For those of you who aren’t familiar with the origins/specifics of the argument, I’ve written it below:
Behind the Veil of Ignorance, Rawls thinks that doctors and scientists would accept less-than-optimal positions in society because it is better than the alternative of no society. Nozick pointed out that in such a society, it would be rational for these high fliers to start their own society apart from everyone else so they could reap the full benefits of their labor. He called this place “Lucky Island”. The relatively unproductive masses would be stuck in Rawl’s redistributive socialist paradise called “Demos”.
So, onto the point of the post: Libertarians probably can’t ever win over the majority of the public. If they can, it is certainly very difficult. I have come to realize that people mainly accept empirical tests of ideas. Perhaps the desirability of libertarian society could be demonstrated by setting up an independent “country” called Lucky Island.
(It need not be an actual island. There is a ton of unused land in the USA)
This place could be an “experiment” in libertarian ideologies to test if they really work. They often test certain education plans or funding methods in particular areas of the country. Why not Libertarianism!?
I can see some obvious problems with this though: Libertarian Society → Tax Haven Etc → Brain Drain. Demos (America) loses to Lucky Island by default because of free immigration. It seems this would defeat the point of the experiment since we’re trying to show ceteris paribus that libertarianism works etc.
At the very least this thought experiment demonstrates that current societies are non-competitive with a free society. Even if Lucky Island were a republic and had 30% flat tax it would still win. Sheesh.
You know I grew up overseas. My dad worked as a professor for universities in the middle east and asia. He was treated as a non-citizen, which in some cases actually meant he had MORE rights, particularly as far as taxes are concerned. I’ve considered doing this with my career as a way to maximize my personal freedom.
I briefly mentioned something similar in another thread, but I think Antarctica pretty much fits the bill. I would love to live in unclaimed Antarctic territory. It has no pre-existing infrastructure and would not require revolution or territorial secession. It would also be a great demonstration of the power of individuals, because I think that a society of free-minded individuals could easily overcome all the difficulties that Antarctica presents.
There is a treaty, though, that prevents certain “environmentally damaging” activities (including mining and nuclear power, I believe). Obviously a non-state couldn’t be a party to such a treaty, but I’d be somewhat concerned about one of the big players like the US or Russia trying to intervene. Still, I think it’s less probable than the federal government meddling with the Free State Project.
It would be best if Lucky Island were close to America so that people could immigrate easily like they already do between states. Otherwise we’ll get a skewed result since the cost of moving to somewhere like antarctica is too great, and the trade barriers/infrastructure would be insane.
Still might work though
I would laugh if we could put a libertarian society on the moon and it succeeded because people would rather pay the costs of transporting goods to and from the moon than the government’s taxes.
Antartica is not unclaimed, at least not for long. The usual suspect nations will vie for power, leverage, & ultimate control over the sea routes that will emerge as ice in the Antartica breaks up via climate change.
If I remember correctly, Putin grandstanded about this a year or two ago. I think assuming Anatartica is somehow “unclaimed” assumes far too much incompetence on the statist’s part; maybe not now, but soon.
I hate to be pessimist, but unless someone with an insane amount of money goes up there to prove it on principle, & makes a way for others to come join in & make a profit out of it, I doubt any sort of libertarian society will get a jump start on the rest of state society in ye absolutely freezing weather anytime soon.
For the time being, statist-mercantilists, corporatists, the military, etc. seem to have a bit of an edge in this department, especially when they can leverage massive amounts of theft via taxes & their bureaucracies in the government to fund such expenditures.
However, New Hampshire would probably make for a good training ground for people interested in moving to more desolate cold climates to establish libertarian societies. NH – > Maine and/or Washington State → Alaska → Antarctica might be a nice scale.
The capabilities of nanotechnology would make such exercise realistically efficient to pull off, imo. Lowering the costs of the maintenance of living in such harsh environments would make the risk lower than it is currently, for the layman and/or amateur survivalist enthusiastic, anyway.
Well, major nations have territorial claims that the treaty overrides—basically, for as long as the treaty is in effect, no nation truly has claim to any part of Antarctica. Even if parties drop the treaty, though, there’s still an area bigger than Alaska that no nation has of yet even attempted to claim, and if a libertarian society were to form, any would-be conquerer would basically have to wage war in order to take over that area.
