Hello guys,
So I've read my Rothbard and my Minerva and now I'm faced with the following question: how do we build our own Minerva? I don't believe in turning a state libertarian from the inside out. I'd rather take the Minerva-route, buy some land and found my own country. I think seasteading is cool, but I really like land.
I'm sure many people here are interested in this also. Are there any projects going on at the moment? If not, why don't we start our own? Building a country takes lots of people, money, time and effort. I'm convinced that it can be done, though, even if it takes a few years or decades.
Who here's interested in joining up for a project group of some sort? Since it's a very complicated topic and different people have different pieces of knowledge needed to make this work, there needs to be a boatload of thinking, brainstorming and discussion going on. For starters we can discuss in this thread, maybe later get our own project site somewhere. This is pre-pre-0.1-Alpha stage (at least for me), but we've got to start sometime.
Topics which I think are important (feel free to add anything I forgot and comment on anything I got wrong):
- Where will Rothbardia be?
I'm thinking Africa, coast. Africa because there's a lot of weak governments. If we do this in Langley, they'll shoot us down in no time. In Africa, many people don't give a shit about their government and might join us. Many governments there are just warlords. We'll definitely be attacked by these warlords, but they're easier to defend against than the US.
Why not an island? In the beginning an island might be of advantage due to the isolation. But when this thing really goes off, the isolation will be our biggest problem! There will be lack of space, transportation and immigration. Also, islands in the Pacific get hurricaned all the time.
- Will it even be called Rothbardia?
This is just my name for it. Call it what you want, so long as we make it work.
- How will we get the land?
I'm thinking buying from the owners, not the government. Unless the government IS the owner, in which case we'll buy from them. I don't think "buying sovereignty" is the right start. We don't accept authority of meta-beings like states. We respect the ownership of the land by the natives of the area.
Another point for Africa: I'm guessing many people will be happy to sell their land for a)little money or b)promise of future goods. We could just give them a house when we're done. Raising the standard of living is in anyones interest, and in many African areas it might be as easy as providing water.
- How will we get the money?
Yea, this is a good one. Of course we'll have to be filthy rich to get this started. But a few hundred dedicated people should be able to do this. Right? Maybe we'll get investors.
IF this takes off, we'll have huge industry in no time. If only for tax purposes.
- How will we purchase the land?
In Minerva, a huge company is formed which then buys the land, sub-contracting it to all the residents. We could either do it that way or buy our shares individually. It shouldn't be more expensive than buying land anywhere else on the planet. Probably cheaper in the beginning.
- Public Relations
I think it's important to be open about this. There shouldn't be any chance of "Rich Right-Wingers Exploit African Natives" spin. This could easily be done with a few semi-dedicated journalist types and a website. If everyone can see we're friendly, non-criminal people and actually RAISE the standard of living in these areas, nobody has any reasons to condemn us. This could be a war-preventer, in my opinion. We don't want the american public to feel we're a threat to freedom or anything.
- Immigration Policy
Immigration is practically non-existent in a private country, as I understand it. If you're "in", it's because you OWN or RENT the part you're in. There is no problem with immigration, because immigrants won't be "taking our jobs" or "siphoning our social systems empty". If they get in, it's because they paid for it.
In fact immigration will be of great advantage in this system, because each immigrant will mean more productive work. People can work in Rothbardia and rent a house or apartment. Many of the locals might do this, as it's probably more lucrative for them than farming for rice or what they did before.
I also think Rothbardia should be open about joining it. Everyone who owns land can join Rothbardia. This way, our country would spread like a virus. A good virus! If our neighbors see the advantages of living in Rothbardia, they can just join up and the country grows organically. This doesn't even have to be local neighbors, it could be people around the world. But those would probably rather found their own country after our example.
- Law
I'm not very knowledgeable in this category, but I'm sure many of you are.
It's mostly IP I'm concerned about. If we do non-IP (which is the libertarian thing to do, isn't it?), will major corporations even join our country? Right now most companies are freaking out about outsourcing to China, because they don't respect IP properly. If we openly declare that IP is worthless in our country, will companies not be afraid to even sell their products to us?
