As far as I see it there are essentially two options, one more viable than the other, with regard to a frontier, and what I mean by frontier is a space, that of which is, more or less, not currently nor immediately capable of being governed by the state. The two frontiers I refer to are space (outerspace) itself and the virtual world, i.e. the internet. I think both of these potentially viable frontiers could provide a fantastic option where libertarians of all types and sizes could find refuge. Further, for those interested in the more rapid development of a counter-economy, both of these frontiers provide an environment to do so.
First, I'm sure there are other frontiers that can be conceived of. I'm interesting in hearing what those are.
Second, with regard to the two frontiers already described, I'm interested in ideas about how we could actually take advantage of such oppurtunities. How do we get people to take an interest in outer space,i.e., how do we get them to believe that property rights do not stem from the state but from people themselves. Once this concept is taken to heart there would be entrepeneurs aching to claim their own piece of the moon.
Further, how do we create a virtual world where our identities could not be tracked and we could develop whole economies without being burdened by the state. For example, virtual currency could be developed during the development of a virtually unregulated economy (sort of like 2nd life) but in this case, we wouldn't allow it (virtual currency) to be traced to its legally known possessor, i.e., there would have to be an encryption system which would effectively disallow the state from knowing who nor where to track its creators and users. This would, in effect, serve as virtual frontier if the encryption system was highly developed and ahead of the curve.
These are just some preliminary and crude ideas which have come to me. I'm sure many have developed them much farther; I'm just not aware of them yet, so naturally I'm curious as to what those are.
I think the ocean is a much more important frontier than outer space, imho.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
edward_1313:Second, with regard to the two frontiers already described, I'm interested in ideas about how we could actually take advantage of such oppurtunities. How do we get people to take an interest in outer space,i.e., how do we get them to believe that property rights do not stem from the state but from people themselves. Once this concept is taken to heart there would be entrepeneurs aching to claim their own piece of the moon.
Private enterprises are already taking an interest in space, look up Virgin Galactic and The SpaceShip Company. There are others but those are the biggest so far. I know that Samuel Konkin was a sci-fi fan although I have yet to read any of his work. If you do a search he might have written something on the subject.
edward_1313:Further, how do we create a virtual world where our identities could not be tracked and we could develop whole economies without being burdened by the state.
If you want to communicate secretely over the internet theres a well known encryption program called GNU Privacy Guard that is secure and very popular. Also theres a plugin for certain instant messeging programs called Off-the-Record Messeging. I haven't actually used either of them to communicate with someone because none of my friends are computer nerds like me. But if you wanted your communications to be truely private you'd have to exchange your encryption keys person to person either written down on a piece of paper or burned to a text file on a CD or floppy disk.
As far as private monitary exchange I think Michael Badnarik recommended using eGold.
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Free Software Foundation
Public Key Encryption has been in existence for a few decades now. The receiver of a private message can verify the integrity of a private message without having to have a prior private communication to recieve the key.
There are currently international laws that actively dimantle private ownership into the frontiers that you mentioned, in addition to the most classic unclaimed frontier: the Antarctica, which I think is probably easier to explore and make use of by land-based humanity than space.
I have a sneaky suspicion that vigorous expansion into new frontiers will be unlikely until there is a major conflict or stand-off in the "old world" to distract the powers-that-be . . . a little like, the 13 rebellious colonies would have had a much harder time gaining independence if there hadn't been a British-French rivalry in the old world. Even the Age of Exploration (15th and 16th centuries) would have been a non-starter if Europe had been a unified political entity like the Middleast or China. In fact, China did have an exploration program a couple hundred years before Columbus, and sailed farther and wider than Columbus, and with much bigger ships; the problem? it was a government-funded program like our NASA. When the unified government realized international trade was destabilizing to the national political monopoly, they banned explorations.
The greesy hands of the government are already reaching into the virtual frontier, trying to strangle it. Take for example, 2nd life just experienced its first economic depression due to prohibition on gambling initiated by real life law enforcement demand.
Laissez faire:
A fatalistic need for a mitts off my money and a total seperation of economy and state man policy.
Individualism Rocks
BWF89:As far as private monitary exchange I think Michael Badnarik recommended using eGold.
eGold now requires US Citizens to declare that they are indeed US Citizens so that eGold can send you your tax forms.
As far as settling the ocean is concerned, lookup www.seastead.org these guys have created a couple hundred page online book about how to live on the ocean. They have also created an actionable plan for making this happen. Lots of projects like this are nothing but romantic dreams, but this one might actually work.
The trouble with the propostition that the ocean or a piece of territory like antarctica may serve as a frontier is that the state, or perhaps a myriad of states, will take it upon themselves to actively disallow the homesteading of such space. And it's quite likely, given the proximity of the earth and technological capabilities, that they could effectively do so. They have declared the ocean, antarctica, etc. as land or space which is owned by no one, and I believe they mean to keep it that way.
The same is the case for outer space. But there is a difference with outer space. If people made it into outer space the state would not be able to disallow them from staying there, it's simply to vast. I believe the same is the case for the cyber world (so long as private peoples stay ahead of the state).
Antarctica and the ocean may be potential living spaces but they're most assuredly not potential frontiers. What distuingishes a frontier from a living space is that a frontier is not and cannot be controled by the state. Such was the case of the US west in the 19th century. If technology had existed back then as it does now, the west would not have served as a place for individual peoples to escape the coercion of the state, i.e., a frontier. Such is the case of Antarctica and the ocean now, they're not viable frontiers.
Space seems far more realistic, in terms of practical politics.
