Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 180 of 310

Thread: Creating a Free Town or County

  1. #151
    Quote Originally Posted by economics102 View Post
    There's always seasteading...

    I agree that, if we could only somehow, some way, get a small little island of real liberty (whether physical or metaphorical), we'd have the rest of the country clamoring for similar freedoms in no time. What we need is an American Hong Kong.

    I think the only way we might ever achieve this politically is with a broad coalition compromise, where we basically say to the the uber-progressives, "help us create a small island for liberty, and we'll help you create a small island of progressive government, and then we'll both have the incubators and proving grounds we want." Maybe that would be a big enough coalition to wield the political force to make something happen.
    I don't want to live around any uber progressives. For one thing they don't give a crap about liberty.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #152
    Just need bitcoin to hit 10K and I can start my own cult, I mean freedom town.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #153
    Quote Originally Posted by RonPaulIsGreat View Post
    Just need bitcoin to hit 10K and I can start my own cult, I mean freedom town.
    Define "cult".
    Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.

    Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine

    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Above all I think everyone needs to understand that neither the Bundys nor Finicum were militia or had prior military training. They were, first and foremost, Ranchers who had about all the shit they could take.
    Quote Originally Posted by HOLLYWOOD View Post
    If anything, this situation has proved the government is nothing but a dictatorship backed by deadly force... no different than the dictatorships in the banana republics, just more polished and cleverly propagandized.
    "I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    In a free society there will be bigotry, and racism, and sexism and religious disputes and, and, and.......
    I don't want to live in a cookie cutter, federally mandated society.
    Give me messy freedom every time!

  6. #154
    Quote Originally Posted by Deborah K View Post
    Define "cult".
    Cult:A group of people living in proximity by intent, with strong held beliefs significantly different from those held by the majority in a given society.

  7. #155
    Quote Originally Posted by RonPaulIsGreat View Post
    Cult:A group of people living in proximity by intent, with strong held beliefs significantly different from those held by the majority in a given society.
    So, are you in favor of such a thing, or opposed?

  8. #156
    Did anybody listen to the thoughts from Hoppe? Do you think it would be a fruitful avenue?

  9. #157
    Quote Originally Posted by RonPaulIsGreat View Post
    Cult:A group of people living in proximity by intent, with strong held beliefs significantly different from those held by the majority in a given society.
    I cannot find this definition anywhere. Is it your personal view? Or do you have a source for it?
    Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.

    Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine

    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Above all I think everyone needs to understand that neither the Bundys nor Finicum were militia or had prior military training. They were, first and foremost, Ranchers who had about all the shit they could take.
    Quote Originally Posted by HOLLYWOOD View Post
    If anything, this situation has proved the government is nothing but a dictatorship backed by deadly force... no different than the dictatorships in the banana republics, just more polished and cleverly propagandized.
    "I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    In a free society there will be bigotry, and racism, and sexism and religious disputes and, and, and.......
    I don't want to live in a cookie cutter, federally mandated society.
    Give me messy freedom every time!

  10. #158
    Pffft...towns, counties, communities...how very old world and provincial of all of you.

  11. #159
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Pffft...towns, counties, communities...how very old world and provincial of all of you.
    What did you have in mind, AF?

  12. #160
    Quote Originally Posted by Deborah K View Post
    I cannot find this definition anywhere. Is it your personal view? Or do you have a source for it?
    It is essentially the standard definition applied to a more generalized context. Generally Cult is defined in a religious nature, but Define:Cult on Google.
    Is not that different.

    So, yeah, I'm defining it slightly outside its common usage.

    a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.
    "the cult of St. Olaf"
    a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.
    "a network of Satan-worshiping cults"
    synonyms: sect, denomination, group, movement, church, persuasion, body, faction
    "a religious cult"
    a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing.
    "a cult of personality surrounding the leaders"
    synonyms: obsession with, fixation on, mania for, passion for, idolization of, devotion to, worship of, veneration of
    "the cult of eternal youth in Hollywood"
    a person or thing that is popular or fashionable, especially among a particular section of society.
    "a cult film"



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #161
    RonPaulIsGreat, would you support and be interested in such a thing, or are you opposed?

  15. #162
    Religious reasons actually do seem to be successful in providing the motivation level needed for relocations and community formations. There are many successful Amish and Mennonite communities around North America, as well as Hutterite and other groups even more divergent from the surrounding culture than the Amish and Mennonites (the Hutterites, to give you an idea, speak a form of archaic German). The Mormons migrated to Ohio, then to Missouri, then to Illinois, and then finally to Utah and throughout the intermountain West. The early Celtic christians formed monastic communities all over the place.

    I wonder if there is any way we could harness the kind of passion and commitment that goes along with religious motivations for a project like this.

  16. #163

  17. #164
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Pffft...towns, counties, communities...how very old world and provincial of all of you.
    Again, AF, enlighten us on your brilliant plan. Or elaborate more on what you see as the failings of this one. I mean, if you're going to come try to rain on a parade, do put a little effort into it! Surely you can do better at destroying my plans for freedom than a one-liner.

