Man, that didn’t really work in Kosovo. If you wish for a protracted, genocidal conflict where nothing is spared, than declare independence. There is always room for negotiation in anonymity.
Indonesia is composed of thousands of islands, many not inhabited. Same in the Caribbean. Who knows…if you put enough moola on the table they may consider selling one island with independence…
Why doesn’t the government just leave? The government is the minority after all.
The government doesn’t leave (in both big countries and small) because they have a monopoly on force. They’re able to imprision people who would challenge their authority. Governments act in their own self-interest.
Maybe… they might lease it (à la Hong Kong). I think that governments realize how scarce land is and aren’t likely to give it up, though.
Well, Kosovo & Serbia weren’t in the “really, really poor country” catagory to begin with. I think to make something like that work, you need to (initially) spend much more than the existing government on fortifications and defense. For European countries, that’s pretty much out of the question. Perhaps some islands in the Gambia might fit the bill - seems awful hot there, though.
I wonder about the aformentioned “buy an island from Indonesia” idea. Perhaps they would peacefully sell a group of small islands? I could see a small island or group of islands being an ideal spot for a sort of seasteading project. A platform could be developed, or the sea could be pushed back (like the Neatherlands) to address demand for more land as it arose. Or, heck, you could just build upward like in NYC. Skyscrapers are a practical solution to a lack of land for development.
Perhaps there are some very remote islands which might be purchased… perhaps the UK would give up Tristan da Cunha? Maybe Chile would give up some of the uninhabited/lowly inhabited islands near the Striat of Magellan? Dawson Island? Duke of York Island? The Desventuradas Islands?
I wonder if one might be able to colonize Western Sahara. It would require some pretty intense water desalination plants to build any sort of… well… anything in the uninhabited parts of Western Sahara. But, where there’s a will, there’s a way. Water desalination is an existing technology, after all.
Perhaps it would be possible to find an existing deomcracy on a small island country and emmigrate a large group of libertarian-types (à la the Free State Project). If the existing powers could be deposed, perhaps it would be possible to create a freer society peacefully. Perhaps Tonga (sweet revenge for libertarians, eh)? Grenada? Dominica? Actually… I think that’s the best idea so far. Anybody willing to move to a tropical paradise in the name of a free society? Free Country Project, anyone?
The other option, I suppose, might be to colonize Antarctica. But… who really wants to live in Antarctica?
I must insist that this can only fly with strong backing by a bunch of wealthy men behind. Suppose, for fun, that we have them. What could we advise?
I think public declaration must be avoided like the plague. The community must remain unnoticed for as long as possible. It’s one thing to disperse a community of a hundred people. It’s quite another to disperse a society of a couple tens of thousands.
So, the strategy could be to pick a place, and focus on primary activity (agriculture, fishing, mining, herding) in order to avoid contact with the outside world as much as possible. Isolated locations can be easily found in Indonesia or the Philippines (or the extreme eastern Pacific), and no one will ever know you’re there for years if we play it right. Member could be shuffled from the community to the mainland for a few months (say 3 months on, 3 off) to avoid tedious work.
In time, and with a large enough initial capital influx, economic activity would allow for far higher number of members, and secondary activity could emerge. The idea is to allow the society to grow and evolve on its own, given only the initial influx of NAP-minded folks and capital. I believe this would be the only sustainable method of doing this.
Finally, I myself would advise for Indonesia, as it is likely that the country will break up in the future, giving ample chances at ultimately achieving formal recognition, if this is the final goal. And its far safer than Africa.
…or the coordinated of the backing of many principled people who strongly believe in a free society.
There is no such thing as extra-market co-ordination in any significant numbers.
Sure there is. The Red Cross has an annual budget of around $3.25-billion; people can be very charitable for causes which they believe in. Causes like cancer research, fighting malaria, feeding people, etc. also collect billions of dollars in charitable donations. The X-Prize Foundation’s Ansari X-Prize encouraged the privately funded the development of a spacecraft.
I don’t see any reason why a non-profit organization couldn’t collect donations from liberty-minded folks around the globe to develop a free society.
