Why not just buy our way into freedom? Theoretically, it should be possible to buy your freedom. Here is what I mean. A bunch of very wealthy libertarians or an ambitious group of entrepreneurs raise enough capital to buy land, not in a state, but FROM a state. The US bought 1/3 of its current territory from Napoleon, and then Alaska from the Russians. I believe history is full of such examples. The seller shouldn’t care who the buyer is, i.e., a sovereign state or a bunch of “crazy” private individuals.
Once the land is bought, the new owners will write a short outline of a code of laws or Constitution declaring the “Natural Rights and The Sovereignty of the Individual” (In honor of Murray N. Rothbard). Pieces of land will then be sold off to all who are interested in investing in the new anarcho-capitalist land. A true tax-heaven unregulated free market should be quite appealing to investors, businessmen, and many many workers from all over the world, especially in the coming future.
So, what exactly is the problem with this plan? Where is the catch? Why risk waiting 100 or 1000 years? I know it is trickier then I am describing it, but still, why can we just buy the new anarcho-capitalist land?
There’s a crucial difference between buying an icebox like Alaska, or a useless colony like French Louisiana, and buying a developed stretch of territory.
Even if you bought your own island or found one uninhabited and built on it, you’re still not free of the government. You still have to abide by international treaties and not do anything that would attract military action against you (like develope weapons or contract services to enemy nations/“terrorist” organizations).
When Alaska was bought, didn’t the sellers cede their taxation authority? I find it hard to believe that under no circumstances, this cannot be achieved. It seems to me like it is a matter of opportunity. Perhaps when a particular government is in really bad shape and desperately needs a bailout.
There is no central authority in an anarcho-capitalist state so who exactly will need to abide to what? The individual is sovereign so I guess one can accept and sign a treaty on an individual basis. Who would be stupid enough?
you’re second part about attracting military action against you is a good point, although it seems to be a more general problem with anarcho-capitalism and not so much on how to obtain it. Maybe someone can comment on that.
Simply signing a treaty does not indebt you to obey that treaty, but that’s besides the point.
I’m not saying that this would be the product of a free society, I’m saying that any society created outside of states’ geographical rule will still be subject to those states’ international doctrines. Unless you have a plan for defending against foreign militaries. For instance, I can’t denounce my citizenship and go set up a nuclear arms facility on a remote island. This means that as long as a state apparatus exists with firepower to force the free sector into submission, there will be no way to truly be free.
hm. That would be really really difficult. And as you probably know, would be far more complex than a lump of cash.
a few problems:
I don’t see this working with the US government, maybe some other weaker state. Why? Because it would be a huge humiliation to the ruling class to see a piece of their land essentially seceeded.
You would need a buttload of money. Like literally…hundreds of billion of dollars. Reason; Because the government can just create all the money it wants, and tax all it wants. Bribing the government with money, would be like trying to sell ice to eskimos.
Mostly; It would an embarrasment to the US government to sell of it’s land, at least in the eyes of the ruling class.
That’s a very good moral point! But the suggestion in the OP is of course more political practical than philosophical. I think it is a very good idea which needs to be considered. There are several tiny island states around who might be willing to “sell” one of their islands to a new nation. They could hold a referendum about it if they want. Iceland could be a candidate, now when they are totally broke (but the climate is aweful).
A bit off topic:
I once suggested to a friend who grew up in a dirt poor third world dictatorship, if it wouldn’t be possible to buy out the dictator. He’d get a large lump some of money, and the buyer could easily have a good return on that investment in the shape of taxation by introducing rule of law. There are huge natural resources in that country, just waiting to be exploited because of the randomness of government thievery.
She answered:
“Not a chance in hell! Our dictator doesn’t care at all for money. He only cares for power itself, the formality of being president, and will fight for it to his death.”
I suppose there’s no reason to assume that politicians are profit maximizing creatures. They didn’t reach their positions through competition for profit on a market, but by psychopathic hunger for power. In that sense at least, they might not be easily “bought”. They sell their citizens cheap, but their power is simply not for sale.
It was not inteded as a moral point, but rather as a practical one. The democratic state simply doesn’t own the land, it runs the country through political means, if it wants to sell the land it cannot do so on economic principles but rather would have to do so through a vote, which is unlikely to succeed.
Surely if the land were to be bought the money would have to go to the central state that “owns” the land anyway, in which case it would be implicated. Otherwise, it would merely be an act of secession, which, as we know, states tend not to be too fond of.
The legitimacy of the state’s control over any land is by democratic consent. If you can get a group of taxpayers to consent to the sale or privatization of land the state will have no argument against it. They may employ brute force but that will only undermine their legitimacy and then we can repeat the experiment and hold more referendums in other places.
The key is to rig the referendum to ensure we get the result we want, which is how all democratic politics works in a sense.
What about starting small then. Buy land in some part of the Unites States and start a libertarian town/city. Is that possible? A city free of any public service. No city hall or anything. All roads, infrastructure, police, garbage removal, and of course, schools would be provided by the market. taxes would still be paid to the state and federal, but there would be no city tax. I’m not saying this would all happened at once. In the beginning there would be a few settlers, relying on themselves for defense, homeschooling or commuter schools, but eventually as the town gets bigger, demand would rise for all of the above services.
"The legitimacy of the state’s control over any land is by democratic consent. If you can get a group of taxpayers to consent to the sale or privatization of land the state will have no argument against it. They may employ brute force but that will only undermine their legitimacy and then we can repeat the experiment and hold more referendums in other places.
The key is to rig the referendum to ensure we get the result we want, which is how all democratic politics works in a sense."
your absolutely right. the reason states are strong is because of massive demogagery. by portraying us as social darwinist boogeyman or wild eyes anarchists, libertarians are seriously mangilanized.
How are you supposed to compete for residents and make the town bigger when you are double-paying on all services, once to produce your own and another as taxes?