That’s the ever-popular response to those espousing libertarian ideas, isn’t it? I sometimes think to myself: Well, why not?
I know of the Seasteading Institute, and their plans to build floating cities, and I’m totally in support of that. However, being an engineer, I also recognize the mind-boggling list of technical challenges to create said city. The start-up costs of said venture are enormous.
But, how about buying a large region along the coast of some poverty-stricken, remote country and declaring independence? WIth enough investment in defense (which is needed anyways - see Minerva), couldn’t one construct a “blank slate” for a free society with a minimalist government?
I know some disagree with any government, and perhaps after some level of enlightenment humanity will arrive at that state of being (personally, I think that it is necessary to collectivize to provide a common defense, protect natural rights, and protect property). However, in the mean time, isn’t this a possibility?
I can think of several places on earth that would fit the bill: Islands off the coast of Guinea-Bissau, regions of the Somali coast, islands in the Solomon Islands chain, the coast of Mozambique, and so on.
Perhaps its a crazy idea, but is it really more crazy than building a floating city?
Not a bad idea, but i don’t know where in the world you would be able to find a chunk of land you can buy or take over with enough people willing to die to defend it…
My guess is South America or Africa are your only options. Look at Liberia and it’s history.
Well, obviously you’d have to find a large group of people willing contribute to the project. I’d imagine that the best way to secede would be to pay the local army to protect the property significantly more than the government of the country pays them. In some poor countries, the armies aren’t necessarily well-paid (though they’re paid more than they would be in other jobs in that country); it’d be sort of like how some businesses pay police to patrol their property in their off-time.
That way, if you were to declare independence, it would be unlikely that the army would be willing to go back to their government, but would probably rather stay in your employment.
Buying armies really soesn’t work. You’d need your own.
You might be able to find a Canadian island, and if you get enough people to go live on it, secede from a country to form a city state? There are islands in lakes in canada for pretty cheap. Non violent secession would be best. Especially against a government without a history of killing dissenters en masse.
You’ve always got to consider “Petoria” type situations too.
Buying armies really soesn’t work. You’d need your own.
You might be able to find a Canadian island, and if you get enough people to go live on it, secede from a country to form a city state? There are islands in lakes in canada for pretty cheap. Non violent secession would be best. Especially against a government without a history of killing dissenters en masse.
You’ve always got to consider “Petoria” type situations too.
Machiavelli’s “The Prince”? You mean how he argues against the use of mercinaries? I don’t know if I buy it. I believe that people are motivated by profit, and the opportunity to improve their own lot in life. If you can provide them with more opportunity than their government can, there is little reason for them to maintain their loyalty to their government.
Ideally, you’d set up fortifications and secede from whatever country in which you’ve purchased the property without any violence. However, chances are that the government would show up with big weapons when the tax revenue stops rolling in. Your best bet (I think) would be to pick the country that can’t afford large weapons (like F-16s) and fortify your property before they are able to try to take it from you.
I’d bet that Canada wouldn’t take too kindly to secession and would arrest the owners of the island for treason.
I suspect that’d only work the way Israel (which is an example of you idea, on a larger scale) worked: with a bunch of uber-wealthy patrons behind it, to pay folks to move, give them some initial cash, initially pay defenders, and so on. There’s just no way it could take of by itself (see how slowly the FSP is taking off). Otherwise, there’s nothing wrong with it.
And be invaded by the UN? Why should anarchists care about pompous formal declarations? That’s a state-forming thing. You would want to be left alone which is best done if you lay low and don’t draw attention to yourself.
Marko nailed it. The dumbest thing a freedom-minded group of people can do is “declare independence” or declare anything at all. The declarations game is the game of the political elites and they’ve been taking all comers for several millenia now.
I still don’t understand why the seastead people don’t just buy one of those massive container ships and retrofit it. It’s so large that it might as well be a platform. It could house an immense amount of business (even industrial) and residential space. It’s already proven seaworthy. It can move out of the way of storms just as seasteads could. And it’s a hell of a lot cheaper than a purpose-built seastead. Once you’ve got your PoC operating at a profit, then move on to building the fancy, streamlined seasteads.
