I would say that several really libertarian cities in various areas would be a better goal than one (sort of) libertarian state. For one thing, the former is attainable; the latter just plain is not. For another, the first doesn’t attract nearly as much attention as the second.
In terms of areas favorable to agoric activity, the smaller the better at this point. Geographic definition of the movement would be a liability. And when the time comes, geographic secession will be better suited to lots of small areas, as Hoppe has described, than to a few large areas.
I agree. It would be a bad idea to rebel without first showing the people of the area what you were fighting for. If I were to get 500 people together today and go out and rebel, most people would see it as far too radical and be drawn closer to the state-essentially creating the opposite effect that is desired.
that is absolutely wrong. You can carry, openly and concealed, in many more places than the media would like you to know. I carry openly in VA. check out Sheck out open carry.org for more information
(Vermont has no licence needed for concealed OR open carry)
Correct. But go out on the streets without enough people behind you, and you’ll wind up dead or in a cage, and here’s the real kicker - the people you thought you were trying to set free will breathe a sigh of relief that you’re gone.
I think the aims of getting 20,000 people to agree to move first then move is a long shot what comitted FSP’ers should do is lead by example and take the plunge to go there ahead of schedule. Jason Sorens for instance should have moved there straight away. I think the FSP’ers are waking up to the fact that they probably won’t get 20,000 signatories and are now more concerned to get more and more to move directly.
That said I do think the Free State Project is worthwhile. Getting a critical mass of libertarians to where they can do most good is very good strategy. I’d move there if I was an American but I’m not so can only egg it on from a distance.
Good Grief - you Guys scare me with your Guns n Revolutions.
To be quite frank if there was a full Anarcho libertarian revolution here in the UK Tommorrow I would likely take to the hills with my family and hide until the rape & plunder died down.
NAP My Bum!! - I’m a realist & know that most people within a hundred miles of me don’t know what NAP means nevermind lve by the principle.
I really like the FSP Initiative & have actually started my own Direct Democracy Forum (SMF) in the UK, taking advantage of new central government pressure on Local government to respond to the electorate (you can’t impose a rule for one without being accountable yourself
It may not succeed but I beleive is the first of many, as much as the FSP may be!!
Revolution is not the way - Rome was’nt built in a day - the tide has turned - Minarchism today - NAP Tommorrow.
Personally I think Liberty can be achieved can be achieved without firing a shot like the collapse of the soviet union and I am a libertarian-anarchist.
Also I’d add an interesting strategy for British Libertarians to consider would be to get a handfull of activists to move to one of the crown dependencies like Guernsey, Jersey, Isle of Mann, Gibraltar etc. Given their population size (You take the population of any island and they could all fit them into the Birds Nest Stadium in Bejing) and their reputation as tax havens it could well be possible. The only question whether it would be possible to get work permits for those places?
Word is that the Soviet Union collapsed because of a mexican standoff between Breshnev & Gorbachov not because of a people’s movement - maybe our monarchy standing up to the state could give us a simialar leap?, but it may be messy. There are some who beleive in a fragile monarchistic parliamentary status quo.
Last I heard we could fit the entire population of the world onto the Isle of Man but that would’nt achieve much. We should not ask folk to relocate to live with Liberty, in the end It would promote conflict, Wars & Death.
Maybe it can be achieved without libertarians/anarchists firing a shot, but you can be sure the state will definitely be firing shots.
The Soviet Union collapsed and the state was quickly re-established in a new form. I think it is a big mistake for libertarians to use Russia as an example.
The Soviet Union collapsed because they lost control of the flow of information. Once enough people were aware of the utter failure of communism it was only a matter of time.
I’m hardly advocating six billion people move to a small island but its not beyond the realms of possibility for a small cadre of committed libertarians to settle in such an island and work to change public opinion in a much more liberty friendly direction. It certainly seems a more realistic goal than forming a UK-wide libertarian party.
The state was re-established because the dominant ideology at the time was social-democracy, had the CIA been handing out copies of Rothbards books to the soviet disidents history could have turned out quite different.
Well, I wouldn’t bank on a similar approach next time around. From what I have experienced speaking with people, hardly anyone reads anymore. They are too busy popping Viagra or brainwashing themselves in front of the television.
Simon "The Soviet Union collapsed because they lost control of the flow of information. Once enough people were aware of the utter failure of communism it was only a matter of time. " & "had the CIA been handing out copies of Rothbards books " = I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be derogatory, but this is Twaddle
I say again this collapse was not because of a peoples revoltion.
“beyond the realms of possibility for a small cadre of committed libertarians to settle in such an island” for your info these small little islands have a greater density of inteligenzia per square foot than New York & also the money & contacts to back their political opinions.
Yes it may be possible to populate & achieve autonomy of any one of a thousand other less populated Islands, this would inevitably set back libertarianism 100 years - just look at what your media & embargoes did to Cuba.
NO - The only way is a Grass Roots Ground Swell of popular opinion originating from where they live, after all if the majority can clearly and undeniably state that they are the majority - then by Democratic Principles (& the vote) the Establishment MUST obey!!!
Democracy is the correct way, it’s pointless relocating with other like minded libertarian people. The only problem with our current democracy is that it is ill-informed, sometimes corrupt & always inneficient
Why on earth a democracy? A system under which it is implicit that someone has the right to violate the property rights of a fellow citizen, for whatever purposes its shadow oligarchy (I say this because it’d have to be incredibly decentralized to avoid it) deigns it appropriate.
As for the USSR, its collapse was largely due to economic causes, i.e. the objective conditions necessary for the spread of ideas conducive to liberty.
It is not. Democracy is preferred by politicians because they know full well that it’s totally useless to advance freedom. If democracy could really threaten the state politicians would ban it.
Basically because serving the needs of the many is more altruistic than serving the needs of the one.
In all honesty do you think that mankind is ready to govern itself by following the Non Agresion Principle, have you ever been hungry?, have you ever watched your child die of hunger in your arms?
How effective is the NAP when next door is hoarding food & your watching your only child die of hunger less than 50 feet away from a million calories.
God Bless the Forums, soon the elite will no longer be able to pass legislation in secrecy for their own gain, they will be held accountable
My idea of a true democracy actually leans more towards a theocracy, after all if the sheeple can not be bothered to understand the question, why on earth do we ask them to vote for an answer/direction?
Everyone should be given the opportunity to vote, but not everyone should vote