- Defense
I see three main defense scenarios.
1)Random thugs and raiders
This shouldn't be too hard if we bring some rednecks with guns.
2)Warlords
Depending on the area, this might be hard. They'd probably just kill and loot everyone. It would be easy diplomacy-wise, because it's clear we're the victims. The fight would be hard. Some african countries have less than 1 million residents, some have 150 millions. We'd have to find a region that is not too badly struck by warlordery.
3)Western countries
Some western countries might feel threatened by us or declare we're violating some UN resolutions. Some of the european tax havens have been "economically attacked" because they didn't release information about their bank customers! And the US has attacked countries for less than that.
This would be a VERY hard battle, but I think it could be very dependent on diplomacy. If people get the impression we're a bunch of armed thugs taking advantage of poor people, we'll get attacked immediately. If we instead are able to project the truth, by being open and inviting journalists etc., we might prevent such an attack. It's more difficult for a democratic government to attack a bunch of nice people that do nothing but help the local economy.
That's just the stuff going through my brain right now. Let's make this more than just a book we all like (Minerva). Let's try to do it for real. It's a long way, but this might be the first step.
Also: please don't reply to tell me this is a stupid idea or why Anarcho-Capitalism is flawed. Constructive criticism is very much wanted, but no "your idea is shit!" stuff. If I made major mistakes or forgot major points, just join the discussion. It's going to be our country, so we should all discuss it.
We just all have to agree that we won't kill each other over adam.
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
Yea I've played through the game twice (if you kill even a single Little Sister you don't get the good ending).
It's a good point actually. Should there be something like a constitution? I think the NAP should be anchored somehow. The constitution could look something like this:
1.Nobody can rule over another person's body (except punishment, see 4.)2.Nobody can rule over another person's property3.Everybody has the same rights. There is no entity like a state that has more rights than other people4.If one of the rules is broken (e.g. someone is aggressed against), he can sue the offender at a court of his choice. The sued can choose to appeal the decision at a court of his choice. If the two courts disagree, they have to find a third court to rule the final decision. If a person is found guilty by two courts, he can be aggressed against in order to reclaim the value stolen/designated as punishment. This can be done by either the person he offended or someone this person designates to do so.
(this is Rothbards system)
Is it wise to implement such a system in a constitution? Or would no constitution at all be better?
There is no Rothbardia, or if there is, it is wherever the Rothbardians choose to go.
You are still trapped in the state system of territoriality. That is limiting yourself to a very narrow kind of freedom.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
Who would see that this constitution was adhered to? What if the courts don't follow the rules? Will the other courts stop doing business with them? Why? If your answer is that consumers will favor courts that adhere to the constitution, you're making a conjecture about the people in the society. That conjecture may be true because all the people initially invited to participate may agree with the constitution. But unless immigration is restricted (by what libertarian principle?), people of any and all political positions may move in, and then what would keep consumers favoring the constitution?
Think outside the monopoly paradigm. Net-based microsecession | Why anarchy hasn't worked
@stranger:
I can only found my own country on land I own. So I necessarily HAVE to be bound by territory.
@AJ:
Good point. I hadn't thought about that. So do you think a constitution would be useless? It might still inspire people, even if no one enforced it. For immigration see my first post (basically not restricted if they can pay their land/rent).
Bleicke: I can only found my own country on land I own. So I necessarily HAVE to be bound by territory.
Why do you want to found a country?
Mostly to live in a free society. Also I think it's very cool.
Bleicke: Mostly to live in a free society. Also I think it's very cool.
That's the point I want to raise. You do not need a country to live in a free society. You just need a gang.
I disagree. You need a land to live on that you own and that nobody else (states) has sovereignty over. You need people too, sure. If you don't like the term country, just call it a land with people on it.
Anyway, what's your point? That you prefer secession? Then call it a secession of a gang on a coast in Africa. By secession you create a new country. It's just a different term.
