I was kidding. He just seemed to be so enamoured in living there and naming it. Assuming this was a “we” thing.
But you raise a good point. No, not anyone should be able to come along. It’s not a commune. You would have to buy property and/or invest in the company. No free rides for libertarian gawkers. This is for real, for profit, life and death. If I’m there, I expect to deal with other people, who have the same material, free market goals I do. I don’t want to have votes and negotiate through and around people who have an opinion, but don’t have a stake.
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?
They won’t do anything about Somali pirates and that’s an activity that is clearly aggressing upon their subjects. The facts seem to say that they have no idea how to deal with non-state territories.
Think of Hong Kong. It is too valuable as a free territory to the Chinese for them to use force to take it over, even at the time when the U.K. was on its knees and unable to mount a credible defense. The same is true of Taiwan. Once a territory has slipped away and then turned itself into a fortress, militarily and economically, there is nothing to gain for short-sighted politician to re-annex them.
The minarchists will never gain power. However, their presence in government is an important part of the defense of secessionist territories from these governments. Ron Paul would of course block any attempt to invade these territories by marshalling public opinion, making the option of using force against secessionists even less attractive. Over time the growing number of secessionist territories, and the loss of population to them, will force governments to give up their powers (the race to the bottom as the socialists call it).
That’s true, look I’m sorry if I offended you. I’m a noob and I thought the thread was a really good idea. Should I have use “we” so promiscuously? Definately not. I understand that “we” can sometimes be used assumingly and for statist propaganda purposes. I used “we” because I would definately by land there though I understand the collectivist way that could have been understood. What I meant to say if, as in Murphy’s novel this Hanseatic League or any number of individual cities became a threat wouldn’t the establishment folks in the Pentagon or the District of Criminals writ large simply turn it into plate glass, economic power or not? And if this is a concern why would business X invest in anarcho-island-whatever? That was my point. Not to offend you or anyone else here. I’m sure there’s a good answer to it. I just can’t think of one. I’m merely trying to be socratic. I hope that’s of some value. To be clear from reading these forums I do respect your opinion.
As far as the Paulians go, I don’t know if its fair to exclude minarchists from the libertarian movement or philosophy or whatever. Sure, they are more moderate. But does that make them unlibertarian? Personally, I am an anarcho-capitalist, make no qualms about it. Even if he’s not a pure libertarian he has certainly introduced millions to the libertarian community. I know I wouldn’t have been brought into the movement if it weren’t for him. I can’t speak for anyone else. And I can’t tell you as of yet why I am of any value. But assuming I am of the most marginal value as a libertarian, the least important libertarian around and all Paul brings in are just schouches like me, that’s something right? Even if I disagree with the minarchist rhetoric by most who identify as libertarians I can understand where they are coming from and see them as libertarians. That is if what I see is of any value. And even if Paul isn’t a libertarian, it still isn’t unlibertarian to work within and with his movement to accomplish common goals and try and convince those within his movement that he’s in staunch agreement with ancaps on. In your opinion, and I’m just asking, was it a mistake for Rothbard to ally with both the New Lefties and the Palecons? What would a better course of action been.
As far as the whole Rothbardia goes it was a quack humor light hearted name. It was corny. Sure, my naming sense is corny. I promise even if I invest in any such company I won’t try and name it or any of its neo-Hanseatic cities. Also, I won’t participate in any of those rename anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism for pop appeal thread. I hope I provided something of value. Then again value is subjective so I guess it’s in the eye of the beholder friends. Next time I come up with a attemptedly humorous name I’ll add an emoticon or something.