I’m awesome… check this out! Now imagine building a purely voluntary city out of such containers installed on a container ship. Don’t like the ship’s rules? Take your container out at the next port. And have a nice day.
A more realistic option is to persuade libertarians to relocate to new Hampshire, and in time have a majority of libertarians there. Since there are probably a few millions of libertarians in the world, if they all relocate to New Hampshire, you can definitely have a libertarian state there.
The issue with that model would seem to be that people just can’t afford to crash their lives every now and then. If you forfeit you job, career and acquaintances every time that rent on the ship goes up, you’re looking forward to a very unproductive life.
This is specifically a problem on sea, since leaving your community means completely severing all links with your prior life, while on land you can change blocks (say, if states where block-sized) while still retaining most of you previous life. This is mostly why I have little hope is seasteading.
“I suspect that’d only work the way Israel (which is an example of you idea, on a larger scale) worked: with a bunch of uber-wealthy patrons behind it, to pay folks to move, give them some initial cash, initially pay defenders, and so on.”
It’s exactly how Isreal started. Except, they were motivated by Zionism, rather than liberty…
“The dumbest thing a freedom-minded group of people can do is “declare independence” or declare anything at all. The declarations game is the game of the political elites and they’ve been taking all comers for several millenia now.”
Well, then don’t declare independence. I’d wager that the thugs running the country will show up eventually, once they figure out that you’re not paying them taxes. My thought was that you lie low until you’ve fortified your property, hired your mercinaries, and bought off the local military*.*
"A more realistic option is to persuade libertarians to relocate to new Hampshire, and in time have a majority of libertarians there. Since there are probably a few millions of libertarians in the world, if they all relocate to New Hampshire, you can definitely have a libertarian state there."
The problem with New Hampshire is they still fall under the US government, which spends more than anyone else on earth for a military - secession isn’t an option (somebody tried that once before). They’ll continue to demand large taxes on income and trade, even if the state laws are very libertarian. I have nothing against the FSP, but they can only have so much effect on the US as a whole.
I disagree. I think a state with a libertarian majority will be able to be legally libertarian as well. Its not the 1870s now, Americans are a lot less aggressive and more tolerant today. Its not that secession will be official, but I can guarantee you that the federal government won’t oppress the libertarian state, they wouldn’t be able to stand against such strongly motivated and stubborn people. American people in general will not be in favor for starting a civil war against liberty, there is no chance in hell they will do that.
As with seasteads, I’m assuming that the current global regime of hyper-regulatory national governments is creating a genuine demand for unregulated (relatively speaking) business space. So, the initial demand comes from people who believe they can make a profit operating without the crippling regulations and taxation which exist under national governments. In time, competition among such platforms should create the necessary market incentives to “be nice.”
My only point is that I think the seasteaders are building castles in the air with these custom-built platforms… they first need to show that (more than a tiny number of) people are willing to live and work at sea for very extended periods for time for economic reasons. Using existing art to do this makes more sense to me than reinventing the wheel. Just retrofit a container ship. It might not work but at least if that fails you’ve only sunk a couple million instead of tens of millions into it.
Well, the intent would be to hire the existing security forces to fend off outside invaders (I’d expect that the local thugs/government would show up when they didn’t receive their tax revenue). I don’t see a reason why you couldn’t hire these security forces from the country’s military, augment them with a private security company or two, and use them to defend the property. It’d be kind of like a company poaching employees from another company… except you’d be poaching them from the government.
I know that some might disagree with me on this, but I believe that some level of government and taxation is necessary to ward off foreign invaders and maintain a system of justice. I suppose that I’m a bit of a minarchist, though. It doesn’t have to be expensive; a large group of people could collectivize for a common defense for only a nominal fee.
Ya know… come to think of it, I think that there is value in a declaration of independence… it paints the invading armies as the aggressors. If the government thugs show up with tanks and you attempt to defend yourself, they can easily paint you as extremist guerrillas. However, if you first declare your independence to the world, you may be able to paint yourself as a freedom fighter in the eye of public opinion. The last thing that you want is for the UN to show up and start dropping bombs on you, after all.
I’d say that you’re best off picking a country with really, really terrible leaders and declaring independence. That way, it’s hard for them to paint you as the bad guy.
