I was trying to think of a less provocative title, but this is the best I could come up with.
In short, I want to spur some serious introspection and discussion around this question: if it were immediately possible to form a free society, whether it be minarchism or anarcho-capitalism (whichever you agree with, for the sake of the question), but not where you live now, would you be willing to move and join in? Would you be willing to leave friends and family behind to live in a free society? If it were somewhere relatively inaccessible or without modern technology, would you be willing to live like that until a strong economy developed?
Whatever you can pack in some bags and your sense of humor.
I suppose that depends on how many women you can convince to go with you to faraway places.
For the sake of argument, let’s suppose it’s land completely untouched by any society of the past few centuries.
Well, if it makes a difference, that should be part of your answer.
A fishnet shirt… meh. But a fishshirt? That sounds disgusting.
What would you do if a statist joined any free society?
I used “relatively inaccessible” to mean that it can still be reached, but not without a significant expense of time and/or money (whether by land, sea, air, etc.).
There’s no point being free if you are starving, if that’s your question.
Migration of course matters to those who are freedom-seeking, and economic development is impossible without some migration. But that doesn’t mean freedom is a vow of poverty. And what possible good would this migration be if it resulted in increased general poverty?
Of course this is what the “Free State Project” folks are doing, trying to exploit a loophole in democracy by flooding a small polity with immigrants who will seize power. They have it utterly backwards.
Well, I don’t think it’s a question of starvation. More like living in what could be called a “technologically primitive” society while significant capital is lacking.