I think that an anarchist microsecession is long overdue. From a purely entrepreneurial standpoint, this would be a huge profit opportunity. Just think of the returns for a company that bought a territory from a state and then sold lots (which would be extremely valuable). Here’s my overall view of this strategy:
Pros- incentive driven (doesn’t require commitment from anarchists, just adventurous businessmen, so it wouldn’t create the problem of concentrating large numbers of anarchists)
would create extraordinary wealth, attracting capital and brains from out of the statist territories
self-sustaining: as it grows wealthier and more tantalizing to states, it would also grow more capable of defending itself against such states
could be done right now
would create a precedent and pave the way for more microsecessions
would be a current example of anarchy, demonstrating to statists that it does work and is not chaos
Cons- at risk of being nuked (as in Minerva), although entrepreneurs may be able to solve that problem
hard to get a state to accept and respect the secession, especially the first one (targeting failed states will alleviate this somewhat)
businesses within states will surely complain about the “unfair advantage” and push for protectionism against the free territory
may be difficult to raise the initial capital for such a radical enterprise
Overall, I’m very optimistic about this strategy. This would be a wonderful complement to the educational side of our strategy.
You didn’t offend me, sorry. I should have used a smilie or something. I did want to make the point that this is not just some pioneer or escapist fantasy. People who come to whatever the location of such a place would be, need to be loaded with capital, or loaded with skills. We pay a lot of lip service to free markets, but I don’t think many people are prepared to compete for their job every single day. In a commercial atmosphere like that, academics and philosophers will not be in high demand. People with technical skills, security experience, finance etc sure. Marketing, leadership absolutely.
But dock workers? Expect to compete with the cheapest labour “the company” can find.
That’s a threat for every nation/group. Effective marketing and propaganda will be good tools for defense. And maybe the company needs to hire a security firm with access to nukes for a MAD scenario. I don’t doubt such groups exist already.
Like I said, misunderstanding, probably my fault. Don’t think twice about it.
I think Paul is great. But again, this isn’t a libertarian social experiment. It’s business. You either have capital, skills or preferably both. That’s how the market works.
When the first colonists came to America, the operation was usually based around two groups of people. The backers financed the colony and imposed some rules upon the colonists, while the colonists were hired to build the colony for their specific skills.
Many of you probably won’t have any role to play as a colonist in the short-term, however you can have a role to play as a backer for The Company (let’s call it that for now).
The best idea for security is to hire a firm that also has infiltrated the political structure of powerful nations. Blackwater, for example, has enormous influence over U.S. policy. If they insured the security of a secessionist territory, they could likely leverage their influence on the U.S. government to intervene to protect the secessionist territory.
You have quite a point. That’'s as good an answer as any. I wasn’t satisfied with that ending anyway. Too sad. That’s true. What about back taxes? Wouldn’t they, meaning the federal government seems like they are pretty serious about those taxes. And then the lefties always are able to work up a furor about US companies with offshore addresses. All in all though great plan, to both you and Hoppe and whomever else is responsible.
I didn’t mean that they would gain power per se. I have no pipe dreams about that. However, as of the moment Ron Paul has been a pretty good recruiting agent for libertarianism. Now, people atleast know that libertarianism is not some soft theory for wealthy Republicans who like to do coke. Since the Paul thing happened I have encountered less people saying those kinds of things to me. Have they gotten more polite or has Paul dispelled any rumors? Couldn’t tell you. I can tell you that he got a lot of people interested, planted a lot of seeds in peoples heads. Anyways, I always pictured the State falling in a manner similar to USSR. As the feds run out of money and if Paul and others can turn on enough people then people can simply start setting up an ancap society. The value of a guy like Paul is mostly educational. And if his verbal smackdowns of Guiliani and others has brought in as many people as it appears than the man is worth his weight in gold. Keep in mind outside ot the campaign his day job is to verbally beat down whatever Fed chairman who dares to sit in front of him. That he’s getting the word out their that way to CSPAN/CNBC viewers isn’t a lot but it’s also something. Even if most of his convertees don’t make the jump to Rothbardian anarchism he’s still turned plenty of soft-socialists and red state fascists and apathetic disconcerned people into minarcho-capitalists and light libertarians. That’s got to be worth something. Even Paulian constitutionalist minarchist libertarians who think anarchism is impossible or “can’t work” may be sympathetic enough to be more likely to make initial investments in the aforementioned island.
