Maxliberty:The place is habitable and you should expect that we will have, almost immediately, involvement with people already living nearby
dunkel: I would imagine that if you disagree with any of the rules or reguations that will govern this "colony", you are free to, ya know, not go. If you want the right to have an abortion, perhaps this project is not for you. Just a thought.
I would imagine that if you disagree with any of the rules or reguations that will govern this "colony", you are free to, ya know, not go. If you want the right to have an abortion, perhaps this project is not for you.
Just a thought.
Frankly, I fail to see how this "colony" can consider itself "libertarian" when from the get go the SDK corporation is "in charge". As someone else pointed out earlier. It does indeed sound like communism.
Sometimes "majority" simply means that all the fools are on the same side
katja328:Frankly, I fail to see how this "colony" can consider itself "libertarian" when from the get go the SDK corporation is "in charge".
Maxliberty: 2. Abortion is illegal because the most reasonable defintion of the beginning of human life is at conception. We could debate this issue and probably some others forever and never come to an agreement. This is just one area that we can't resolve and we have to be willingly to move forward in spite of our disagreements on the matter.
2. Abortion is illegal because the most reasonable defintion of the beginning of human life is at conception. We could debate this issue and probably some others forever and never come to an agreement. This is just one area that we can't resolve and we have to be willingly to move forward in spite of our disagreements on the matter.
Actually, the abortion debate from a non-religious standpoint is incredibly easy to resolve. Once you forget about concepts of animism (the soul), we can simply use the parasite argument. A fetus cannot possibly have rights since it is parasitically dependant upon its mother while in the womb. Thus, since the fetus is feeding off the mother, having not gained independance as a real human being, the fetus is only a potential human. Thus, the self-ownership and full fledged rights of the mother win the day. Here's a good link:
http://oneminute.rationalmind.net/abortion/
I have another question regarding the confiscation of land. You said if everyone does not collectively help out, they get their land confiscated. While I understand the utilitarian principles behind collective defense of a fledling colony of 100 people, this rule is entirely unnecessary once the colony grows in size. Do you plan to eliminate this rule once a certain number of people is reached? Because the rule is unlibertarian. You should not be able to seize land. I recommend you include a clause in the contract stipulating something along the lines of "collective defense will only be mandatory until a population of X people will be reached". The number would have to be worked out.
P.S. My firefox (2.0) works perfectly well with that forum, so I recommend you upgrade yours from 1 to 2.
Oh and what is an SDK? Is this an acronym equivalent to PDA? From what I understand, SDK is used to signify a Software Development Kit.
I seem to remember that there was another like idea and web site(?) called something like The Free State Movement. I never got into this because it lacked understanding of what freedom is - INTERNAL to each person. If you haven't 'got' it for yourself, ya ain'ta gonna 'get' it from banning together with other wannabes in 'A' location. Like isn't that what's wrong about the 'nation-state' to begin with? - the concept that 'rules' have to be tied to physical boundaries?!? And that a 'head' of state is somehow the 'keeper' of all that is sacred supposedly by all within that area? How silly and very impractical!!
All of you who wish to do this - my best wishes! But I will be astonished if it ever gets beyond the yak yak state of being . The main reason intentional communities don't last is that almost everyone has different intentions .
Lots of luck - Jain
Jain Daugh: I seem to remember that there was another like idea and web site(?) called something like The Free State Movement. I never got into this because it lacked understanding of what freedom is - INTERNAL to each person. If you haven't 'got' it for yourself, ya ain'ta gonna 'get' it from banning together with other wannabes in 'A' location. Like isn't that what's wrong about the 'nation-state' to begin with? - the concept that 'rules' have to be tied to physical boundaries?!? And that a 'head' of state is somehow the 'keeper' of all that is sacred supposedly by all within that area? How silly and very impractical!! All of you who wish to do this - my best wishes! But I will be astonished if it ever gets beyond the yak yak state of being . The main reason intentional communities don't last is that almost everyone has different intentions . Lots of luck - Jain
Could you explain why the nation state is silly and impractical. I am not well educated in these matters and would like to get a better understanding of why you feel this way, if you do not mind.
we must resist the borg
Other than the ethical and moral self-contradictions of any existent form of coercive government, the state is also impractical, meaning inefficient, because it operates as a monopoly. Education, health care, police, firefighters, the army, mandatory social security, etc. All of these industries are plagued by bureacracy and corruption.
Fred Furash: Other than the ethical and moral self-contradictions of any existent form of coercive government, the state is also impractical, meaning inefficient, because it operates as a monopoly. Education, health care, police, firefighters, the army, mandatory social security, etc. All of these industries are plagued by bureacracy and corruption.
