Tell that to AIPAC.
Why? What would be the incentive? The place would be an economic power and that means people would have the capability of defending themselves? Moreover any attacking state would do a great deal of damage to itself economically.
Moreover an attack on the island would merely further the damage the credibility of the US government.
Why? This would have nothing to do with Austrianism in reality, it would have to do with money and that’s it. The truth is this: it’s far easier to buy people with money than it is to sell them ideas.
No, not necessarily. As Stranger pointed out there’d need to be a policy of highly selective immigration.
Don’t worry, we get it: too much work.
How perfectly you fit Rothbard’s modal libertarian. You don’t dislike the state, you just dislike rules.
I don’t know because anarcho-capitalism anywhere is a threat to States everywhere. Just being pessimistic on that score, that’s all.
.
So long as people feel safe business will obviously move to the least regulated land in the word, no? It wil obviously have to do with money. It was just a quasi-serious idea to pay some homage, that’s all.
Well that’s self explanatory. I think it’s obvious if we’re serious about this, you either need to purchase your own property or be allowed to live on someone else’s.
In any case, how are we going to get enough people to come initially? I still need to go through college and then get a job to make some money to be able to be a part of this thing, if it ever happens. I don’t think many people will be able to go at the same time, complicating this a bit.
First of all, in order for people to live on this island in an attractive fashion, infrastructure needs to be built. Power generators or hook-ups to foreign power plants, sewage plants, garbage facilities, hospitals or transportation services to mainland hospitals, roads in general. We can’t expect the market to do this job for us since in the beginning, very few market participants will have enough confidence in The Company to invest on their own.
That’s not a problem with sufficient capital. It wouldn’t be too suspicious to hire construction and engineering crews to build it if they think it’s just going be another commune for the rich. Maybe they won’t care at all what they are building this for. This could also be a first opportunity to recruit skilled workers outside of libertarian think tank circles; I can imagine that living in a city you yourself have built may attract one or two of them, especially if you grant them a small premium.
Thus, the most important element in the early steps of establishing The Company will be money. Those with a stake in the community will probably have to go full-risk on the project. It’s unlikely that we will find enough shareholders for such a venture as long as there is no visible success. Hence, to get it started, it may be necessary to make rigorous adjustments in one’s time preference.
Possibly not just time preference, but also education preference. For people like Kaju and me who still have to choose their professional education, it may be advisable to become more market-oriented, e.g. not study economics, even though that was the original plan, but focus on “money skills”, especially in the engineering, financial and electronics industries.
I hope y’all realize how much of a long-term project this is going to be if we get it started.
I think there should be less worry placed on military warfare, and more worry placed on economic warfare. Look at how the States (the US, the UK, the EU, etc.) are going after those ‘privacy’ states such as Lichtenstein, Jersey Island, et al, on the grounds that corporations and businesses alike are using them to avoid paying taxes. This economic warfare, in the form of legal battles being played out in courtrooms and legislative houses, is the most likely threat The Company would face.
If the opportunity exists, and the risk is less than the potential return, businesses will come.
There was a comment somewhere in the thread concerning the WTO and trade. The WTO is a union writ large. They’ll support anyone who is trading, especially if you trade by their terms. They’ll support you even harder if you pay your membership dues. That being said, they’ll probably support the States more vigorously since that’s who supplies the majority of their funding. And the courts of the WTO is one place where the scenarios I mentioned above are playing out.
Are there any rich anarchists who could possibly fund the initial expedition? I remember hearing about a few rich libertarians trying to create a floating island.
I was thinking about doing a double major in economics and finance. I still have to decide. The unfortunate thing is that I really don’t have an interest in any non-academic studies besides finance and business.
I think the greatest challange would be finding “insignificant territories”. No territory seems insignificant enough to be insignificant to states. They even have claims on Antarctica, never mind the places that can actually sustain human life.
There are many weak states in Central and South America, the Caribbean, the Pacific, and Africa. Somalia, technically speaking, is stateless. Personally, I think a good starting point would be somewhere closer to “civilization,” if you will, like the Caribbean or Pacific.
Yes you have a point, but no matter how weak the state is a small band of libertarian idealists is stil no match for it.
Yes, bribing the politicians of that state could non the less provide security, but if that were to happen is that not a slippery slope? How long until the company realises its lobbying power with the state means it can take shortcuts and earn profits the easy way through state enabled plunder? If so what would prevent this enterprise from becoming another East India Company?
Also I think formal secession would be unwise tacticaly. Every state will see that as an outright challange and will not permit it because of the precedent. Plus because the company will be foreign the crack down can easily be painted in terms of colonialism and used to rally the support of the natives around the state.
I think it would be more strategicaly sound to pursue as much independence in practice while refraining from formal declaration of secession even if it means having to pay some tribute to the state. Even the mini states of the Hanseatic League were formaly part of the Holly Roman Empire if I know anything about history.
From what I understand, we wouldn’t formally declare independence. We would just cease to pay taxes, adhere to state laws, etc. If the state would try to fight, they would have to deal with well-armed residents and possibly a security company. As for the Hanseatic League, I know that Danzig was part of that, but was not a part of the Holy Roman Empire.
Re: the rich libertarians making floating islands; this is their website and IIRC they are converted oil rigs. http://www.seasteading.org/learn-more/intro
As an intellectual excercise, what about, instead of searching for an insignificant territory, going for a territory that is a “no man`s land”? A place in dispute between two states but which neither of the two controls? A place where no secession is needed because the place is already stateless? What about buying up a portion of Northern Kosovo? Ok, it is a wacky idea. But show me what am I missing. Take it as a challange.
The Western meddlers controll the borders and are keeping the Republic of Serbia out, but they charge no customs duty. The population on the ground on the other hand keeps the Republic of Kosovo out and they pay no taxes to Prishtina. The place has security problems, but that is what made the land very cheap. And it is no wildernes either, the infrastructure is already in place albeit it has seen better days. Also the unemployement is high so there is plenty of cheap labour. And most importantly an influx of 3rd nationals would actually be welcomed by the native population on the ground on a political/demographic as well as economic basis.
Aren’t such territories at greater risk of national and international intervention, though?
I’m envisioning the headlines in the liberal media:
Laissez-faire extremists exploit ethnic tensions to create for-profit state
Capitalist radicals annex poverty-ridden country
Market fundamentalists take nation as hostage
I liked that last one =]
It’s been a long time since in-depth reporting made the headlines. Maybe it will go on page 10, and then only if the publication can afford to send someone over there to report.
And whoever comes over, will be accompanied by a PR officer the entire time. Like the media tours of russia in the 60s and 70s, they will see what the colony wants them to see, in the context they want it seen in.