It could be said that Ayn Rand has had the positive function of bringing many youths into the ideas of freedom/capitalism and was overall heroic in this accomplishments even if she didn’t see the full picture herself. If I remember correctly more than a few people in the LRC biography series cited her as a main influence. But Paul is so much closer to Rothbardianism and especially the whole LRC/Mises community that his effect is even greater and even more powerful. Don’t forget its easier more than ever also to look upwhere “this Paul fellow is coming from”.
Sorry to drone on. Best of luck. Your idea is pretty plausible and I hope it pans out nicely.
To be fair, Paul seems pretty good at marketing to me. The young male demographic is quite valuable, is it not? If he’d be willing, which I doubt most minarcho-constitutionalists tend to develop a strong attachment to the US. And he knows a thing or two about raising capital. Again theres the whole anarchy vs. minarchy thing or the US vs. The Company thing. But I mean he has bought in all these rebels (who are now) practically without causes, so to speak. On RPF their always talking about '10 and '12. I think his most important victories have been in changing minds and raising money which could be converted into the later for the purposes of this scienario. If the whole microstate falls threw, the Paul movement is certainly the next best thing. Rothbard had to ally with pinkos and paleocons. While most paleocons aren’t that bad and TAC/takimag tends to publish good stuff from Raimondo, McCarthy, Gordon and others having Paul is, in my opinion, the coolest thing since white bread. The paleocons and the pinkos are trying to tap into our (and by that I mean our common libertarian) movement.The fact that, on another thread several people talked about the importance of Paul and how he changed their minds only shows how Paul has grown the likely consumer base for this product or stateless society.
As far as I go, I would probably put all the money to my name into the place and move their and try and work my trade. At the very least I could speculate on whatever pieces of property I am able to purchase. Would I make it on the market? Who knows. Worth a shot. I’d be a hypocrite if I didn’t try.
That’s true, good point. I wouldn’t be concerned if a minarchist state or Hong Kong was under consideration. But a full blown anarchist society could show a lot of emperors to be naked. It could hurt a lot of powerful people in a way a minarchist country or a Hong Kong or something doesn’t. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done (Tu Ne Cede Malis…) all it means is that precausions need to be taken. I’m not one to judge what those precautions are. However, as a potential consumer/stock holder I would be very, very concerned before investing my money, time and life. Especially considering those who go live on The Company’s land aren’t likely to be welcomed back to the States with open arms if things sour even the slightest. And if things get heavier than that well, international tensions may force international libertarian institutes and societies, like the Independent Institute or the Mises Institute headed for Company land. the fact that this thread is happening on Mises servers and is a riff off of stuff that the Mises institute has published could be used to hang 'em if you have a public furor whipped up about working conditions in Company land.
For things to get this bad, you have to assume that the protection of intellectual freedom would reach levels lower than those of Nazi Europe, when the first exodus of Austrian economists took place.
I was as big a RPer as any other Canadian. I know the score. The RPers are awesome at organizing and action, something I felt was missing when I came here from RPF. But I realize now that they are ideologically shallow when it comes to liberty. Everything is American/Constitution centric. Sure, a lot of libertarians and ancaps have come from it, but there are still so many minarchists who believe political (electoral) victory is necessary.
I’m a big Ron Paul fan here. But he’s like marijuana. Just a gateway drug. We need liberty on heroin. Radicalism.
A lot could be done by libertarians in the statist world concurrent with the development of the New Hanseatica. Not everyone has to go. But it is necessary that those best suited do go and participate to have a shot at success.
Well, that is the whole challenge here. To establish security for whatever commercially profitable and viable enterprise which might occur. The League creates private law and security, the market will take care of profitability and the mundane details of trade.
I think your imagination is getting the better of you here.
I’ve been thinking about some of these “issues” and will post my thoughts on them tomorrow. It’s getting late here, and the lamp is shy of oil.
Rather I’m suggesting that hiring mercenaries or making ‘campaign contributions’ are actions not very likely to work. If the US government decides that you are a threat, then Blackwater or similar mafias, sorry, honest entrepreneurs will be fighting against you, not for your side. Buying off the US government doesn’t sound realistic either.