As I said, after some thought… perhaps moving a large number of liberty-minded people to a small, democratic (island?) country would be the most effective way to foster a free society. A “Free Country Project” if you will…
Hard to belive this after all those quadrillion What if-topics, but I agree with Eugene. It won’t happen fast, but if libertarians make a mass movement into New Hampshire, each family makes some 10+ kids and put their all money on guns, we would have a state which is walking towards liberty. Best thing that would happen is that Seasteding Institue, Mises Institute and other libertarian groups relocate themselves to the New Hampshire.
Maybe that’s an idea - Mises Institue New Hampshire! There is Mises Institutes for many European countries too.
I think it is totally possible, in theory, to buy up some land and try to create a new libertarian society. The real question is why no one has done it yet.
There are supposedly thousands of libertarians in the US yearning to breath free. An entrepreneur with the resources could easily buy a small island invite those opressed masses to live there for a fee. So why are the Koch Brothers and those folks burning cash on libertarian “causes” when they could jump straight to finish line AND earn a hefty profit on the way.
I think the answer is obvious–very few libertarians would actually be willing to uproot themselves and their families just to live in a society with minimalist (or no) government. And No people = No profit.
And I think that is important. It tells me that for all the lip service paid to “freedom”, most American libertarians actually value other things much more highly. They are willing to accept the jackboot of the state (because that is really the only way to describe our monstrous government that would dare tax away YOUR income to pay for schools or health care for the elderly) in return for living in a place where they share a common background and language with millions of other people and earn a pretty swell liviing. Sure, they will complain about taxes on the internet and maybe even vote for libertarian candidates. But actually risk their families’ welfare? Nooooo thanks.
I don’t bring this up to imply libertarians are hypocrits. I bring this up to illustrate that seasteading libertarians (and advocates of similar schemes) GREATLY over estimate the mobility of themselves and their fellow man.
Even if seasteading were to ever get off the ground technologically, it would fail to produce the libertarian paradise it promises. This is because for seasteading to work (and really most anarchistic utopias), people have to be willing to vote with their feet–when the going gets rough, the freedom lovers get going. If, god forbit, seasteaders form EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENTS to the society they live in, that kind of mobility simply wont materialize. And we will wind up with a world not that different from our own.
Something to keep in mind when thinking the only thing standing between you and nirvana is a few acres of land (or a house boat).
Oh yes it’s going to work. Sorry for the sarcasm but do you really think such a thing could play out in the present world?
Let’s say this idea gets off the ground and we manage to get a nice piece of land in Argentina, an island in Indonesia, whatever. People start to arrive and business start to flourish. Everything works smoothly. Let’s even say the rulers of the State you bought land from prove amenable enough and let us get along contenting themselves with a small bribe each year. Fantastic. Money starts flowing in and out at breakneck speed; the place becomes a thriving financial hub in a few years. And then it’s all over. Why?
Two words for you: tax haven. Such a place would become a massive tax haven for all the world. Not only African dictators and rockstars would put their money in our banks but also ordinary people, tired of being robbed blind and seeing their wealth being eroded day by day. At this point you can rest assure a massive media campaign would kick off to prepare the ground for something worse to come: these libertarians have no respect for human rights, they don’t care about Global Warming, perhaps they even dine on children. Rest assured the average schmuck who makes up the bulk of the Western population would take it all in like he’s taking in all the propaganda about China: they are taking our tax money, money which should be used to provide services! It won’t be long before the small country is chocked into submission by the usual methods: sanctions, trade blockades, perhaps even a bombing campaign. The aforemontioned schmuck will rejoice “his” money is coming back home to provide him with “services” and that democracy has won again.
The most wealthy men in the world are usually dependent on the state for the perpetuation of their parasitic wealth. They know that too.
The problem with Seasteading as described in this thread is that it is monumentally expensive. Talking about seasteading of such magnitude is no better than talking about colonizing a new planet – only the state can afford such expeditions.
I am a firm believer that true Libertariania would be primitivistic. Most of our technological advances would no longer be affordable without the state controlling resources. I am comfortable accepting that.
Precisely.
You can be an anarchist by living within the geographical confines of a state.
The definition of statehood is commonly made in terms of geography and physical space. We take that definition for granted and slide our opposition to statehood into our identities as anarchists. However, we can be anarchists while still living in the space of a state. Hobos on the street do that. Gangsters do that.