I clearly understand that and agree but how would an individual put out a house fire without some sorta help?
I must have missed these particular questions. What forfeiture of property are you referring too? Please identify the individual rights question? Thanks
If someone is brought before the tribunal what are the rules of prosecution? Does the person have any rights to redress or the presentation of evidence to refute any claims made by said tribunal? Why if one leaves do they have to forfiet there property? Why does the first year have to be dictatorial and can that be change after the first year and if so who decides it can be changed? Why do you presume to have the authority to deny a women her right to decide?
Maxliberty: I must have missed these particular questions. What forfeiture of property are you referring too? Please identify the individual rights question? Thanks
Alright, I will try and summarize answers to the various previous questions.
The essence of the Liberty Colony Colonists is a contractual one. The Colonists agree to join the Colony under a certain set of conditions. So there is no agency or individual controlling the Colonists. There is no forfeiture of land there is simply a remedy in the contract if the Colonist fails to abide by the very minimal rules of the Colony that only exist for one year. The Colonists have already agreed to the contract by defintion so there is no injustice in the enforcement of the contract.
The issue of SDK Security having the ability to move across the Colony is a very simple contractual easement. The Colonists agree in advance under the circumstances outlined that those security forces have the right to move across the Colony. This of course is very practical as there may be an occasion where we can not get in touch with property owner to ask permission and need to take action. This easement is important to minimize any conflict in the Colony about such activity.
The SDK is openly committed to helping the first 200 Colonists get to the Colony. After the first 100 and then 200 the SDK will most likely be involved in helping additional Colonists come to the Colony but by then and even before then people can come to the Colony of their own accord. The SDK will be focused on a variety of other business activities in the Colony by this point.
The land of the Colony is currently vacant. The land will be divided up amongst the Colonists by the SDK Corporation upon the Colonist's arrival at the Colony.
Abortion - We will not be able convince each other on this issue. I will post in the Liberty Colony Forum on my reasoning for outlawing abortion but suffice it to say that abortion will be illegal in the Liberty Colony. Also, abortion is not a PDA by PDA issue. Abortion will be illegal permanently in the Colony.
Collective Defense - I think I established that this is contractually based from the beginning. The reasoning is simple, I want to be sure as do all the other Colonists that we all understand our committment to each other and are openly in agreement about how we handle certain situations.
SDK doesnt stand for anything in particular.
anonnymous: If someone is brought before the tribunal what are the rules of prosecution? Does the person have any rights to redress or the presentation of evidence to refute any claims made by said tribunal? Why if one leaves do they have to forfiet there property? Why does the first year have to be dictatorial and can that be change after the first year and if so who decides it can be changed? Why do you presume to have the authority to deny a women her right to decide?
The tribunal question is a good one. Needless to say the rules of criminal and civil procedure can be quite burdensome. Of course the defendant will have the right to redress the claims made against them. I will create a discussion thread on the Liberty Forum regarding this topic and you are welcome to help lead the discussion.
If people leave they forfeit their property because in the early stages we simply don't have time for people that are not committed to helping get the Colony started. It is basically a case of the property being abandoned. Again, the Colonist understands going in what is expected during that first year.
After the first year Colonists can either renew their contract with SDK or not. We are establishing a free society from the very beginning. Don't confuse having contracts mutually agreed upon that help create order with being dictatorial.
I am creating a forum category at the Liberty Colony for further discussion of this but abortion will be illegal in the Liberty Colony.
Thanks again for the comments.
Maxliberty:The essence of the Liberty Colony Colonists is a contractual one.
How could one contractually consent to having someone else taking their life under a three person tribunal with no appeal rights?
Ignoring the obvious contradiction between outlawing abortion but promoting capital punishment that is.
I also think that under the current conditions of participation you are going to end up the subject of a movie; 100 colonists went into the woods...one survived, this is her story.
I mean, come on, expecting people to go into the wilderness blind?
What about cattle, the climate, what grows there? Are the natives a lost tribe of cannibals? What is the plan to acquire food after the initial 60 days? I'm no farmer but I do know it takes a while to clear land and get your first harvest.
Housing materials? Tool acquisition? Advanced technology like solar or wind power—you ain't going to fit that in a duffle bag.
Local national government? Once they discover a new source of revenue do you plan on fighting them off or submit to their authority? Is the local mayor's second cousin who has a thing for skinny blond white girls also subject to the death penalty for rape?
There's a whole lot of 'operational security' and basically no real information being disseminated. Seriously, you claim to have been in the army, what mission is undertaken without the lowest private having enough information to complete the mission in the absence of their chain of command?
