I myself personally see headlines like
An affordable holiday in a sunny paradise without the worries
long before those nasty political headlines.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
This is just a thought, but are there any states that would actually "sell soveirgnty" to someone else of a small territory? If the Company was soveirgn over the island but simply abdicated its taxation powers to let the market work then that would solve a lot of questions over how the nearest state would react. Especially an undeveloped island with little to no tax base. Now would Americans investing/settling in such a place have their assets frozen for tax evasion or what not? Does anyone know the law on that?
I don't see any point in buying sovereignty. We judge the state invalid. Buying land or territory would only validate the state as the proper owner.
I don't think it's feasible to buy sovereignty. This brings up another important question, however. Considering the land that we're purchasing has most likely never been homesteaded or has been abandoned for so long it is effectively unowned, should we even buy the land that we shall settle from the legal owners? Not purchasing the land might increase our troubles, but it will be much cheaper in the short run.
Political Atheists Blog
krazy kaju:should we even buy the land that we shall settle from the legal owners?
Yes.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Stranger:In the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution, professor Hans Hermann Hoppe proposes an alternative form of revolutionary marginalism. Instead of trying to marginally roll back government powers, either through electoral activism or the strategy of direct challenge, the revolutionaries should seek to seize total independence in very small, insignificant territories, in effect creating a micro-state. Each of these micro-secessions would pose an insignificant threat on the established states, particularly those undergoing comparatively severe crises threatening the legitimacy of established order. The strategy would then be a multiplication of these microstates, governed by full market-based constitutions, forcing the collapse of governments by a fashion similar to a death by thousands of paper cuts, or a microbial infection.
The Free State Project looks like a good start!
liberty student: I don't see any point in buying sovereignty. We judge the state invalid. Buying land or territory would only validate the state as the proper owner.
I don't mind.
The only real viable means to microsession or even mass secession at this point in human history is to exploit political weakness and technological progress. In some ways, I think both are inevitable for the United States as the latter continues to advance at break neck rates even in medicine and biotechnology. I suspect within three to five decades the ability to circumvent most, if not all, basic infrastructure to provide goods and services that we're accustomed to using nanotechnology, biotechnology, and many other technologies will be a practical reality. The problem comes in getting it in the right hands at the right times. It's not like *pow* we got it, so lets throw off the chains of the State. There has to be a place that exists between the Market and the State in which people can find out about the technology, leverage existing infrastructure to move it into place, and to spread it to many other hands outside of the initial phases.
In some ways it's a penumbra between what is to come (the break neck technological changes and the accompanied political/social up heavals) and what exists today. Such a 'penumbra' must be chameleon-like, it must be able to look like any other corporation, but in reality "works for us." It gathers resources: for us. It researches the best possible technological candidates: for us. It makes a profit and greases the right hands: for us. And it also forms a culture: for us.
I think the last part is the most important because really does any philosophy of liberty have a culture to call its own? Does it has traditions and ideals and maybe even a faith to claim as its heritage? If it not, no amount of finangling as I suggest will even stick for the short term and may perhaps be more of a detriment to the 'movement' than doing nothing. I think this is evident due to the fact that many people believe that if liberty adds nothing to what exists outside of the State at present, then why bother throwing off the State? It simply "takes away" from the culture, rather than add to it. So, then not just a bunch of techno-wizards and trust-fund kiddies will be sufficient alone in light what I think is coming. I think the culture aspect of the hypothetical situation should be explored more than the theoretical aspects of playing the economy.
So, any ideas? What do any of you think about the potential 'culture' that is needed to make the philosophy of liberty something that people would want? That people would yearn to know and live by? Personally, I'm not sure, so that's why I painted the hypothetical so maybe someone can get the ball rolling on the cultural aspects of such a secession (because I really think it's more than a mere secession, it's a cultural revolution that could reshape what it means to be human in more ways than one).
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
Stranger:I don't mind.
You might want to reconsider that. Not because I am being ideologically fanatical, but because pragmatically, purchasing property from the state, could create a counter productive legal precedent down the road.
Of course you must buy land. It gives you breathing space, time to exist in some autonomy and gather strength for when the state wakes up to the challange. Consider it a bribe if you have to. It does not make sense to challange the powers on day one already, from what is after all a position of extreme weakness.There is no legal precedent for the future. We pay taxes is that a legal precedent? No, it is just paying off the state to leave you some degree of freedom for now, because the alternative is getting stuffed into jail right now.
Marko:Of course you must buy land. It gives you breathing space, time to exist in some autonomy and gather strength for when the state wakes up to the challange. Consider it a bribe if you have to. It does not make sense to challange the powers on day one already, from what is after all a position of extreme weakness.
I never said we shouldn't buy the land. I'm saying we shouldn't buy the land from the state.
Marko:There is no legal precedent for the future.