One of my sons was born at home and we never registered his birth until he was two years old. I wanted to never declare his birth at all but his mother objected. Had we never declared his birth, there would have been an opportunity for him to grow up a free man. Naturally, he would have to confine himself to predominantly black market activities and never avail himself of any state privileges but it would have been a hypothetical possibility. I wager that there are many such people everywhere – we just never hear about them.
I’d assume that the aforementioned libertarian country would require quite a bit of advertisement to bring people in; any anti-libertarian propeganda would have to compete with this positive advertisement. Also, a respectible english speaking & multi-lingual free press would do much to dispel any anti-libertarian propeganda from governments. As long as the internet isn’t censored…
It would go against the country’s interests to impose trade sanctions and the like; it’s unlikely that more than a few countries would do so. Also, I’d assume that any libertarian country would require a defense be put in place (see Minerva)… an island is about the easiest thing to defend.
Why do you think that technological advances require a state? There are tons of examples of companies which invest quite a lot of money in private research. Also, there is a lot of research that is funded through private donations. As was mentioned earlier, SpaceShipOne was an entirely privately funded research venture.
Mind you, I’m a more tradiational libertarian in as such as I believe in a social contract, collective national defense, and a collectivized (albeit local) system of justice. Still, I believe that people can be much more innovative and prosperous without a central planning of government, rather than less. I also believe that there is quite a bit of evidence from which I derive the opinion that freer people tend to be more innovative and prosperous.
I do not think they require a state.
I just think that where we are right now we are dependent on the state to make that technology available. If the state crumbles today, I am confident that access to current technology will be upset. Many people will do without. I am sure things could be returned to where we are but it would just be delivered differently. For one thing, parasitic government employees will not have new smartphones every single year.
In a parallel anarchist universe, the same technology could be delivered – maybe even more advanced and maybe even sooner. However, I believe the distribution of who gets to enjoy it would definitely be different. Poor people will be able to afford compact cars because rich people will not be inflating the money supply diverting resources to buy limousines.
However, I will be honest. As much as I enjoy modern technology, I do not see it all as a good thing for humanity. I believe a lot of state-subsidized technology makes it easier for people to get away with violating the freedoms of others.
That happened in 1776. Look where that got us.
You imply that the history of the United States was all bad. At its inception, the US was the freest country in the world. It was not perfect, mind you, but utopia is not for this world. Even still, enormous amounts of wealth were generated through progress and the free exchange of ideas in the world’s freest society. There’s been no time in history when the lot in life of the average man has been so much improved. Overall, the first 150 years or so of the existance of the United States were quite prosperous.
Even the (smarter of the) founders of the United States realized that such freedom wouldn’t last. Thomas Jefferson recognized that governments would inevitably expand their power and control over the populus.
So, comparing 1776 to today isn’t really a fair assessment. Those in power have been slowly whittling away the power of the individual since the inception of the United States, but some of the most drastic encroachments on freedom came from Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR. If people are not willing to challenge that power when it’s asserted, then liberty is doomed. This is true in any society.
Yeah, but the state always encroaches and grows. That’s why you have to go all out with no state. The best way to do that is to not start out as a state.
Anyways, I am an optimist, and I believe the state will go out with a whimper, not a bang. It will just continue to become less and less important in our lives until nobody really cares anymore. I don’t think there will be a big revolution.
Although I am a capitalist, I don’t buy into this whole anarcho-capitalistic ideal because it is self-defeating. Unfortunately, some kind of government is inevitable. Inevitably someone will break a law or break an ethic in the anarcho-capitalistic society. If, for instance, a private law enforcement company is called to disrupt a fight, yet the person they stop was actually doing what he needed to take revenge on his son’s killer, what happens? Laws will need to be defined and regions will need to be established. What if competing law enforcement companies are called to the same scene and try to administer different kinds of justice? If law will be determined from group to group without mandates and codes to follow, how will anyone officially do anything “illegal” and be prosecuted? Would there be such a thing? Seems to me the anarchy you speak of is closer to chaos, or at least it’s a small step away.
Way too many gray areas many people on here pretend cannot happen, yet life is full of these ethical dilemmas.