So who says we take an island? I’m dead serious here. Rhonde Island, for example, is huge at 2,000 acres:
It costs $50k per acre, and it’s located in a good spot, IMO. If each of use bought a few acres, we could start our own society. Or we could go much cheaper (and much further away) with an island like Lenur Island at about $11k/acre with 37 acres.
Sorry Stranger, I just do not see this working. It cannot hurt to try, but I just have some concerns, that I think others probably have.
First of all, I think most people think anarchy can work on a small scale. Second of all, “property of low value” is subjective. Third of all, a small society cannot really supply the “services” most statists think governments need to provide on a large scale. But this really just goes back to my first point. It just does not show people at large that anarchy can work on a large scale.
I take it you don’t understand the calculation debate then?
You miss the point entirely.
I think you’re missing the point spideynw. The idea is not to convince people at large of anything.
It is to establish a sustainable microstate with it’s own private security and law. Profit and success of such a system, will lead to growth. Establishing multiple micro states will create an erosive effect on the larger state monopoly.
Well, the discussion seems to be going to islands. Islands, being small, tend to limit the size of growth. Also, being that they are islands, the smaller they are, the higher the costs since less can be self-produced and more has to be shipped in. And if the land value of the island is pretty low, then there is probably good reason for it.
But hey, if you can get a group of anarcho-capitalists to do it, more power to you. I would just be happy to live in a community of fellow anarcho-capitalists. I cannot tell you how awesome it is to have an anarcho-capitalist spouse, let alone a whole community of anarcho-capitalists.
It is a tradeoff because islands are easier to secure because the borders are known. But as Stranger mentioned, we’re not trying to grow but to provide an area with private law and security for the purpose of attracting commercial actors.
Right, but we’re not trying to think conventionally here. We’re not investing in real estate, or building a utopian city with the right mixture of commerce, parks, suburbs etc. The value of the land is determined by what we can do with it, and I would assume we could score some “deals” because there are not a lot of people who look at a small remote island, and see the commercial opportunities of setting up a mini-state and challenging established order.
Convert your spouse and your community. [:P]
Shipping in and out products is the entire point. A place like Hong Kong, for example, must ship in everything it consumes. Here is what it looked like a hundred years ago, and here is what it looks like today.
Monaco is even more barren and useless, but it still supports one of the wealthiest and densest populations in the world.
Land value can be cultivated, and the best environment to do that is a pure free market.
There would not be a community of anarcho-capitalists. Most of the people who would live there would do so only for material reasons and wouldn’t care about ideology so long as they can live their lives. The anarcho-capitalist class would be limited to the entrepreneurs who developed the land and security industries initially.
We should call it “Liberty Colony”. [;)]
Indeed, property with private security and law, may be the rarest of all properties on the planet, and thus have an immense value to those who desire such, for personal or commercial use.
Well, given that for such a society to exist, there would have to be a law against a state being formed, by default, they would all be anarcho-capitalists.
Hong Kong is 426 sq mi, so I do not think that really constitutes a valid example. However, Monaco is only .76 sq mi. and supports a population of 35,000+. Rhonde island that was suggested is 3.125 sq mi, so plenty big.
So, if you could get 2000 people to buy an acre each, I think it would be a great idea.
It’s much simpler for one company to buy all of it.
By the way, although the Hong Kong territory may be large, the city itself is very narrow given that most of the territory is unbuildable mountain. The city of Victoria is about as wide as Paris intramuros, and much less deep.
That’s what I was thinking about too. Anyone remember learning about the Virginia Company, the joint-stock corporation that settled Jamestown?
Yes, it does all sound vaguely familiar.
Ahh Mises Forum in-jokes… it’s a good thing we can all laugh about the previous controversy in hindsight, though [Y]
.
That’s all very true, and this seems to me to be a very good proposal in general. However, I read Murphy’s Minerva and that’s what concerns me. Sure the powers that be might leave us alone at first. That’s good. But, as we all know, very quickly this would likely turn into an economic (super)power. Once they do isn’t the security of everyone at stake? This could result in a Minerva-type situation where the US/UN start picking a fight with our little unState land over nothing. You know how the feds pull stunts. If there’s a risk of being nuked, it’s going to be kind of hard to get long term investment in the island.
What about the IRS collecting taxes from ex-pats? Wouldn’t that cause more than a few complications?
What about the Mises Institute and other hardcore libertarian organizations? Is the ground they will lose in the US worth an island the American government might blow up? Hell, might the Paulian movement have a better chance at weakening the state than we would have at building the stateless society? Or mgiht we allow these minarchist types to gain power in government first allowing us to gain a larger more permanent territory, perhaps in Wyoming or thereabouts?
On the other hand, may I put forth the name “Rothbardia” as the name we give to the theoretical island? Then residents would be “Rothbardians”. That’d be pretty cool, eh? I’d want to live in “Rothbardia”. And then each new free city could be named after an Austrian economist. And one would be “Misesia” and the residents would be “MIsesians”. And the founding corporation that buys these properties could be called the Austrian Corporation or something along those lines.
And that’s all folks.
Wouldn’t “we” have the means of an economic superpower to defend ourselves? [:)]
Most of the Paulians are not libertarians. They are statists.
You haven’t exactly indicated why you would be of any value to the community.
Woah dude, for real? Shouldn’t anyone be able to come as long as they share our values?
If we are tossing names into the hat, I shall put forth my own: Soushinka.
(roots being japanese, albeit in romanji; sou = mutual or fellow, shinka = evolution)
Although something with a Greek or Latin basis might sound better.