If we're going to setup a contract based legal system, then surely the contracts we agree to at the beginning, have some validity as well?
That's another wake up call for libertarians. In a libertarian society, if you sign a contract, you had best be prepared to fulfill it. There will be no bailout, or convenient bankruptcy. Your word will have to be your bond.
liberty student: I never said we shouldn't buy the land. I'm saying we shouldn't buy the land from the state.
liberty student:If we're going to setup a contract based legal system, then surely the contracts we agree to at the beginning, have some validity as well?
Voluntary contracts between ourselves. But not pragmatic deals with a heavily armed mafia akin to those we are pressured into every day. Bourgeoisie paid tribute to kings for centuries, without ever binding themselves to them for real.
What state specifically do you think will grant you permanent title to any tract of land and then not aggress against you when you eventually claim sovereignty?
I don't have the money to buy up tropical islands but if I did, I think that I would be more interested in the seasteading project than trying to purchase part of a country then secede from it.
Marko:Voluntary contracts between ourselves. But not pragmatic deals with a heavily armed mafia akin to those we are pressured into every day.
Let's not get off track on ideological tangents. A contract is a contract. By dealing voluntarily with the state, regardless of our ends, we would be obliged to honour the contract. I'm saying, minimize our interaction with the state, because to do otherwise, is to invite their attention and participation.
analog:What state specifically do you think will grant you permanent title to any tract of land and then not aggress against you when you eventually claim sovereignty?
There's nothing that makes anyone here think that. Obviously, the state will resist sovereignty. But if done on the territory of a very weak state, seccession becomes a greater possibility.
ladyattis:What do any of you think about the potential 'culture' that is needed to make the philosophy of liberty something that people would want ?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
liberty student: Let's not get off track on ideological tangents. A contract is a contract. By dealing voluntarily with the state, regardless of our ends, we would be obliged to honour the contract. I'm saying, minimize our interaction with the state, because to do otherwise, is to invite their attention and participation.
krazy kaju: analog:What state specifically do you think will grant you permanent title to any tract of land and then not aggress against you when you eventually claim sovereignty? There's nothing that makes anyone here think that. Obviously, the state will resist sovereignty. But if done on the territory of a very weak state, seccession becomes a greater possibility.
I am thinking formal secession is unrealistic, but achieving a special half-exempt status not totally unlike that of Hong Kong within China is theorethicaly achievable. But the state would have to be small and a basket case so that a very small prosperous region could already be of the importance Hong Kong holds for China.
Marko:I am thinking formal secession is unrealistic, but achieving a special half-exempt status not totally unlike that of Hong Kong within China is theorethicaly achievable. But the state would have to be small and a basket case so that a very small prosperous region could already be of the importance Hong Kong holds for China.
We wouldn't have to formally declare independence. We just would cease recognizing the government as a legitimate organization.
Marko:Ehm, you are the one that does not want to pay for the land state claims to own directly, but I am the ideologue?
Now you're being repetitive and incorrect.
Marko:I have no qualms before double-crossing the state.
I would not do business with someone who breeched voluntary contracts.
Marko: Why would we be binded by a contract of which a second party of which is something that supposedly does not even have a right to exist? That is like feeling binded to honor a deal with Murder Incorporated or a foreign occupation.
This is a tangent. Start a new thread.
liberty student: I'm a big Ron Paul fan here. But he's like marijuana. Just a gateway drug. We need liberty on heroin. Radicalism.
I'm a big Ron Paul fan here. But he's like marijuana. Just a gateway drug. We need liberty on heroin. Radicalism.
This is off topic, and I am very interested in this [microsecessionist] idea, and understand exactly what you're trying to say [with the analogy which I'm about to attack].
However, marijuana is NOT a gateway drug. Marijuana is less dangerous than alchol, and less dangerous than tobacco if vapourised (there are then no carcinnogenic effects), and has directly killed 2 people in the 4,700 years since its first recorded use as a narcotic. (By contrast, around 150,000 people die per year in the UK as a result of alcohol or tobacco). Now this forum is no place for debate on the effects of drugs, but snide comments about certain drugs fosters ignorance. I am not encouraging anyone to use the stuff, but arguing that it is a "gateway drug" is ridiculous. What is this idea based on? More people who use heroin have smoked or drunk than have used cannabis. I know around 100 people [personally] who smoke or have smoked cannabis, some of whom use the drug 5-10 time in a day. None of these individuals are anything other than "normal" people (in fact, some of them are my closest friends), but this isn't the point. Of them, a few have tried cocaine, and one has tried crack and amphetamines. Perhaps half of them have tried some other "drug", but none of them have used heroin.
Sorry for this, this isn't an attack on you, I merely hate it when people attack cannabis without good reason, especially when they argue that it is bad because it is a "gateway drug". To me it seems clear that much of the fuss over marijuana is just the muddling of cause and effect that you so admirably attack when exposed in poor economic analysis.
