What are you prepared to do?

Danno:

Maxliberty:

The issue is that you have to think and provide for yourself. You have to make plans for how you will live and do business in the Colony.

I've no objection to thinking for, and providing for, myself.  Information about where I'm going to be (not necessarily the lat/long, but climate, what crops are viable, what amentities and markets are available locally, what hunting is permissible/available, would be remarkably important.

Food, at subsistance levels, for 60 days - not a bad deal, if you can be assured that 60 days will be enough time to clear land, plant a viable crop, irrigate as needed, and have something to harvest before day 61 comes 'round.  My garden here in Minnesnowta doesn't give me much hope in that direction (don't wanna live on radishes), but I'm not that much of a farmer.  I have, however, heard that the minimum acreage needed for a self-sufficient farm is 20 acres - would I have the opportunity to meet other colonists in advance to set up alliances?  Me, I do handcrafted goodies - mostly luxury goods, but I could switch to practical without much problem.  Transit of tools would, of course be an extra expense - if it's available at all.  However, I'd need to have an idea of what my local market would be - what goodies will sell to the locals, what will the other colonists want that I can provide?  60 days is not a lot of time for evaluating a market, identifying a need, and preparing to fufill that need.  Advance information would be remarkably useful.

I oft use power tools - will I be able to obtain fuel for a generator locally, or would that need to be shipped in - and how expensive/reliable is shipping?  I'll want a roof - what building materials would be available?

Do you have questions and concerns...sure, but they have to be answered by you. You ask me "how our security will ensured?"....my answer is simple you are responsible for your security, I have only offered to provide for a limited time some additional resources in this matter.

I'm fine with providing for my own personal security - but by your contract, I'll be responsible for assisting with the colony's security as well.  What assaults on such security should I expect?  A shotgun is okay for short-range defense against a low-tech assault - will I want to truck in a 30-06 for longer range, or is it jungle, where a 9mm carbine would be more useful?  On a worst-case scenario, will we have a running battle with a local warlord, or a nationalist army determined to repel an invasion, or is petty theft by the locals going to be my primary concern?

I can walk into the wilderness with a pack and survive - but I generally know something about what kind of wilderness I'm going to walk into.  I can take two duffels (and arrange for other shipping) and come up prosperous - but what I put into those duffels will be the result of a lot more knowledge of the conditions I'll be landing in.

Is there any place you are willing to go?

Yup - lots of them.  There are, however, some places I'd just as soon avoid.  I'd contemplate a non-disclosure agreement, with the 2K as surity, to be refunded at the date of transport if I choose to not go - but jumping blind is something I reserve for emergencies, and I'm not quite at emergency status right now.

I have made no restrictions on how you can cooperate with other Colonists or others outside the Colony barring the prohibition of murder and rape.

Ahhh... there'll be laws.   My objection to the ban on abortion (and the implications that go with it) aside,  I see some pretty horrendous problems with the structure of this.   How is the tribunal selected?  (I could easily find 3 people who would find guilty anyone accused of rape, regardless of the evidence - a smart woman could do well using this system for extortion.)  Would extortion be against the rules?  How about theft?  Non-injurious assault?  (By which I mean minimal bruising, nothing needing the services of a medical practitioner.)

For that matter, would medical services be available?  You may want to waive the 2K fee to have a trained medical professional on hand.

Back to the legal system - this could be quite an opportunity for a gang of bullies who knew how to stay just this side of the laws.  For that matter, what guarantees do the colonists have that the mandantorily-contracted security force would not be such bullies?  I know that police forces rarely become corrupt, but it has been known to happen - what recourse would the colonists have in such a case?

You're asking for an awful lot of faith from people who don't know you, and giving very little information to them.

An intriguing idea - I'd love to see something like this done on a basis that'd be easier to trust.

Danno

    Thanks for the response Danno and to all of the others as well. I know some of you have shown a desire to make me the enemy and I think some of you regardless of the opportunity for freedom will choose tyranny rather than risk change. However, I am interested in the success of freedom. I have listened to your concerns about the intitial proposal of the Liberty Colony and I believe that there should be some changes. I will be incorporating some of these changes which I think will address most of the issues raised here in this discussion. So stay tuned and I will launch a new thread about this with the changes in the Liberty Colony in the next few days. Thanks again.

 

Max

Libertycolony is something of an oxymoron, I am afraid.  Here are two definitions of "Colony" in Dictionary.com:

• "any people or territory separated from but subject to a ruling power"
• "a group of people who leave their native country to form in a new land a settlement subject to, or connected with, the parent nation"

I am also afraid to say that the early US colonies were anything but havens of liberty.  As is documented in Murray Rothbard's "Conceived in Liberty" the Pilgrim Fathers ran a totalitarian and communist settlement which almost starved to death. 

The big question is how do you intend to move into one of the territoritories you list?  Somebody in those locals thinks they own that land already, and as someone has already mentioned on these forums, such a move would be regarded as an invasion.  If you are not invading but intend to purchase land there, why do you think you will be able to define your own rules?  You will have to abide by theirs. 

Your website has comments like, "each person will be given 5 acres of land".  Who will give?  That already smacks of paternalism which most libitarians would reject.  It also smacks of the uniformity of communism.  A tenth of an acre may be sufficient for one person, and 50,000 for another.  It depends on what they are doing and what their set of subjective values are.

The website makes much of your military background.  Whilst that shows you are likely to have certain qualities, one has to wonder if they are the right ones for individual liberty.  To many of us, the military is just another an apparatus of the State, and the State is what we are against. 

Anyway, I wish you well and will follow your progress with interest.

With kind regards

Remnant.

 

I think if you guys went to form a colony in the USA, you may only have to pay income taxes for stuff you trade with the outside. You should be able to get an exemption like the Amish and some other commune groups. It just needs to be someplace somewhat remote.

BlackSheep:

I think if you guys went to form a colony in the USA, you may only have to pay income taxes for stuff you trade with the outside. You should be able to get an exemption like the Amish and some other commune groups. It just needs to be someplace somewhat remote.

 

The goal is to create a free society not just avoid paying some taxes. We seek true freedom not simply to live remotely with a little less interference.

The changes you've made to the plan are interesting. Which places on the list do you think show the least potential for a violent confrontation? Let's face it, a lot of these places would have no trouble massacring 200 well armed libertarians. Even third world, barely functioning governments have enough of an army for that. I'm also curios, which one of these places was your original planned destination?

majevska:

The changes you've made to the plan are interesting. Which places on the list do you think show the least potential for a violent confrontation?

Most of them seem to be in Africa. This continent has very controlling governments, and a plethora of rebelds looking to be in charge of the big government. There is not even freedom of movement, much less any economics ones. You'll rapidly get your property confiscated there. Here in Portugal, our constitution asks for a socialist state, but that language is nothing when compared to the ones in Africa, especially former Portuguese ones, who proudly display socialist symbols in their flags. Angola in the top of the list could only be there to provoke some laughter.

South America is the land of freedom in comparison. Anyway, some indicator that is lacking is the population density, which can give a first idea of how much isolated such a colony could be. If possible, try to discount protected parks from the available land -- bodies like the UN subsidise its protection so those are out of reach if you have any love for your life.

If you don't want to have it on the USA, Mexico seems like the next best place. Not so poor as the rest of the Americas and Africa, so you don't have to be afraid of some mob invading the place, and you don't have the same dangerous guerrilas types. You should be able to buy any technology you need, and the government's size is in par to a western one. Any oppresion you may suffer will be mild, and you'll be able to cry for help from the USA. Many people tend to think of Africa as close to anarchy because of the chaos there, but their governments are the biggest and most powerful you can find anywhere in the world. That's why you have chronic wars there, everyone wants to lead the loot.

BlackSheep:

Most of them seem to be in Africa. This continent has very controlling governments, and a plethora of rebelds looking to be in charge of the big government. There is not even freedom of movement, much less any economics ones. You'll rapidly get your property confiscated there. Here in Portugal, our constitution asks for a socialist state, but that language is nothing when compared to the ones in Africa, especially former Portuguese ones, who proudly display socialist symbols in their flags. Angola in the top of the list could only be there to provoke some laughter.

Most of the governments try to be controlling, but they fail due to inefficiencies. Risk to property is only high, if you are having/showing to much of it and you are not paying someone who is connected. "Socialism" basically means that the inner government circles try to get a hold on the countries resources. There is however the fact that most economic activities take place on the informal markets.

BlackSheep:

South America is the land of freedom in comparison. Anyway, some indicator that is lacking is the population density, which can give a first idea of how much isolated such a colony could be. If possible, try to discount protected parks from the available land -- bodies like the UN subsidise its protection so those are out of reach if you have any love for your life.

You have vast portions in Africa that are sparsely populated, but there maybe good reasons for them as well like the absence of rain and rivers.Where there is lots of water Malaria and other diseases may become a problem. From the Portuguese countries Angola is more corrupt then i.e. Mozambique. Angola has got huge oil reserves, while the higher rainfall makes Mozambique more suitable for agriculture.  Botswana seems to be the best place to invest in at the moment. They've got a low tariff and are more stable and prosperous then most other African states. Namibia is also nice, but I expect that SWAPO can cause problems as soon as an opportunity arises.

BlackSheep:

If you don't want to have it on the USA, Mexico seems like the next best place. Not so poor as the rest of the Americas and Africa, so you don't have to be afraid of some mob invading the place, and you don't have the same dangerous guerrilas types. You should be able to buy any technology you need, and the government's size is in par to a western one. Any oppresion you may suffer will be mild, and you'll be able to cry for help from the USA. Many people tend to think of Africa as close to anarchy because of the chaos there, but their governments are the biggest and most powerful you can find anywhere in the world. That's why you have chronic wars there, everyone wants to lead the loot.

... African governments try playing the strong man, while in fact they usually aren't. What you'd need to find is coming to an agreement with one of them over land and getting hold of means to protect that agreement.

 

majevska:

The changes you've made to the plan are interesting. Which places on the list do you think show the least potential for a violent confrontation? Let's face it, a lot of these places would have no trouble massacring 200 well armed libertarians. Even third world, barely functioning governments have enough of an army for that. I'm also curios, which one of these places was your original planned destination?

Thanks for the comments. The places on the list were selected primarily for weak central governments and large informal economies with relatively large proportions of the population very poor. Most of the places have abundant undeveloped land available. I hope you will join in the forums and be willing to participate in the selection process. The point now is to have at least 200 people willing to participate in the process and I welcome spirited debate on the advantages and disadvantages of each potential location.  

BlackSheep:

Most of them seem to be in Africa. This continent has very controlling governments, and a plethora of rebelds looking to be in charge of the big government. There is not even freedom of movement, much less any economics ones. You'll rapidly get your property confiscated there.

I have to disagree with your assessment of Africa as a poor choice. The possible locations in Africa generally have weak central governments and plenty of available land. Your welcome to join the discussions in the forums at the Liberty Colony.

Mexico has a very powerful centralized government and I think is a poor choice for a variety of reasons.

 

Maxliberty:

I have to disagree with your assessment of Africa as a poor choice. The possible locations in Africa generally have weak central governments and plenty of available land. Your welcome to join the discussions in the forums at the Liberty Colony.

Africa is a good choice given the development potential and trade with usually neglected markets.

... The biggest obstacle you maybe facing is the usage of the term Liberty Colony. This may create an association with "colonialism" and lead to resentment to the project at all. And I assume that one wants to establish the project with the approval of those who right now have a political claim to the land the project is established on. I would look upon good relations with neighbours as being crucial. If they turn sour this limits trade relations with them.

What one would aim for is something like a free trade zone - Just that the inititative is more of a private nature. For claiming some land one would have to offer something of value to the present decision makers. So in a sense even corruption would be useful. The second problem would be to get them to comply with the agreement. After solving this one would have to work on the implementation.

Torsten:

Maxliberty:

I have to disagree with your assessment of Africa as a poor choice. The possible locations in Africa generally have weak central governments and plenty of available land. Your welcome to join the discussions in the forums at the Liberty Colony.

Africa is a good choice given the development potential and trade with usually neglected markets.

... The biggest obstacle you maybe facing is the usage of the term Liberty Colony. This may create an association with "colonialism" and lead to resentment to the project at all. And I assume that one wants to establish the project with the approval of those who right now have a political claim to the land the project is established on. I would look upon good relations with neighbours as being crucial. If they turn sour this limits trade relations with them.

What one would aim for is something like a free trade zone - Just that the inititative is more of a private nature. For claiming some land one would have to offer something of value to the present decision makers. So in a sense even corruption would be useful. The second problem would be to get them to comply with the agreement. After solving this one would have to work on the implementation.

I understand the term Colony might have some negative impact but there is nothing to say that once we have established the Colony that it needs to be called that. As far as establishing the Colony with the approval of the existing government of the proposed location...well that would be counter to the basic idea of freedom. The key is for the Colony to maintain a low profile and be able to defend itself from local bandits. I envision the Colony will not be any place that we would expect any kind of presence from whatever weak central government may exist in the area. The Colony will use undeveloped land so there is no need for someone's approval. We must not be afraid to seek what we desire and to sell our goal short of true freedom would be a mistake.

Maxliberty:

I understand the term Colony might have some negative impact...

Check out Liberia as they are a 'colony' of freed American slaves.

Then you can call it Colonia Liberia and not have to change your website's URL.

Actually, after reading the wikipedia entry it really doesn't sound like too bad of a place to live these days.

Anonymous Coward:

Maxliberty:

I understand the term Colony might have some negative impact...

Check out Liberia as they are a 'colony' of freed American slaves.

Then you can call it Colonia Liberia and not have to change your website's URL.

Actually, after reading the wikipedia entry it really doesn't sound like too bad of a place to live these days.

The interesting thing is, they seem to have a sort of polycentric law: one system for the "modern sector" and another for the indigenous rural tribes.