Does anyone know of any serious research concerning motherships? A lot of the technology isn't there yet, but I reckon that within 50 years it should be there. Regarding population, the bare minimum necessary for a successful gene pool is 500 people.
edward_1313:If people made it into outer space the state would not be able to disallow them from staying there, it's simply to vast. I believe the same is the case for the cyber world (so long as private peoples stay ahead of the state).
The cyber world is only made possible by material objects, such as, servers; wires; people; buildings; electrical power; and so on. Governments like controlling physical objects.
I think power is the real problem here. We can talk all day, but we don't have any power. Luke Skywalker had to enter the Death Star and impersonate storm troopers to destroy it. That sounds like a more viable option. However, the same power that attracted the politicians government might also corrupt you. Luke Skywalker was almost converted by the evil emperor.
Power attracts some pretty nasty people that's why people like us tend to stay away from it. Maybe we need to infiltrate our own government. For instance, if you were in charge of the IRS or the Federal Reserve would you be able to do some good. Maybe you need to go get a government job (as disgusting as this sounds) so that you can change how things get done.
Libertarians should organize a migration into somalia. That's an easier frontier, although there is a risk of some Israel like problems.
"The plans differ; the planners are all alike"
-Bastiat
I wish there was a place for Austro-libertarians to find refuge, a country of sorts. I am certain we could even live in a part of Africa as individual sovereigns and become one of the most successful nations in the world. Hell, with the sound ideas of most Austrians, we could make an outpost civilization in Antarctica flourish lol ( Vikings, while not totally free economically and especially politically, still allowed a good amount of economic freedom which made their remote settlements successful).
The confederal union of the American colonies were concieved in such a manner to allow more economic freedom. Admittingly they were never totally laissez fair but at certain times in history they were more laissez fair inclined than statist inclined and did rather well. Its unfortunate that the statists finally took over.
I've thought of this quite a bit. Spacing has been expounded on ad nauseam, and I think that it could be viable at some very near-future point.
Other ideas:
1. The ocean surface. Floating islands, huge ships, Waterworld-esque "atolls" and the like. Financially and technologically very feasible, but very soon the global proto-state will lay claim to the entire surface of the sea, and that will make it difficult to accomplish whilst avoiding trouble with the state.
2. Antarctica. Probably the best compromise between viability and out-of-reach factor. From the position of the state, who gives a crap if a bunch of crazies set up tents in an unhabitable zone? On the continent itself, mining and underground dwelllings are possible, everywhere else, dome cities and very large tents at first, and eventually permanent structures (though the ice-shelf would be a bad idea for structures). I'm actually writing a novel about that, which I'll expound on if anyone is interested.
3. The ocean floor. Technologically not viable right now, but will become so long before long-term and widespread space settlement will be possible. And a habitat on the ocean floor also gives us quick access to important resources with little effort (compared to space and the ocean surface). Probably little harassment from the state at first.
4. Underground complexes. Think Umbrella Corp or Black Mesa. It would be VERY expensive, but it is technologically possible to accomplish. Buy some land, on the surface erect a "legit" establishment as a front. Underneath, tunnel or remodel existing cave structures into warrens, where industrial centers, hydroponics and residential areas could thrive. A stateless society right under the state's nose, so to speak.
5. Some existing governments might be agreeable to autonomous areas within their borders. I am thinking of places like the mega-towers that are being erected around the world, which will have more or less self-contained economies and some of which are being given leave by their respective governments to run things inside as they wish. However, that comes with a great deal of conditions that would serve to mute their purpose. Still, an idea.
Any of those, or some combination thereof are food for thought for the future: in the meantime, simply participating in countereconomic activities as much as possible is a good way to achieve a little more freedom, right now.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
ChaseCola:Libertarians should organize a migration into somalia. That's an easier frontier, although there is a risk of some Israel like problems.
Somalia is almost entirely Muslim. Despite not having an effective central government to enforce religion as in most Islamic countries I doubt the tribal leaders who run things would take kindly to non-believers.
MacFall:2. Antarctica. Probably the best compromise between viability and out-of-reach factor. From the position of the state, who gives a crap if a bunch of crazies set up tents in an unhabitable zone? On the continent itself, mining and underground dwelllings are possible, everywhere else, dome cities and very large tents at first, and eventually permanent structures (though the ice-shelf would be a bad idea for structures). I'm actually writing a novel about that, which I'll expound on if anyone is interested.
Aren't there UN treaties signed by almost every country that bans economic development such as mining or oil drilling in Antarticia to preserve the enviroment? Also a half dozen countries lay claims down there. They might not care if a bunch of crazies decide to setup camp but than again they might and could try cutting off or harassing ships carrying supplies to the libertarian colonys or even directly sending in their military to force us to leave.
BWF89:Aren't there UN treaties signed by almost every country that bans economic development such as mining or oil drilling in Antarticia to preserve the enviroment? Also a half dozen countries lay claims down there. They might not care if a bunch of crazies decide to setup camp but than again they might and could try cutting off or harassing ships carrying supplies to the libertarian colonys or even directly sending in their military to force us to leave.
Possibly, but would it be worth it to them? Presumably, by the time a free society in Antarctica got big enough to warrant notice, it would have the resources to repel such harassment - unless the statists mobilized in full force, which is bound to be hugely unpopular with their populations.
I'd like to see the President/Prime Minister/Whatever that tries it: "Yeah, we're gonna send our kids to some godforsaken continent to kill a bunch of people who are digging holes in the ground." The phrase "political suicide" comes to mind.
MacFall:Possibly, but would it be worth it to them?
Actually a large number of countries contain businesses that harvest fish, krill, whales, seals, and penguins for food. Some of the hunting is illegal based on international treaties. The countries constantly bicker back and forth about fish grounds. Lots of countries under-report their harvesting numbers because the waters surrounding Antarctica are quite fertile.
http://seastead.org/