Not to be overly critical or anything...
lets not worry about all that, its in the contract.
What happens to the woman who decides to go to the next town "outside" the colony and get an abortion?
Who owns the land that is going to be occupied and divided up? What happens when you run out of land to use? What if they locals decide they don't want you there?
The SDK security force is put together by locals or will be brought to the colony as well?
I would like to see the sample contract that a potential colonist is signing.
People can sign contracts to what they are willing to agree on. That is the essence of a free society. As far as appeal rights, appeal to whom? In any system of administration of justice there has to be a termination of the process.
Regarding the Liberty Colony having to deal with real world issues, well that's the real world, there are real risks.
The question about livestock is a good one and I will add something about that on the site. In general cattle, goats, and chickens are the most prevalent and will be able to be purchased within the local area.
Housing materials and tools are available in the area as the area is not uninhabited. The site also states that you will be able to ship additional supplies after your arrival in the Colony.
The point of choosing an area that is dysfunctional is to avoid conflict with existing governments.
Operational Security is necessary and I am sure there were times in the military where even in training that the full details of the operation were not given until you were enroute to the destination. This isn't any different.
I think that addresses the issues you mentioned.
katja328: What happens to the woman who decides to go to the next town "outside" the colony and get an abortion? Who owns the land that is going to be occupied and divided up? What happens when you run out of land to use? What if they locals decide they don't want you there? The SDK security force is put together by locals or will be brought to the colony as well? I would like to see the sample contract that a potential colonist is signing.
The rules of the Liberty Colony for abortion apply to the Colonists of the Liberty Colony.
The land is unoccupied and will be divided up upon arrival.
When the Colony expands it will be by either using unoccupied/abandoned land or by purchasing land.
What if they locals don't want us there? What if the locals don't want you where your at now? You will have the same options.
The SDK security force is composed of locals.
The sample contract is on the site and is what is agreed to when the Colonist volunteers.
The difference is that I own the land that I am at now. Whereas you have yet to let us know if this land is owned by someone or not.
You also still have not answered my question as to what happens to the woman who is a colonist but goes outside the colony to get an abortion. What's the punchiment?
Free market insurance firms would have an interest in paying for firefighters. Likewise, these could be arranged either through an umbrella contract with a PDA, or separately with a subscription service, or charge only when they come. There are plenty of profitable ways to arrange this.
katja328: The difference is that I own the land that I am at now. Whereas you have yet to let us know if this land is owned by someone or not. You also still have not answered my question as to what happens to the woman who is a colonist but goes outside the colony to get an abortion. What's the punchiment?
Regarding the land it is unoccupied and uncontrolled land. So once you occupy it and begin using it then it will be yours. If you think you own the land where you are now, you are sadly misinformed.
A female Colonist who becomes pregnant creates a new person within the Colony and as the website states, the crime of murder will be enforced in the Colony. If you as a Colonist murder another Colonist then it would be reasonable that you are subject to the rules which you agreed to upon entering the Colony. The fact that you Murder the Colonist outside the physical boundary of the Colony is not relevant to the contract.
(in reply to anonnymous)
The best way for you to understand this for yourself is to read The Sovereign Individual by Davidson & Rees-Mogg. And I just finished posting another reply re that topic in another thread (How do you enforce laws without taxes). Maybe that could be a 'nutshell' explaination too? Its really hard to give a thumbnail outline without us knowing each other's back grounds or assumptions
Best to you as you go your 'free' way - Jain
anonnymous: I clearly understand that and agree but how would an individual put out a house fire without some sorta help?
Same way you could 'get' hospital help, by paying an organization to provide that service. There are security guards for hire even though there are 'government' police. Fire protection isn't the domain of government only.
Jain Daugh: anonnymous: I clearly understand that and agree but how would an individual put out a house fire without some sorta help? Same way you could 'get' hospital help, by paying an organization to provide that service. There are security guards for hire even though there are 'government' police. Fire protection isn't the domain of government only.
What makes the Liberty Colony so great, is that we no longer need to talk in the abstract about such things. The whole idea is to actually create the type of free society where these ideas can flourish. It is no longer an idea but action that can now drive us.
Whoever is going to join this ludacris operation to Zimbabwe or Somalia or some other third world country. Have a great time and once you have internet access, make sure you send us a note and let us know how the communist project is coming along ;-)
The most troublesome issue is the three man tribunal. Why not a randomly selected 12 man jury from the 100 colonists? It could be 11 or 13 or something else but I don't like this 3 man tribunal idea.
