I think I understand. But please correct me if I do not:
LC group votes on a geographical area (a country) first, then a scout travels there to get a specific spot.
Also , what languages do you all speak? Having lived in another country before I can tell you that oportunities are very limited when you do not speak the language of the area you are in.
Yes, you have it correct regarding selecting the general location and the specific area.
Of course, speaking the local language is always beneficial. I imagine most of the early settlers will not speak the local language. Local transalators will have to be used to some extent. As far as opportunities being limited due to not speaking the local language, my experience is this is true if your looking for a job but not if your the one creating the jobs. Personally, I speak English and Spanish.
I speak a little html, php, french and of course am fluent in English. I’m hoping to learn some Perl too.
Frankly, all of those languages are more useful than learning some obscure language in an underdeveloped area. Worldwide, English is the most important language to know. Everywhere you go you will find someone who speaks some english.
I’m afraid that you’re mistaken. Far more common than a desire for one’s personal freedom is the apparently near-universal desire to restrict the neighbor’s freedom. Finding another freedom-lover is a treat - people who want everyone else’s freedom restricted are legion.
That’s a popular theory around here, but it (unfortunately) lacks any concrete evidence supporting it. I can sympathize with the goals of the typical anarchist - but, if you get right down to it, Marx’s intended goal was not bad, either. The problem is that I don’t believe that either system can be workable with actual people.
For one rude, crude, politically-incorrect reason that rushes to the fore: I have Somali neighbors. I have no desire whatsoever to live in a place in which that is the dominant culture.
If some group actually invests in such a project, can I sell the stock for it short?
Yeah, no evidence at all…
If you’re serious about this, compare them to countries of an analogous level of development and wealth. Somalia fares better than other comparable countries.
-Jon
As interesting and admirable as pre-Roman Celtic society was, it was not a stateless society. Stateless societies, pretty much by definition, don’t have kings. Brehon law, as imposed upon the residents, was remarkably fair and non-intrusive (we think - the evidence is pretty scant), but it was not anarchy - unless you redefine anarchy as having a rigid, inherited class system.
If you don’t believe that people generally want freedom then a free society can never be possible. I only need to think of the millions of people who daily risk their lives for a little more opportunity and a chance at a better life to know that people want to be free.
There are lots of examples of people historically living without government. Lots of people in the developing world right now effectively live without government. In fact freedom is the only workable goal for people.
People effectively live without government all across the world, nobody consults the constitution or asks permission from the government when interacting with their neighbours or when in a supermarket.
Herein lies your dilemma. You are not willing to create freedom yourself nor are you willing to invest in it and yet you imply you are seeking freedom.
Yes, you see your not quite the slave many would have you believe.
Some people most certainly do. Others prefer the safety of a known, secure slavehood. Most fall somewhere in between. If you look at the exceptional, and use that view to generalize about everyone, you’re bound for some unpleasant surprises.
It may be more enjoyable to deal with “how I want it to be”, but it’s much more effective to deal with “how it is”.
That’s news to me. Every society I’ve ever heard of had a ruling class, or rulers - I’d love to research some of the societies that have been ungoverned. Could you name a few?
I am totally at a loss as to how you inferred that from what I wrote - there, or anywhere else.
I have invested much of my life in freedom - my own personal freedom, and enlarging options for others. There have been some heavy prices to pay for this, but I’ve never regretted that decision. I’m willing to invest pretty heavily in furthering freedom, but investing in lost causes does not interest me.
If you want freedom for yourself, I recommend Browne’s How I Found Freedom In an Unfree World. If you want freedom for everyone, I highly recommend that you focus on the workable.
Because learning another laungage takes time.
Besides what would give anyone the incentive to move to somalia,and how do we know that the investmet would work out in the longterm.
furthermore how would you like it if someone from another country started to homestead your land???
Perhaps…
But the chapter from Rothbard was citing the post-Roman Irish society that existed up until the British conquest.
And they also mention the role of kings as being a religious figurehead with no real leglislative power and not being above the law. Sure, they were the war leaders but they couldn’t declare war nor force anyone to follow them just as they couldn’t just blow off a law suit without suffering the same penalties as everyone else.
You seem to be suffering from the Nirvana Fallacy Syndrome, because no one can cite an example that fits your definition of pure anarchy it can not possibly exist.
I have yet to see humans construct a perfect form of any political system though they manage to get along just fine under real close approximations of ‘pure’ anarchy every now and again for extended periods of time.
This could be like one of those Onion infographics:
Why are we not moving to Somalia? [^o)]
26% - Too many Somalians
24% - Threatened with having testicles cut off and stuffed in mouth if returned
18% - Would mean 99% pay cut
12% - Kids prefer Disneyworld to vibrant, downtown Mogadishu
20% - Can’t sell house in this lousy market
53% - Would miss posting on Mises.org.