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
cannabis iz gud.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Thedesolateone:Sorry for this, this isn't an attack on you, I merely hate it when people attack cannabis without good reason, especially when they argue that it is bad because it is a "gateway drug". To me it seems clear that much of the fuss over marijuana is just the muddling of cause and effect that you so admirably attack when exposed in poor economic analysis.
Don't thread jack. Start a new thread.
krazy kaju: Marko:I am thinking formal secession is unrealistic, but achieving a special half-exempt status not totally unlike that of Hong Kong within China is theorethicaly achievable. But the state would have to be small and a basket case so that a very small prosperous region could already be of the importance Hong Kong holds for China. We wouldn't have to formally declare independence. We just would cease recognizing the government as a legitimate organization.
liberty student: I would not do business with someone who breeched voluntary contracts.
You will have to explain to me how is it voluntary. You can open a new thread if it is a tangent or some other geometric shape.
Marko:Yes, but for example you would need to work out a deal to get the coast guard to stop intercepting the vessels that brought in trade. Or would you drive them away by force?
Tell them to stop violating our property rights and try to work out a deal. That doesn't mean we have to formally declare independence. When the government interferes, we will force it to recognize that we are not their subservients any more.
krazy kaju: Marko:Yes, but for example you would need to work out a deal to get the coast guard to stop intercepting the vessels that brought in trade. Or would you drive them away by force? Tell them to stop violating our property rights and try to work out a deal. That doesn't mean we have to formally declare independence. When the government interferes, we will force it to recognize that we are not their subservients any more.
This is precisely where I thought that the purchase of soveirnty might serve as an aid. Now States still do stop trade from soveirgn nations, but having bought either autonomous or soveirgn status from a State would give us some kind of protection and some leg to stand on under international law.
Anyone saying we should buy the land unowners but simultaneously maintaining it is wrong to purchase soveirgnty is being just a mite inconsistent. However, I wonder why those such as LibertyStudent who don't believe we should pay either do not simply just move into to small island x and squat/homestead the land?
Nerd, this isn't specifically directed at you, so please don't take it personal.
First, I never said we shouldn't pay. I said we shouldn't buy property from the state. Why you might ask? Because the sales agreement would come with strings.
Second, buying something from the state, is a voluntary action. I'm tired of this BS about how every interaction with the state is coercive. We have options, besides looking for state acknowledgment/acceptance and we have property opportunities, with private individuals. The state does not own (or claim to own) everything, and that is the premise we should work from when selecting our areas to operate. If you disagree with this, start a new thread, and my friend Giles Stratton will come along and hand you your lunch in debate.
Third, ideology is important. But my concerns are practical. I don't care what it is called, what the group religion is, or what we use for money. I want to know, how can we provide security cheaply enough to make this very profitable, and how can we minimize the risk of invasion without compromising the sovereignty of the endeavour.
Nerditarian:Anyone saying we should buy the land unowners but simultaneously maintaining it is wrong to purchase soveirgnty is being just a mite inconsistent.
Not necessarily wrong, just not needed.
krazy kaju: Tell them to stop violating our property rights and try to work out a deal. That doesn't mean we have to formally declare independence. When the government interferes, we will force it to recognize that we are not their subservients any more.
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?
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?
The answer is, no we don't need any such a club, as we would be trading with individuals and not with states or their corporate allies.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Marko: I am thinking formal secession is unrealistic, but achieving a special half-exempt status not totally unlike that of Hong Kong within China is theorethicaly achievable. But the state would have to be small and a basket case so that a very small prosperous region could already be of the importance Hong Kong holds for China.
Anyone read Davidson and Rees-Mogg's The Sovereign Individual? From which:
An example of how sovereignty can be voluntarily fragmented to create essentially private, tax-free jurisdiction is the Agulhas Bay Concession Free Zone, comprising fifty square kilometers of the island of Principe off the coast of West Africa. Although the territory remains within the borders of the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Principe, the administration of the zone is privatized. Governance there is determined according to contract administered by WADCO, the West African Development Corporation Ltd., a private company chartered in South Africa. The language of record in the zone is not the official Tomean tongue, Portugese, but English. The currency of record is not the Tomean local Monopoly money, the dobra, but the globe's money, the U.S. dollar. Security is provided not by police forces of the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Principe, but by private police employed by WADCO. São Tomean commercial law is inapplicable to commercial dealings within the zone, and São Tomean courts have no jurisdiction. All disputes must be settled by transnational arbitration, under the Paris ICC rules. With a few tightly regulated and trivial exceptions, São Tomean taxes do not apply within the zone, nor do official monopolies. Telecommunications, for example, are automatically deregulated within the zone. Subject to the payment of rent and adherence to other terms of the concession, WADCO is entitled to automatically and repetitively renew its lease on private, fragmented sovereignty for terms of fifty years, from the first renewal date, 2047.
krazy kaju: We wouldn't have to formally declare independence. We just would cease recognizing the government as a legitimate organization.