In 1620 the Pilgrims sailed for the New World, having never seen it, having no pictures and barely any information on the area. They didn't undertake this dangerous journey because they thought it would be easy or because they thought the journey would be fun. They set out to create a place where they could be free. Was that ludicrous? Is freedom ludicrous?
Like the site says you don't have to go but you can still support others who are willing.
What possible aspect of the Liberty Colony is in anyway an example of communism....now that is ludicrous.
I guess it's impossible if one needs to travel by airplane (is it? can you at least say the continent?), but it should be possible for people to take guns because it's a tad scary to go somewhere you don't know where, with someones you don't know whom. And being in another country and all, you might need them for security as well...
Equality before the law and material equality are not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. -- F. A. Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty
Suppose I happen to arrive by my own free will at the "colony". Will I be allowed to own land that is not previously taken, but inside the colonial domain. If not than this is the clear establishment of a state.
A what point does this colony become unsecretive and open for information and foreign investment?
And the establishment of a "free society" surrounded by states, is a de facto state, because rules would have to be applied that are not applied in the surrounding states, thus a constitution of sorts would need to be established.
Liberty is not the same thing as sovereignty. A liberty colony would have to be sovereign from surrounding states. Thus for liberty to flourish conquest would need to happen to a "free and sovereign people", not a liberal people.
Disfunction implies a civil war. A state would soon have to be established after the disfunction is over, creating two states. One state, and one "free society". Each would have to set up rules to govern relations between each other.
Unless of course it is an island, but that would ruin the secrecy of the project, and the natives would have to be a liberal people.
Good luck with the project Max. Hope to emigrate to it if it becomes greater than a tiny liberal utopia
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
majevska: The most troublesome issue is the three man tribunal. Why not a randomly selected 12 man jury from the 100 colonists? It could be 11 or 13 or something else but I don't like this 3 man tribunal idea.
Well, hopefully in the first year there will be little need for tribunals as hopefully the 100 of us will be able to keep from murdering and raping each other for at least 12 months. There has to be some structure and this is the point of leadership. If we were to discuss every possible aspect of the Liberty Colony and get 100 people to agree on everything then it would have no chance. It would be like planning a trip from Miami to LA and waiting for all the lights to turn green at the same time.
The Liberty Colony is about individual freedom. The initial organization is quite minimal and expecting people not to murder and rape is no more than what is expected of you right now....wherever you are.
The site clearly states that you will be supplied a firearm upon your arrival at the Colony and you can take whatever additional firearms you wish.
Andrew: Suppose I happen to arrive by my own free will at the "colony". Will I be allowed to own land that is not previously taken, but inside the colonial domain. If not than this is the clear establishment of a state. A what point does this colony become unsecretive and open for information and foreign investment? And the establishment of a "free society" surrounded by states, is a de facto state, because rules would have to be applied that are not applied in the surrounding states, thus a constitution of sorts would need to be established. Liberty is not the same thing as sovereignty. A liberty colony would have to be sovereign from surrounding states. Thus for liberty to flourish conquest would need to happen to a "free and sovereign people", not a liberal people. Disfunction implies a civil war. A state would soon have to be established after the disfunction is over, creating two states. One state, and one "free society". Each would have to set up rules to govern relations between each other. Unless of course it is an island, but that would ruin the secrecy of the project, and the natives would have to be a liberal people. Good luck with the project Max. Hope to emigrate to it if it becomes greater than a tiny liberal utopia
By definition there will be no land within the Colony that isn't either owned by an individual or corporation. So in the beginning there is no unclaimed land inside the Colony. Any land adjacent to the Colony that you wish to settle in would be just that your land. If you then made a contract with the SDK then you would be under the same circumstances as anyone who had land "within" the Colony. In fact one of the fastest ways that the Colony will expand is through these types of agreements with new Colonists beyond the initial 200 and with people currently in the area.
The Colony is open now to investment both by investing in the SDK or through sponsoring individual Colonists or contributing to the general fund to support Colonists. Also, there are no restrictions on developing any business ideas yourself or in concert with others. We are creating a free society so don't create artificial limitations.
The physical location of the Colony will obviously be revealed upon arrival.
As far as your issues with a free society versus some state.....there is no longer any need to speak in the hypothetical and there is no need to establish a constitution or a state, in fact that would defeat the purpose.
Maxliberty:In 1620 the Pilgrims sailed for the New World, having never seen it, having no pictures and barely any information on the area. They didn't undertake this dangerous journey because they thought it would be easy or because they thought the journey would be fun. They set out to create a place where they could be free. Was that ludicrous? Is freedom ludicrous?
The great thing about citing historical precedent is there is such a wealth of information to chose from.
