and/or invest in the company.  No free rides for libertarian gawkers.  This is for real, for profit, life and death.  If I'm there, I expect to deal with other people, who have the same material, free market goals I do.  I don't want to have votes and negotiate through and around people who have an opinion, but don't have a stake.

Well that's self explanatory. I think it's obvious if we're serious about this, you either need to purchase your own property or be allowed to live on someone else's.

In any case, how are we going to get enough people to come initially? I still need to go through college and then get a job to make some money to be able to be a part of this thing, if it ever happens. I don't think many people will be able to go at the same time, complicating this a bit.

krazy kaju:

In any case, how are we going to get enough people to come initially? I still need to go through college and then get a job to make some money to be able to be a part of this thing, if it ever happens. I don't think many people will be able to go at the same time, complicating this a bit.

First of all, in order for people to live on this island in an attractive fashion, infrastructure needs to be built. Power generators or hook-ups to foreign power plants, sewage plants, garbage facilities, hospitals or transportation services to mainland hospitals, roads in general. We can't expect the market to do this job for us since in the beginning, very few market participants will have enough confidence in The Company to invest on their own.

That's not a problem with sufficient capital. It wouldn't be too suspicious to hire construction and engineering crews to build it if they think it's just going be another commune for the rich. Maybe they won't care at all what they are building this for. This could also be a first opportunity to recruit skilled workers outside of libertarian think tank circles; I can imagine that living in a city you yourself have built may attract one or two of them, especially if you grant them a small premium.

Thus, the most important element in the early steps of establishing The Company will be money. Those with a stake in the community will probably have to go full-risk on the project. It's unlikely that we will find enough shareholders for such a venture as long as there is no visible success. Hence, to get it started, it may be necessary to make rigorous adjustments in one's time preference.

Possibly not just time preference, but also education preference. For people like Kaju and me who still have to choose their professional education, it may be advisable to become more market-oriented, e.g. not study economics, even though that was the original plan, but focus on "money skills", especially in the engineering, financial and electronics industries.

I hope y'all realize how much of a long-term project this is going to be if we get it started.

Nerditarian:

GilesStratton:

Why? What would be the incentive? The place would be an economic power and that means people would have the capability of defending themselves? Moreover any attacking state would do a great deal of damage to itself economically.

Moreover an attack on the island would merely further the damage the credibility of the US government.

 I don't know because anarcho-capitalism anywhere is a threat to States everywhere. Just being pessimistic on that score, that's all.

I think there should be less worry placed on military warfare, and more worry placed on economic warfare.  Look at how the States (the US, the UK, the EU, etc.) are going after those 'privacy' states such as  Lichtenstein, Jersey Island, et al, on the grounds that corporations and businesses alike are using them to avoid paying taxes.  This economic warfare, in the form of legal battles being played out in courtrooms and legislative houses, is the most likely threat The Company would face.

Nerditarian:

GilesStratton:

Why? This would have nothing to do with Austrianism in reality, it would have to do with money and that's it. The truth is this: it's far easier to buy people with money than it is to sell them ideas.

.

So long as people feel safe business will obviously move to the least regulated land in the word, no? It will obviously have to do with money. It was just a quasi-serious idea to pay some homage, that's all.

If the opportunity exists, and the risk is less than the potential return, businesses will come. 

There was a comment somewhere in the thread concerning the WTO and trade.  The WTO is a union writ large.  They'll support anyone who is trading, especially if you trade by their terms.  They'll support you even harder if you pay your membership dues.  That being said, they'll probably support the States more vigorously since that's who supplies the majority of their funding.  And the courts of the WTO is one place where the scenarios I mentioned above are playing out.

Are there any rich anarchists who could possibly fund the initial expedition? I remember hearing about a few rich libertarians trying to create a floating island.

Sphairon:

Possibly not just time preference, but also education preference. For people like Kaju and me who still have to choose their professional education, it may be advisable to become more market-oriented, e.g. not study economics, even though that was the original plan, but focus on "money skills", especially in the engineering, financial and electronics industries.

I was thinking about doing a double major in economics and finance. I still have to decide. The unfortunate thing is that I really don't have an interest in any non-academic studies besides finance and business.

I think the greatest challange would be finding "insignificant territories". No territory seems insignificant enough to be insignificant to states. They even have claims on Antarctica, never mind the places that can actually sustain human life.

There are many weak states in Central and South America, the Caribbean, the Pacific, and Africa. Somalia, technically speaking, is stateless. Personally, I think a good starting point would be somewhere closer to "civilization," if you will, like the Caribbean or Pacific.

 

Yes you have a point, but no matter how weak the state is a small band of libertarian idealists is stil no match for it.

Yes, bribing the politicians of that state could non the less provide security, but if that were to happen is that not a slippery slope? How long until the company realises its lobbying power with the state means it can take shortcuts and earn profits the easy way through state enabled plunder? If so what would prevent this enterprise from becoming another East India Company?


Also I think formal secession would be unwise tacticaly. Every state will see that as an outright challange and will not permit it because of the precedent. Plus because the company will be foreign the crack down can easily be painted in terms of colonialism and used to rally the support of the natives around the state.

I think it would be more strategicaly sound to pursue as much independence in practice while refraining from formal declaration of secession even if it means having to pay some tribute to the state. Even the mini states of the Hanseatic League were formaly part of the Holly Roman Empire if I know anything about history.

From what I understand, we wouldn't formally declare independence. We would just cease to pay taxes, adhere to state laws, etc. If the state would try to fight, they would have to deal with well-armed residents and possibly a security company. As for the Hanseatic League, I know that Danzig was part of that, but was not a part of the Holy Roman Empire.

Re: the rich libertarians making floating islands; this is their website and IIRC they are converted oil rigs. http://www.seasteading.org/learn-more/intro

As an intellectual excercise, what about, instead of searching for an insignificant territory, going for a territory that is a "no man`s land"? A place in dispute between two states but which neither of the two controls? A place where no secession is needed because the place is already stateless? What about buying up a portion of Northern Kosovo? Ok, it is a wacky idea. But show me what am I missing. Take it as a challange.

The Western meddlers controll the borders and are keeping the Republic of Serbia out, but they charge no customs duty. The population on the ground on the other hand keeps the Republic of Kosovo out and they pay no taxes to Prishtina. The place has security problems, but that is what made the land very cheap. And it is no wildernes either, the infrastructure is already in place albeit it has seen better days. Also the unemployement is high so there is plenty of cheap labour. And most importantly an influx of 3rd nationals would actually be welcomed by the native population on the ground on a political/demographic as well as economic basis.

Aren't such territories at greater risk of national and international intervention, though?

I'm envisioning the headlines in the liberal media:

Laissez-faire extremists exploit ethnic tensions to create for-profit state

Capitalist radicals annex poverty-ridden country

Market fundamentalists take nation as hostage

I liked that last one =]

Sphairon:

I'm envisioning the headlines in the liberal media:

Laissez-faire extremists exploit ethnic tensions to create for-profit state

Capitalist radicals annex poverty-ridden country

Market fundamentalists take nation as hostage

It's been a long time since in-depth reporting made the headlines. Maybe it will go on page 10, and then only if the publication can afford to send someone over there to report.

Stranger:

It's been a long time since in-depth reporting made the headlines. Maybe it will go on page 10, and then only if the publication can afford to send someone over there to report.

And whoever comes over, will be accompanied by a PR officer the entire time.  Like the media tours of russia in the 60s and 70s, they will see what the colony wants them to see, in the context they want it seen in.