Some of us have already done that. >.>
MacFall: Some of us have already done that. >.>
Yeah, but then one has to act on it. For every libertarian who lives without regard for the state, there are problem 1,000 who just won't acknowledge the legitimacy of the state.
MacFall: krazy kaju: We wouldn't have to formally declare independence. We just would cease recognizing the government as a legitimate organization. Some of us have already done that. >.>
I think he means we would stop paying taxes and such. Very few have done that. No one wants the Karl Hess treatment. Whether or not we should AT THE MOMENT is a entirely different question. Can't one do more to hurt the state debating and arguing without being behind bars? However, what Kaju means is once we did such a thing as microsecession it would be much easier to do such a thing WITHOUT facing such kneecapping penalties and for the whole city to do so would be the equivalent of truly declaring independence.
Nerditarian: Very few have done that.
Very few have done that.
Very few, yes. >.>
(Actually the IRS says something like 60 million full-time employed Americans don't pay Federal taxes at all. Of course, they think that's a bad thing.)
Nerditarian: MacFall: krazy kaju: We wouldn't have to formally declare independence. We just would cease recognizing the government as a legitimate organization. Some of us have already done that. >.> I think he means we would stop paying taxes and such. Very few have done that. No one wants the Karl Hess treatment. Whether or not we should AT THE MOMENT is a entirely different question. Can't one do more to hurt the state debating and arguing without being behind bars? However, what Kaju means is once we did such a thing as microsecession it would be much easier to do such a thing WITHOUT facing such kneecapping penalties and for the whole city to do so would be the equivalent of truly declaring independence.
IMO, It's idealistic for one to work in the pink markets entirley & expect to get some headway. Pink market activity to a certain extent may be required as long as the very monopoly that enforces it remains (or as long as one cannot replace, realistically, their pink market activity with more ethically & morally preferred black & grey), but wouldn't the objective of doing buisness via non-Statist currency & trade be the solution to evading a certain portion of your "income" (or trade) from being taxed? If one continues to pay taxes on pink market income, yet utilize spare time in black & grey market for trade (even better if said activity was not explicitly illegal or worthwhile for The State to catch, i.e. making products that may not do anything to instigate the attention of The State or the breaking of it's laws, which would mean avoiding using copyrights, properties associated with State protection, etc.), & someone were to go after you, you could turn the issue into a matter of voluntary vs. involuntary, the ability of a citizen to be able to conduct economics & so forth? The ability for peaceful & voluntary trade to alleviate the recession, an argument many have, are, or will become sympathetic to?Maybe part of the problem, is not thinking small enough; picoeconomics (nanoeconomics seems to be taken, but would be a more logical term ince nano is right underneath micro...) if you will, as well not thinking how consistent such small scale would have to be in order for growth to occur (vs. a few bursts of larger trade that isn't running clockwork). Sure, maybe beginning trade with something as benign as CD-R's of text, assorted readings, minor foods & goods etc. aren't as ambitious as the ideal in giving The State real competition (such as the eventually required PDA's), but wouldn't the focus (in the beginning) on profit through proliferation, rather than immediate profit from trade, help reinforce a high time preference strategy required to establish credibility & possible trade activity that would eventually grow (possibly exponentially), & eventually allow the desired trade for profit ? Spreading the results of the words, before the words themselves? Forgive me semi-wall of texts, I just got off of work :\
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Yes, my point is that we should start living as if the state is illegitimate once we settle our island. That is, just cease paying taxes, establish competing defense agencies, etc.
Nitroadict:IMO, It's idealistic for one to work in the pink markets entirley & expect to get some headway. Pink market activity to a certain extent may be required as long as the very monopoly that enforces it remains (or as long as one cannot replace, realistically, their pink market activity with more ethically & morally preferred black & grey), but wouldn't the objective of doing buisness via non-Statist currency & trade be the solution to evading a certain portion of your "income" (or trade) from being taxed?
I didn't say they should. I'm not exactly an agorist! :)
I want in on this in a few years, but to be honest why would you want to pick an island in that area? A hurricane is going to come yearly and destroy a lot of what we made. Taking a new island and making a whole new society is quite tough. Why don't we get involved in something like the free state project? There are already cities and municipalities there, we build more to this state. There are quite a number of people involved already. We can also open up another Mises Institute over there. I think it would be quite fun. On an end side note, I dislike that tropical weather. Not good for my white skin.
Nerditarian: I'm not exactly an agorist! :)
I'm not exactly an agorist! :)
Ah, well. Nobody's perfect.