You might not need as much land as an entire country. Maybe you only need as much land as to form an enclave in a state with wobbly sovereignty. Maybe it's even just an enclave within an existing city. Maybe there are multiple enclaves of yours within a single city. And maybe Rothbardians move from one city to another, setting up more enclaves within which freedom reigns. And this network of enclaves is their country.
Bleicke: Welcome to Mises!
Good ideas. I like where you're going with this.
Before we move to Africa though, maybe you should move over to my neighborhood. We could buy up all the houses on my street. Then we could hire a private security company to back us up, maybe create a newsletter to communicate our peaceful intentions to others in the area, and when we are ready... Declare our secession and see what happens.
this thread brings up a good point. all i would take to solve our government woes is for the USG to actually respect private property. Where government laws only apply on government's land.Viva competition among legislators!
"It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit and the emperor remains an emperor." ~Dream
Land is easy. Security and logistics are the real challenges.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
MatthewF: Declare our secession and see what happens.
@Stranger:
I think this is purely a naming difference. What is the minimum amount of land until it's a "country"? I think this is totally arbitrary. I just call a bunch of land without foreign sovereignty a "country". You might call it an enclave. It might be distributed, like the enclave nations in Snow Crash/Diamond Age. Maybe it won't. That's what I meant with "anybody can join, even if they're not our adjacent neighbors".
@MatthewF:
Where is your neighborhood? My problem with just forming an enclave in an existing (western) state is: they'll just shoot us down as tax protestors/criminals. Like they did with Ed Brown or at Waco. If we do this, we'll have to be able to withstand any attacks. And we won't be able to withstand the US Military, at least not in the first 10 years ;-)
If we move to a place where the government has less power, we might be able to make it. What you suggest sounds a lot like the Free State Project, and I think that approach won't work as well. Also founding your own country is so much more badass.
@liberty student:
Could you elaborate? I posted my ideas on security in the 1st post. I know nothing of logistics. Maybe you could help defining the problems, and we can think about it!
Bleicke:I know nothing of logistics. Maybe you could help defining the problems, and we can think about it!
Food, water, electricity, trade, communications.
There are massive costs to reconstruct everything available outside the enclave, within the enclave. The most reasonable solution, is to establish supply chains. This means individuals, companies and governments, willing to trade with, and supply a secessionist group, against the wishes of the territory they are seceding against, or the larger global statist power structure. Let's face it, the UN doesn't support individual secession. In fact, it is likely to directly oppose it. I find it highly unlikely that large corporations would also approve of free people detaching themselves from the coercive structure of the state.
I don't think any company will be opposed to trading with us. We're not approaching them and saying "Hey we're about to be free you want to help us out of good will?", we're saying "Here's a bunch of money if you deliver X".
The UN is exactly why I don't want to secede (?) in a western country. They're going to fuck us royally and pretend we're the offenders. If we're not in their territory, they are the attackers, and they'll have to find a cause.
Bleicke:Where is your neighborhood?
I live in Oregon. It's a F'ing great place to live.
Bleicke:My problem with just forming an enclave in an existing (western) state is: they'll just shoot us down as tax protestors/criminals. Like they did with Ed Brown or at Waco.
I think these are good examples of why it would be a mistake to be "separate" from the surrounding community. Remaining intertwined with the economic and physical surrounding areas could be a key to preventing all out warfare with the state.
Bleicke:If we do this, we'll have to be able to withstand any attacks. And we won't be able to withstand the US Military, at least not in the first 10 years ;-)
There are guerrilla tactics to keep in mind. It would seem that it would be in the best interests of any secessionist movement to avoid any direct conflict with the US military. The question I have is how popular would your movement have to be to keep them from attacking you in the first place?
I believe that Oregan is a great place. But if you don't separate from the state, you're not going to live in a free society. At max your stealthily avoiding some of the states coercion under its radar.
My plan for avoiding conflict with the US Military is to not secede from the US, but found/secede somewhere the US don't care about. Like some deserted place on the coast of Africa.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap