Together, can we buy a small country?

[TheTexan]

Just as the slaves in the old days bought their own freedom, can we?

Together, raising funds from liberty seekers across the world, can we raise enough capital to buy a small country?

Could do it similar to a kickstarter type thing. The money would only charged when the deal to buy a country has been struck. And then the people who gave money to the cause would then have shares in the country.

There are plenty of countries with financial difficulties that would probably soon like to sell parts of their country. We would be buying our sovereignty.

The only complexity is that people live in this country we seek to buy. Would we have to buy them out too, or could we treat them as renting tenants and charge property taxes (similar to how they are now...)?

[willwash]

http://www.seasteading.org/?gclid=CKacrqPV-LYCFUdU4AodOWQAEA

These folks have a similar idea, but rather than buying up existing countries they are looking to start all new ones on floating cities. They're looking for investors now. Same concept applies, and I won't say it's unsound.

[TheTexan]

http://www.seasteading.org/?gclid=CKacrqPV-LYCFUdU4AodOWQAEA

These folks have a similar idea, but rather than buying up existing countries they are looking to start all new ones on floating cities. They're looking for investors now. Same concept applies, and I won't say it's unsound.

Two problems with seasteading. The first is that it's economically ridiculously inefficient... and the other problem is that you won't necessarily be recognized as a sovereign country.

There is on the other hand a long long history of sovereignty changing hands through large purchases of lands from existing sovereign states.

If you buy your sovereignty from a country that is itself recognized as sovereign, you're good to go. Seasteading is much more iffy, because countries in many cases claim to own the seas (which I know is ridiculous, but it is what it is)

[fr33]

I'd be interested in what types of property would even work. An island is the first thing that comes to mind.

Actually the first thing that came to mind was how quickly an invading army would show up after we bought it; especially if it borders another country.

[TheTexan]

I'd be interested in what types of property would even work. An island is the first thing that comes to mind.

Actually the first thing that came to mind was how quickly an invading army would show up after we bought it; especially if it borders another country.

I'd like to see how quickly it was invaded if it had the highest rate of gun ownership in the world. Switzerland is a small country with a relatively small military. It's still here.

[FrankRep]

1.) Good luck finding an uninhabited island.
2.) Watch out for Pirates!

[fr33]

1.) Good luck finding an uninhabited island.
2.) Watch out for Pirates!

We be the pirates matey.

[heavenlyboy34]

Let's us have ourselves a moneybomb and buy Texas. :D :cool: La secessione for Tejanos! (okay, I don't speak Espanol, but you know what I mean)

[TheTexan]

Anyone have any moral qualms with this sort of deal? Or see any other problems with it?

We approach a country to buy a large parcel of land X, and tell them our intent is to move there and live there as a sovereign people. This deal would be voted on by the people of X, and in exchange for allowing us to purchase our sovereignty, we will allow the current inhabitants to maintain their current local system of representation and politics. According to their own representation, they will still vote for their elected officials. Those elected officials will still collect taxes. There will still be public schools, police, and so forth.

The only difference is that these people will then be allowed to purchase, from us, allodial title for their land. In effect, we would allow them to purchase their own individual sovereignty, but it would probably be a good idea to avoid putting it in those terms, at least initially. They just wouldn't pay taxes, and wouldn't be subject to laws on their own land.

This money would then be given to the shareholders (us) which we could use to purchase land in voluntary transactions with the people of X.

I think this approach solves many problems, from the financial angle of it, and the moral angle of it.

[SkepticalMetal]

Why would you be interested in being recognized as a sovereign country? I'm assuming we are talking minarchism here.

[TheTexan]

Why would you be interested in being recognized as a sovereign country? I'm assuming we are talking minarchism here.

The reason why it's important to be recognized as a sovereign country (rather than just claiming sovereignty and not being recognized) is that this provides legitimacy in the eyes of the world. Without being perceived as legitimate, any new country does not stand a chance. It would be invaded, in a "humanitarian effort" to save the people against the invaders (us).

Recognized sovereignty also grants us some protection against foreign intervention. Of course, there are limits to that. If we were to be granted sovereignty in Texas, the US would probably get all pissy about us not enforcing the drug war and letting drugs across the border and raise a fit with the UN and do all kinds of sanctions and shit against us. So it wouldn't be perfect.

Ideally I'd like to be recognized as sovereign individuals, but I don't think the people of the world are ready for that just yet. One step at a time.

[SkepticalMetal]

I agree. It is a step in the right direction - decentralization is always good, even if there is still a state (or states) involved. As long as there is more resistance against the appalling notion of a world government.

[TheGrinch]

I call dictator. No take-back-sies :p

[Christian Liberty]

Hey question about the seas, I recognize that states owning oceans (Or even anything else... I guess I'd personally make an exception for military bases on our own soil, police stations, and courtrooms, but not the ocean) is ridiculous, but shouldn't oceans be able to be homesteaded just like any other land?

[FrankRep]

Hey question about the seas, I recognize that states owning oceans (Or even anything else... I guess I'd personally make an exception for military bases on our own soil, police stations, and courtrooms, but not the ocean) is ridiculous, but shouldn't oceans be able to be homesteaded just like any other land?
No one owns the Oceans, they're international waters.

The United Nations would like to own the Oceans, however.

Law of the Sea Treaty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea

[TheTexan]

Hey question about the seas, I recognize that states owning oceans (Or even anything else... I guess I'd personally make an exception for military bases on our own soil, police stations, and courtrooms, but not the ocean) is ridiculous, but shouldn't oceans be able to be homesteaded just like any other land?

Sure, I don't see any reason why not

[Christian Liberty]

I call dictator. No take-back-sies :p

Honestly if we're going to have a government I don't necessarily have a problem with you being dictator, if we can trust you to stick with your libertarian principles.

Since we do have to come up with some actual system to rule in addition to our constitution that would limit government to police, courts, and defense, we should probably have multiple leaders who are not subject to public vote but have to unanimously agree to do anything.

How do we deal with non-libertarians who try to destroy our society? If its only a tiny country the prospect of deporting those who hate what we stand for and actively try to subvert it might be a necessary evil, even though I don't like it.

[TheTexan]

No one owns the Oceans, they're international waters.

The United Nations would like to own the Oceans, however.

Law of the Sea Treaty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea

Right, that just means that the sea is basically "Communal property" of all the sovereign countries. In other words, we could never claim ownership or sovereignty on any part of the sea.

[osan]

Just as the slaves in the old days bought their own freedom, can we?

Together, raising funds from liberty seekers across the world, can we raise enough capital to buy a small country?

Could do it similar to a kickstarter type thing. The money would only charged when the deal to buy a country has been struck. And then the people who gave money to the cause would then have shares in the country.

There are plenty of countries with financial difficulties that would probably soon like to sell parts of their country. We would be buying our sovereignty.

The only complexity is that people live in this country we seek to buy. Would we have to buy them out too, or could we treat them as renting tenants and charge property taxes (similar to how they are now...)?

Never happen. Surely a group could do such a thing, but in time Theye would come a calling. With guns. Lots of guns. On the globalist platform there is NO room for freedom defined differently from Theires. Of course, this assumes Theye are ultimately victorious, which is not quite a forgone conclusion even with things as bad as they appear to be.

Give it a whirl, but your notion that nations would sell part of their territories is not likely to come to pass. That constitutes concession of power and "leaders" never do that save by brute force. Consider the wreckage of places like Ireland and Greece. Economic shit-holes populated by welfare sucking scumbags who are only motivated to move their stupid fat asses off the couch when the government tells them the party is over. Then they are in the streets ready to burn the nation to the waterline if they don't get their way. Even those stink holes would sooner see their own destruction than concede territory. And what of the indigenous people already living in the areas of interest? Kick them out? I'm all for it, but methinks they may have other ideas about that.

I would also point out once again that the globalists would be up your six in so many ways that capitulation or warfare would seem to me to be the only two possible outcomes. Imagine you bought, say, Sardinia or Corfu, managed to get sovereignty conceded to you, kicked all the people off and put your own on. Ignore the fact that the UN would be all over you and troops would land on your shores. By some miracle you pulled it off and call if Freedonia (work with me here). Now what? You have established nation based in perfect freedom, NAP and so on. You have perfect people... no lazy shits, no welfare, and so on. Great. Now, what do you think Theye will think of this? Theye will not be your friends, so when someone opens a manufacturing facility and starts banging down huge quarterlies all of a sudden the "international community" becomes concerned about the "environment". What about Freedonia paying its "fair share"? Unless your little nation is armed to the teeth, possibly with nukes and delivery systems that cannot be scotched by outside interference, you are going to be running a perpetual gauntlet of globalist obstacles and threats. The freer and more prosperous and successful you are, the louder will their shrieking be against you because you are showing Themme up for the fops and douchebags that they are and that simply cannot be tolerated. Put yourself into Theire shoes and you will see that what I say makes perfect sense.

The only chance this would really have would be to acquire a Pacific island, methinks, and keep a VERY low profile and be very heavily armed. The next question is where will the money come from to secure such armaments, especially if all the manufacturers' balls are in Theire hands? Start your own arms industry? Excellent idea, only I would bet money I do not have that all of a sudden you would be painted as producing weapons of mass destruction and here come the troops.

Freedom is in a truly precarious position on this planet. We have allowed things to degenerate too far. To put it very bluntly, we should have butchered Themme and Theire children several generations ago but did not. Now Theye own everything and are clearly prepping to drop the other shoe before much longer.

I like your idea and have thought of it myself more than once in the past. I just do not think such a move would be tolerated.

[Christian Liberty]

I also suspect privately owned oceans would be a lot more efficient than what we have. Right now its impossible to farm fish in saltwater and whatnot.

[Christian Liberty]

I'm more thinking of this as a nice theoretical than a practical reality at this point, but I am interested in how it could work.


Freedom is in a truly precarious position on this planet. We have allowed things to degenerate too far. To put it very bluntly, we should have butchered Themme and Theire children several generations ago but did not. Now Theye own everything and are clearly prepping to drop the other shoe before much longer.

I don't know who "Themme" is but you can't just kill their children. They are still presumed to be innocent.

Anarcho-capitalism isn't going to work. We need a minarchist society with a STRONG DEFENSE (Both words capitalized for a reason, and no GOP BS definitions for either one.)

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Two problems with seasteading. The first is that it's economically ridiculously inefficient... and the other problem is that you won't necessarily be recognized as a sovereign country.

There is on the other hand a long long history of sovereignty changing hands through large purchases of lands from existing sovereign states.

If you buy your sovereignty from a country that is itself recognized as sovereign, you're good to go. Seasteading is much more iffy, because countries in many cases claim to own the seas (which I know is ridiculous, but it is what it is)

Just because you aren't recognized as a country by the UN doesn't mean you aren't a country.

[FrankRep]

In order to get a country for yourself, you may need to conquer one.

Sealand is the only "country" I see for sale.

[FrankRep]

Just because you aren't recognized as a country by the UN doesn't mean you aren't a country.
No other countries will respect or want to trade with you if you're not considered a country.

[TheTexan]

I would also point out once again that the globalists would be up your six in so many ways that capitulation or warfare would seem to me to be the only two possible outcomes. Imagine you bought, say, Sardinia or Corfu, managed to get sovereignty conceded to you, kicked all the people off and put your own on. Ignore the fact that the UN would be all over you and troops would land on your shores. By some miracle you pulled it off and call if Freedonia (work with me here). Now what? You have established nation based in perfect freedom, NAP and so on. You have perfect people... no lazy shits, no welfare, and so on. Great. Now, what do you think Theye will think of this? Theye will not be your friends, so when someone opens a manufacturing facility and starts banging down huge quarterlies all of a sudden the "international community" becomes concerned about the "environment". What about Freedonia paying its "fair share"? Unless your little nation is armed to the teeth, possibly with nukes and delivery systems that cannot be scotched by outside interference, you are going to be running a perpetual gauntlet of globalist obstacles and threats. The freer and more prosperous and successful you are, the louder will their shrieking be against you because you are showing Themme up for the fops and douchebags that they are and that simply cannot be tolerated. Put yourself into Theire shoes and you will see that what I say makes perfect sense.

I don't necessarily disagree, but this applies to any freedom anywhere. Not just my idea.

If you are correct - and you might be - then should we not even try to gain freedom?

[SkepticalMetal]

I think that if this country were to come about, it should be privatized to the point where we do, essentially, achieve a stateless society. True, it might not last long, but all we really need for a mass realization of the truth is to set an example - just let people see that the state has been exploiting them since the dawn of man.

[James Madison]

http://www.landwatch.com/Chile-Land-for-sale/pid/130003071

Thoughts?

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

In order to get a country for yourself, you may need to conquer one.

Sealand is the only "country" I see for sale.

Manifest destiny. Let's liberate sealand from itself :D

[TheTexan]

http://www.landwatch.com/Chile-Land-for-sale/pid/130003071

Thoughts?

16,000 acres is 25 square miles. We would be the 6th smallest country. Liechtenstein, for reference is about 60 square miles.

It could definitely work. Especially if the land is arable, and there are good natural resources to build homes.

It would be $12,000,000 plus the cost of sovereignty from Chile (which I imagine would be much more expensive)

[gwax23]

That chilean island looks pretty.

[Keith and stuff]

No one owns the Oceans, they're international waters.

The United Nations would like to own the Oceans, however.

Law of the Sea Treaty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea
The US government thinks it owns all ocean waters. You may try to stop it but you will be destroyed. The US didn't sign the UN treaty.

[Christian Liberty]

I think that if this country were to come about, it should be privatized to the point where we do, essentially, achieve a stateless society. True, it might not last long, but all we really need for a mass realization of the truth is to set an example - just let people see that the state has been exploiting them since the dawn of man.

Assuming nobody tried to kill us (Big assumption, even though its technically a violation of the NAP I'd honestly propose having our nation have a nuclear weapon on hand ASAP as blackmail*) anarcho-capitalism could probably work at that small scale, especially with everyone being fundamentally libertarian. Not so in the bigger world with a mix of libertarians and others.

*I agree that the use of nuclear weapons is a violation of the NAP, and owning one is a threat. Even still, if I were the President of a tiny, free country like that, and somebody dared to actually invade my country without provocation, after due warning I would seriously consider shooting at the capital of said country and then accepting the death penalty I rightfully deserved for killing another innocent people. If we had a second one, that would show them we weren't messing around.


'











OK, this post is a showing of my darkest of dark sides. I don't actually believe this is right. I do admit that's probably what I would try to secure liberty for my new country.

[FrankRep]

http://www.landwatch.com/Chile-Land-for-sale/pid/130003071

Thoughts?

Wouldn't the island be under Chilean rule?

[James Madison]

16,000 acres is 25 square miles. We would be the 6th smallest country. Liechtenstein, for reference is about 60 square miles.

It could definitely work. Especially if the land is arable, and there are good natural resources to build homes.

It would be $12,000,000 plus the cost of sovereignty from Chile (which I imagine would be much more expensive)

You could have an entire economy run off of tourism alone.

I wouldn't mind being part of Chile. Perhaps we could be to them what Hong Kong is to China.

[James Madison]

Wouldn't the island be under Chilean rule?

Good luck finding a viable plot of land not claimed by some government.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

why don't we live underground. that's where we will be when nuclear war breaks out anyway. Should just as well get a head start. Mmm mushrooms.

[fr33]

To be honest, everything I type up on this topic sounds stupid to me because trying form a nation offends my natural tendencies...

Someone mentioned becoming part of Chile. Might be better than being a subject of the US. IDK. Haven't looked into it. I know of some people that have looked into moving to parts of Mexico and South America. (Free City Project in Honduras) (Dollar Vigilante guys in Mexico)

Maybe we should consider expatriating to the best option for a bit less tyranny.

[Christian Liberty]

Theoretical Idea that I'm not totally sold on yet below:

What if instead of a Free State Project we picked a tiny country and did a Free COUNTRY project? Obviously we'd need to pick some kind of democracy for electoral power. But imagine if even a tenth of the liberty movement in this country all moved into a tiny country and became citizens? We could potentially take over their government... and leave them alone...

[TheTexan]

Theoretical Idea that I'm not totally sold on yet below:

What if instead of a Free State Project we picked a tiny country and did a Free COUNTRY project? Obviously we'd need to pick some kind of democracy for electoral power. But imagine if even a tenth of the liberty movement in this country all moved into a tiny country and became citizens? We could potentially take over their government... and leave them alone...

It's an excellent idea but I'm not sure how to get it to work. The Free State Project is struggling for new members, and I think once it does reach its goal of 20,000, that many people will not follow through. If the project were taken more seriously it would definitely work. I think we would run into the same problem with a Free Country Project.

Then again, might also run into a similar problem with this idea. Maybe not though, because the commitment is a bit different. In this case you would be pledging money, whereas with the FSP you are committing your person. Shrug.

[Keith and stuff]

Maybe we should consider expatriating to the best option for a bit less tyranny.
Since those places are much less free, you will find a lot more tyranny. That's especially true if there was a world economic collapse.

[Keith and stuff]

It's an excellent idea but I'm not sure how to get it to work. The Free State Project is struggling for new members, and I think once it does reach its goal of 20,000, that many people will not follow through. If the project were taken more seriously it would definitely work. I think we would run into the same problem with a Free Country Project.

Then again, might also run into a similar problem with this idea. Maybe not though, because the commitment is a bit different. In this case you would be pledging money, whereas with the FSP you are committing your person. Shrug.
The FSP is struggling for new participants? What?
With the FSP, you can give money, agree to move, or both.
Want to donate money? Do it here. http://freestateproject.org/getinvolved/donate.php
Want to join as a participant? Do it here. http://freestateproject.org/fsn10

[SkepticalMetal]

Assuming nobody tried to kill us (Big assumption, even though its technically a violation of the NAP I'd honestly propose having our nation have a nuclear weapon on hand ASAP as blackmail*) anarcho-capitalism could probably work at that small scale, especially with everyone being fundamentally libertarian. Not so in the bigger world with a mix of libertarians and others.

*I agree that the use of nuclear weapons is a violation of the NAP, and owning one is a threat. Even still, if I were the President of a tiny, free country like that, and somebody dared to actually invade my country without provocation, after due warning I would seriously consider shooting at the capital of said country and then accepting the death penalty I rightfully deserved for killing another innocent people. If we had a second one, that would show them we weren't messing around.


'











OK, this post is a showing of my darkest of dark sides. I don't actually believe this is right. I do admit that's probably what I would try to secure liberty for my new country.
Well if you believe that owning a nuclear weapon is a threat, and as an anarcho-capitalist you don't believe in collectivism, than why should we get nukes for the sake of showing countries "we mean business?" That's a very easy way to slip back into statism - I mean let's be honest, what would be next? A standing military, for protection against these nations that would do "us" harm? A Department to manage this? It will snowball back into what it was. That's why I think that if this is to actually happen than it should be a sincere demonstration of anarcho-capitalism, not some violation of our own principles which would ultimately defeat the purpose of the endeavor in the first place.

[ClydeCoulter]

That chilean island looks pretty.

Yah, it does...where's the "dreaming" smiley?

[SkepticalMetal]

Assuming nobody tried to kill us (Big assumption, even though its technically a violation of the NAP I'd honestly propose having our nation have a nuclear weapon on hand ASAP as blackmail*) anarcho-capitalism could probably work at that small scale, especially with everyone being fundamentally libertarian. Not so in the bigger world with a mix of libertarians and others.

*I agree that the use of nuclear weapons is a violation of the NAP, and owning one is a threat. Even still, if I were the President of a tiny, free country like that, and somebody dared to actually invade my country without provocation, after due warning I would seriously consider shooting at the capital of said country and then accepting the death penalty I rightfully deserved for killing another innocent people. If we had a second one, that would show them we weren't messing around.


'











OK, this post is a showing of my darkest of dark sides. I don't actually believe this is right. I do admit that's probably what I would try to secure liberty for my new country.
Well if you believe that owning a nuclear weapon is a threat, and as an anarcho-capitalist you don't believe in collectivism, than why should we get nukes for the sake of showing countries "we mean business?" That's a very easy way to slip back into statism - I mean let's be honest, what would be next? A standing military, for protection against these nations that would do "us" harm? A Department to manage this? It will snowball back into what it was. That's why I think that if this is to actually happen than it should be a sincere demonstration of anarcho-capitalism, not some violation of our own principles which would ultimately defeat the purpose of the endeavor in the first place. All of these things promote collectivism since it amounts to people "standing up to the foreign forces."

[fr33]

Since those places are much less free, you will find a lot more tyranny. That's especially true if there was a world economic collapse.

Many times the laws are worse but the enforcement isn't. It might depend on what one's priorities are. Like if a nation steals half your income and wages war on multiple other nations.

[TheTexan]

The FSP is struggling for new participants? What?

Good start, but lost momentum. I bet a large number of people who have signed up in the 11 years since the project started now are no longer willing to move, but are still counted. Just eyeballing it, but it looks like it will be about 2020 by the time you get the 20,000 desired members. It's way too slow, do you guys even check if people still plan to stand by their commitment? I know I've never been contacted about my pledge.

http://freestateproject.org/files/fsp-graphs/Participants_Since_Epoch_Cum.png


With the FSP, you can give money, agree to move, or both.
Want to donate money? Do it here. http://freestateproject.org/getinvolved/donate.php
Want to join as a participant? Do it here. http://freestateproject.org/fsn10

There's two big differences here though.

a) You would not be donating your money, you would be investing it. You would own shares of the country, and any proceeds (for example, from selling allodial titles) would be distributed as dividends.

b) You would not be charged any money until the project had enough money to make the deal happen. Similar to how Kickstarter works.

[SkepticalMetal]

I'm sorry, when I tried to edit a previous post it appeared to make a whole separate one. Don't know what the hell happened there.

[Boss]

This discussion led to an interesting thought.

-In order to buy land, there must be a seller.
-The seller's rights to the land are ensured by the laws of the country containing the land.
-Normally, the rule of law in a given nation upholds legal transactions (such as the sale of land).
-If the goal is to form a new nation, the country containing the transacted land must be willing to permit secession of the transacted land.
-If the encompassing country is unwilling to allow secession, the purchase of the land is meaningless towards the goal of forming a new country (unless willing to start war over the land).
-But once a country is willing to relinquish its rights to land, suddenly the land is not owned by anyone.
-The rights of the buyer to the sold land are only upheld by the laws of the nation containing the land being sold.
-Once a piece of land is no longer part of an encompassing country, there are no rules/laws that govern that land, nullifying any "legal" claim to the rights of the land.
-Therefore, without a sovereign nation protecting its legal system, there is no legal system over that land, and no transactions are legal.
-Any group's interest in converting land into a nation is contingent upon its ability to defend it (through force or persuasion, etc).
-This begs the question--what gives ownership rights to the original encompassing nation? The fact that its occupied? As illustrated above, legal agreements with respect to land are only as strong as the encompassing nation is able to defend it.
-If occupancy & ability to defend a piece of land are the necessary conditions to form a nation on that land, then why buy the land in the first place?
-Since secession will remove all legal protections over the transaction with respect to the land, why make the transaction or seek secession?
Ockham's razor seems to suggest one might as well cut out the superfluous sale & secession, inhabit the land, and then prove superior in one's right to defend it.

[fr33]

Ockham's razor seems to suggest one might as well cut out the superfluous sale & secession, inhabit the land, and then prove superior in one's right to defend it.

As long as we're taking over some national park or other government owned land. And if that's the case, stockpiling weapons should be the main investment.

[The Gold Standard]

No other countries will respect or want to trade with you if you're not considered a country.

You don't trade with countries. You trade with people in those countries. If you offer something they want, they will trade with you.

[TheTexan]

This discussion led to an interesting thought.

-In order to buy land, there must be a seller.
-The seller's rights to the land are ensured by the laws of the country containing the land.
-Normally, the rule of law in a given nation upholds legal transactions (such as the sale of land).
-If the goal is to form a new nation, the country containing the transacted land must be willing to permit secession of the transacted land.
-If the encompassing country is unwilling to allow secession, the purchase of the land is meaningless towards the goal of forming a new country (unless willing to start war over the land).
-But once a country is willing to relinquish its rights to land, suddenly the land is not owned by anyone.
-The rights of the buyer to the sold land are only upheld by the laws of the nation containing the land being sold.
-Once a piece of land is no longer part of an encompassing country, there are no rules/laws that govern that land, nullifying any "legal" claim to the rights of the land.
-Therefore, without a sovereign nation protecting its legal system, there is no legal system over that land, and no transactions are legal.
-Any group's interest in converting land into a nation is contingent upon its ability to defend it (through force or persuasion, etc).
-This begs the question--what gives ownership rights to the original encompassing nation? The fact that its occupied? As illustrated above, legal agreements with respect to land are only as strong as the encompassing nation is able to defend it.
-If occupancy & ability to defend a piece of land are the necessary conditions to form a nation on that land, then why buy the land in the first place?
-Since secession will remove all legal protections over the transaction with respect to the land, why make the transaction or seek secession?
Ockham's razor seems to suggest one might as well cut out the superfluous sale & secession, inhabit the land, and then prove superior in one's right to defend it.

Part of the ability to defend that land comes from international contract law. If Spain agreed to sell part of its land to us, and we went through the formalities of having it approved by the UN, we could seek the UN's assistance in upholding our claim should something go awry.

It's not always about proving superior in one's right to defend yourself. The proof of this statement are the many small countries in the world that have retained their sovereignty, despite their severely inadequate ability to protect themselves. With all of these small countries, there is an implicit understanding that if a larger country decided to just take over that small country for no good reason (with "good reason" being determined largely by the UN), then there will be war against the larger country.

Even in a free an-cap world, such arrangements and implicit protections would still exist.

[fr33]

You don't trade with countries. You trade with people in those countries. If you offer something they want, they will trade with you.

On the black market you mean?


Because most of the potential traders have hired their own mafia to force unreasonable terms on your trade. You can try to get around it but it's really dangerous. Many a nation state lost their leaders to assassins and wars in such struggles.

[Boss]

Part of the ability to defend that land comes from international contract law. If Spain agreed to sell part of its land to us, and we went through the formalities of having it approved by the UN, we could seek the UN's assistance in upholding our claim should something go awry.

It's not always about proving superior in one's right to defend yourself. The proof of this statement are the many small countries in the world that have retained their sovereignty, despite their severely inadequate ability to protect themselves. With all of these small countries, there is an implicit understanding that if a company decided to just take over that small country for no good reason (with "good reason" being determined largely by the UN), then there will be war against the larger country.

Even in a free an-cap world, such arrangements and implicit protections would still exist.

Well put.

But let's run the regress all the way.
-If UN laws hold up agreements btwn nations, what holds up UN Laws?
-UN laws are based on tenuous agreements between the most powerful nations.
-Those agreements are contingent upon the interests of the powerful nations.
-So the reason those small countries aren't invaded isn't because of UN law.
-Those small countries are protected by the fact that at a given moment in time it's not in the best interest of the world's most powerful nations to assume the risk of invading those nations.

[TheTexan]

Well put.

But let's run the regress all the way.
-If UN laws hold up agreements btwn nations, what holds up UN Laws?
-UN laws are based on tenuous agreements between the most powerful nations.
-Those agreements are contingent upon the interests of the powerful nations.
-So the reason those small countries aren't invaded isn't because of UN law.
-Those small countries are protected by the fact that at a given moment in time it's not in the best interest of the world's most powerful nations to assume the risk of invading those nations.

This is true, but there's not just a whole lot we can do about it, except either a) become bigger and stronger than the US and its allies or b) raise a Cylon army or c) convert the US to our thinking. (Of these choices, I consider option b to be the most likely :P)

As I kind of touched on earlier, there are definitely "limits" to sovereignty. I used Texas as an example and said it was unlikely that a "free Texas" would be allowed to have drug freedom because of claims of drugs going over the borders. The US would intervene.

Which is why it would be a good idea to distance ourselves from these powerful nations.

[Christian Liberty]

It's an excellent idea but I'm not sure how to get it to work. The Free State Project is struggling for new members, and I think once it does reach its goal of 20,000, that many people will not follow through. If the project were taken more seriously it would definitely work. I think we would run into the same problem with a Free Country Project.

Then again, might also run into a similar problem with this idea. Maybe not though, because the commitment is a bit different. In this case you would be pledging money, whereas with the FSP you are committing your person. Shrug.

i wasn't saying it would work I was just throwing some possibility out there.

The bottom line, most likely, is that the US is where the battle lines are drawn. Freedom was founded here and if it dies here, it will likely die everywhere else too (It is, admittedly, pretty darn close to dying here, but you get my point.)


Well if you believe that owning a nuclear weapon is a threat, and as an anarcho-capitalist you don't believe in collectivism, than why should we get nukes for the sake of showing countries "we mean business?" That's a very easy way to slip back into statism - I mean let's be honest, what would be next? A standing military, for protection against these nations that would do "us" harm? A Department to manage this? It will snowball back into what it was. That's why I think that if this is to actually happen than it should be a sincere demonstration of anarcho-capitalism, not some violation of our own principles which would ultimately defeat the purpose of the endeavor in the first place.

I'm not an ancap, I'm a minarchist. My inclination is that ICBMs are still illegitimate though, as they can't be pinpointed at the evildoers. Honestly, my idea is a combination of wanting to destroy the political capital (assuming we actually got that far) without hurting innocents. To my understanding, I could break the latter rule if I were willing to accept capital punishment for doing so, even under Rothbardian ethics.

my reason for suggesting it wouldn't be so that would happen though. If that happened, we're already screwed. Launching would just be so the world is adequetely scared to invade a nuclear-armed opponent the next time. The hope is that they'd back off to avoid the destruction of the political capital.

We'd be in a MUCH better position if we had two.

BTW I don't think its illegitimate to build a nuke to protect against someone who has a nuke and is likely to invade you. At the very least, its logical.

[TheTexan]

Another way to think of it, is a sovereignty market. Essentially, you would be buying and selling freedom. In this world, where everyone is a slave, freedom is a commodity.

So even without an intent to move to whatever country we buy, we could create a market for sovereignty by raising capital, and purchasing sovereignty from sovereign nations. We could then turn around and make a return on that investment, by selling sovereignty to the individuals who live there.

This wouldn't be done for the intention of profit... but generally, if you want something done, you need the market to do that. The best way to get the market to do something is to make it profitable.

Tricky part would just getting a deal of that kind approved by the UN :)

[jtstellar]

um the thing is existing residents there.. they surely will outnumber us, unless you figure out a way to solve that too, such as acquiring relatively uninhabited 3rd world lands.

if there is large amount of existing residence foreign to the ideas of liberty, it doesn't really matter what you do, it will all just be ink on a piece of paper.

but uninhabited lands means almost no existing infrastructure. if you wanted that i believe any relatively uninhabited land in the united states will do, i don't hear feds constantly going into sparsely populated places to enforce laws, it's usually in heavily populated/politicized areas, so why not just do that here, if infrastructure is lacking all the same, at least you won't have language barrier and a crime problem.

[FrankRep]

um the thing is existing residents there.. they surely will outnumber us, unless you figure out a way to solve that too,


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/T-72_Ajeya1.jpg/220px-T-72_Ajeya1.jpg

[BuddyRey]

I'd be interested in what types of property would even work. An island is the first thing that comes to mind.

Actually the first thing that came to mind was how quickly an invading army would show up after we bought it; especially if it borders another country.

Of course, this is true, but don't forget, we'll be a country with no gun laws, and citizens armed to the teeth.

[heavenlyboy34]

Of course, this is true, but don't forget, we'll be a country with no gun laws, and citizens armed to the teeth.
I suspect miniguns, RPGs, AK47s, and armor-piercing/explosive ammo would be very popular standard household equipment in border towns. :D If I lived there, I'd teach the border town folks empty hand and budo weapons technique free of charge (it's in my rational self-interest and all).

[heavenlyboy34]

Assuming nobody tried to kill us (Big assumption, even though its technically a violation of the NAP I'd honestly propose having our nation have a nuclear weapon on hand ASAP as blackmail*) anarcho-capitalism could probably work at that small scale, especially with everyone being fundamentally libertarian. Not so in the bigger world with a mix of libertarians and others.

*I agree that the use of nuclear weapons is a violation of the NAP, and owning one is a threat. Even still, if I were the President of a tiny, free country like that, and somebody dared to actually invade my country without provocation, after due warning I would seriously consider shooting at the capital of said country and then accepting the death penalty I rightfully deserved for killing another innocent people. If we had a second one, that would show them we weren't messing around.


'











OK, this post is a showing of my darkest of dark sides. I don't actually believe this is right. I do admit that's probably what I would try to secure liberty for my new country.
I consider private ownership of nukes a form of protection against State aggression. IMO, it would not only be permissible/ethical to own nukes, but quite critical. It's cliche, but you'll notice that the US doesn't start "hot" wars with nuclear-armed regimes. There's a good reason for that. ;)

[TheTexan]

um the thing is existing residents there.. they surely will outnumber us, unless you figure out a way to solve that too

https://s3.amazonaws.com/images2.avaaz.org/original/israel_palestine-map-edit-1353601538.24.jpg


Just kidding :)

Hopefully we can come up with a solution a bit more voluntary than that!

[Mani]

There's a 100+ page thread from 2007 on this site somewhere about this very same topic. They looked at all different islands all over the globe.

Can't remember much more about the thread, but it was very entertaining.

[Mani]

I actually found it!!!

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?122743-We-need-our-own-island

Good times...

[gwax23]

https://s3.amazonaws.com/images2.avaaz.org/original/israel_palestine-map-edit-1353601538.24.jpg


Just kidding :)

Hopefully we can come up with a solution a bit more voluntary than that!

Whats more voluntary then buying land legally and winning more in a defensive war?

[Demigod]

Just because you aren't recognized as a country by the UN doesn't mean you aren't a country.

Well yes it does,unless you are recognized by the UN any country can invade for no reason ( not that being in the UN guarantees that you won't get invaded ).The only countries that are not in the UN but manage to survive are countries that have "big brothers" like Osetia and Russia,Northern Cyprus and Turkey,Kosovo and the USA.Also many international PRIVATE organizations would not make deals with you just because you are not a member of the UN.

Not to mention you could not participate in the World Cup

[ClydeCoulter]

What is it with then/than? I see it all over the internet including news articles...it's getting to the point of ridiculousness.

[matt0611]

I wish we could do this too. There's gotta be some way to make it work...

It would only have to be big enough to fit one city. If only there was more uninhabited land on this planet that wasn't already claimed.

Is there any uninhabited land that a sovereign country would just let people buy?

[Demigod]

You don't trade with countries. You trade with people in those countries. If you offer something they want, they will trade with you.

Then you become smugglers, get your new country called a criminal haven and get invaded



i wasn't saying it would work I was just throwing some possibility out there.

The bottom line, most likely, is that the US is where the battle lines are drawn. Freedom was founded here and if it dies here, it will likely die everywhere else too (It is, admittedly, pretty darn close to dying here, but you get my point.)





'Merica FUCK YEA.USA USA USA

[Demigod]

...

[fisharmor]

Theoretical Idea that I'm not totally sold on yet below:

What if instead of a Free State Project we picked a tiny country and did a Free COUNTRY project? Obviously we'd need to pick some kind of democracy for electoral power.

Dude, seriously. Stop.
Every single time you say "police" or "democracy" you're hacking venomous fangs into the conversation.

Those are the very things we have now.
Stop it.

[EBounding]

We could buy Belle Isle (http://www.alternet.org/economy/libertarian-developers-ayn-rand-fantasy-detroits-latest-nightmare). :p

[erowe1]

What exactly would we be buying? Anything physical? And whatever it is, who would be able to sell it to us?

[osan]

I don't necessarily disagree, but this applies to any freedom anywhere. Not just my idea.

If you are correct - and you might be - then should we not even try to gain freedom?

What am I oft quoted advocating here? Press on regardless even in the face of certain doom. But if you are going to make the attempt to secure some liberty, at least do it as smartly as possible. The USA is still the best bet for that, wretchedly depressing as thought may be. We are large in terms of territory and population and we are armed to the teeth. Bit by bit people are beginning to stand their ground more firmly, except in dung-pits like Boston, NYC, Chicago, etc.

Other than arming yourself, uniting with neighbors or other groups in the common cause of freedom, and stocking up on food for the longer haul, I cannot think of what else to suggest. Best we simply refuse our consent and wait for Themme to draw first blood.