The only thing that saved the Plymouth colonists from the 'starving winter' that the Jamestown colonists faced was the good graces of the locals. You know, Thanksgiving and all that.
Per your response to the abortion question this is starting to sound a lot more like Jonestown than Jamestown though.
I'm seriously wary of anyone who claims that you can contractually sign away your right to life.
What happens when SDK runs out of land to give to colonists?
Also, what happens after 60 days? It takes more than 60 days to have your land produce decent crops. What about farm animals? Are you going to have animals on your "arc"?
How do you know the locals will be happy and excited that you are arriving?
If the country you are going to is "instable" or whatever you want to call it, what are you going to do in the future? Let's call this country you are going to, Libertopia. What if Libertopia all of a sudden decides to elect a government and they don't want you there anymore?
200 colonists against a bunch of wild, upset natives trying to force you out?
The pilgrims in 1620 did not have any information because there was little to none available, even if they had wanted to share it. They just knew they were going "that way". You're withholding information out of some need for secrecy. Big difference.
That one fact, out of all the smaller red flags, is what makes me the most skeptical. There are a million reasons to know where we're going and I can't think of any good reasons not to know. I'd like to know what kinds of crops we might be growing, what kind of wildlife we might encounter, what kinds of diseases I might need innoculation against, local weather patterns, what kinds of building materials would be most appropriate, what foreign languages might be useful to learn, and so on.
Maxliberty: What possible aspect of the Liberty Colony is in anyway an example of communism....now that is ludicrous.
The very first statement on your website All Colonists are committed to the principle that an attack against one Colonist is an attack against all Colonists. All Colonists are expected to come to the defense of any colonist whose property or person are attacked by any party outside the Colony. Failure to do so will result in the confisication of all property within the Colony and the offending party will be banished.
correct me if I am wrong, but that sounds very much like communism to me.
dunkel: You're withholding information out of some need for secrecy. Big difference.
You're withholding information out of some need for secrecy. Big difference.
Maybe if the location were known, nobody would join up.
Maxliberty: It is one of my favorite lines from the movie the "Untouchables" and I found myself asking this question of myself often on my journey to understanding the nature of freedom. As I read the various authors and studied information on freedom I found that what I call the Freedom Movement was lacking any concrete action that would lead to the free society that we deserved.
It is one of my favorite lines from the movie the "Untouchables" and I found myself asking this question of myself often on my journey to understanding the nature of freedom. As I read the various authors and studied information on freedom I found that what I call the Freedom Movement was lacking any concrete action that would lead to the free society that we deserved.
It seems the topic has wandered and strayed from the original question - What are you (a person) willing to do to live free? Yes the question asker goes on to speak of a 'liberty colony', but I don't see that as the only option for answering this question.
It has been my experience that one makes one's self as 'free' (which I vaguely define as as unburdened as possible) as YOU can. I am free to live in whatever setting and circumstances as my ability to choose and talents to achieve allow. I do not find that such things as taxes and regulations (for the sake of 'controling' people) function to achieve the ends they are claimed to be set up for. But how to avoid paying taxes? Avoiding all taxes is impossible for sure, but one can successfully minimize paying if you are willing to find the (legal) ways to do so. And I don't beat myself up over the facts that while I abhor taxes in principle, its a waste of my efforts (aka impossible task) to make the goal of 100% non-payment what I 'must' do.
I also am not waiting for the perfect or totally 'free' set up so I can live free myself. In fact I seriously doubt others would find my idea of a perfect spot greatly to their liking. And in setting up such a 'free' colony, wouldn't having a set of 'laws' or rules rather counter the point of 'freedom'? I'm not talking about NO rules, but so far I find those like gravity, math and mutual respect to be enough of a basis for other human interactions to build upon.
Jain
Anonymous Coward: Maxliberty:In 1620 the Pilgrims sailed for the New World, having never seen it, having no pictures and barely any information on the area. They didn't undertake this dangerous journey because they thought it would be easy or because they thought the journey would be fun. They set out to create a place where they could be free. Was that ludicrous? Is freedom ludicrous? The great thing about citing historical precedent is there is such a wealth of information to chose from. The only thing that saved the Plymouth colonists from the 'starving winter' that the Jamestown colonists faced was the good graces of the locals. You know, Thanksgiving and all that. Per your response to the abortion question this is starting to sound a lot more like Jonestown than Jamestown though. I'm seriously wary of anyone who claims that you can contractually sign away your right to life.
Why do you think that you will be without support? Are you not capable of supporting yourself? Once the Colony is established do you think it will be difficult to find people to support the Colony? Wouldn't it make sense that you would make your own contingencies and plans?
Where are you signing away your right to life?