  18. #165
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Again, AF, enlighten us on your brilliant plan. Or elaborate more on what you see as the failings of this one. I mean, if you're going to come try to rain on a parade, do put a little effort into it! Surely you can do better at destroying my plans for freedom than a one-liner.
    I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic. Written words are difficult to decipher at times, but it seemed to be a sarcastic comment to me. As in olde world and provincial being something that might be frowned upon. Which it really isn't. I dunno.

  19. #166
    And even if it is impossible to win a
    majority for a decidedly antidemocratic platform on a nationwide scale, there
    appears to be no insurmountable difficulty in winning such a majority in
    sufficiently small districts, and for local or regional functions within the overall
    democratic government structure. In fact, there seems to be nothing unrealistic in
    assuming that such majorities exist at thousands of locations. That is, locations
    dispersed all over the country but not evenly dispersed.

    But what then? Everything else falls almost automatically from the ultimate goal,
    which must be kept permanently in mind, in all of one's activities: the restoration
    from the bottom-up of private property and the right to property protection; the
    right to self-defense, to exclude or include, and to freedom of contract. And the
    answer can be broken down into two parts.

    First, what to do within these very small districts, where a pro-private property
    candidate and anti-majoritarian personality can win. And second, how to deal with
    the higher levels of government, and especially with the central federal
    government. First, as an initial step, and I'm referring now to what should be done
    on the local level, the first central plank of one's platform should be: one must
    attempt to restrict the right to vote on local taxes, in particular on property taxes
    and regulations, to property and real estate owners. Only property owners must be
    permitted to vote, and their vote is not equal, but in accordance with the value of
    the equity owned, and the amount of taxes paid. That is, similar to what Lew
    Rockwell already explained has happened in some places in California.

    Further, all public employees — teachers, judges, policemen — and all welfare
    recipients, must be excluded from voting on local taxes and local regulation
    matters. These people are being paid out of taxes and should have no say
    whatsoever how high these taxes are. With this platform one cannot of course win
    everywhere; you cannot win in Washington, D.C. with a platform like this. but I
    dare say that in many locations this can be easily done. The locations have to be
    small enough and have to have a good number of decent people.

    Consequently, local taxes and rates as well as local tax revenue will inevitably
    decrease. Property values and most local incomes would increase whereas the
    number and payment of public employees would fall. Now, and this is the most
    decisive step, the following thing must be done, and always keep in mind that I am
    talking about very small territorial districts, villages.

    In this government funding crisis which breaks out once the right to vote has been
    taken away from the mob, as a way out of this crisis, all local government assets
    must be privatized. An inventory of all public buildings, and on the local level that
    is not that much — schools, fire, police station, courthouses, roads, and so forth —
    and then property shares or stock should be distributed to the local private property
    owners in accordance with the total lifetime amount of taxes — property taxes —
    that these people have paid. After all, it is theirs, they paid for these things.
    These shares should be freely tradeable, sold and bought, and with this local
    government would essentially be abolished. If it were not for the continued
    existence of higher superior levels of government, this village or city would now be
    a free or liberated territory. What would consequently happen to education and
    more importantly, what would happen to property protection and justice?

    On the small local level, we can be as certain, or even more so than we could have
    been one hundred years ago about what would have happened if the king abdicated,
    that what would happen is roughly this: all material resources that were previously
    devoted to these functions — schools, police stations, courthouses — still exist, and
    so does the manpower. The only difference is that they are now privately owned, or
    temporarily unemployed in the case of public employees. Under the realistic
    assumption that there continues to be a local demand for education and protection
    and justice, the schools, police stations, and courthouses will be still used for the
    very same purposes. And many former teachers, policemen and judges would be
    rehired or resume their former position on their own account as self-employed
    individuals, except that they would be operated or employed by local "bigshots" or
    elites who own these things, all of whom are personally known figures. Either as
    for-profit enterprises, or as, and what seems to be more likely, some mixture of
    charitable and economic organization. Local "bigshots" frequently provide public
    goods out of their own private pocket; and they obviously have the greatest interest
    in the preservation of local justice and peace.

    And this is all easy enough to see to work for schools and policemen, but what
    about judges and justice? Recall that the root of all evil is compulsory
    monopolization of justice, that is one person says this is right. Accordingly judges
    must be freely financed, and free entry into judgeship positions must be assured.
    Judges are not elected by vote, but chosen by the effective demand of justice
    seekers. Also don't forget that on the small local level under consideration, one is
    talking actually about a demand for one or very few judges only. Whether this or
    these judges are then employed by the private courthouse association or stock
    company, or are self-employed individuals who rent these facilities or offices, it
    should be clear that only a handful of local people, and only widely known and
    respected local personalities — that is, members of the natural local elite — would
    have any chance whatsoever of being so selected as judges of local peace. Only
    as members of the natural elite will their decision possess any authority and
    become enforceable. And if they come up with judgments that are considered to be
    ridiculous, they will be immediately displaced by other local authorities that are
    more respectable. If you proceed along these lines on the local level, of course it
    cannot be avoided that one will come into direct conflict with the upper and
    especially the federal level of government power. How to deal with this problem?
    Wouldn't the federales simply crush any such attempt?

    They would surely like to, but whether or not they can actually do so is an entirely
    different question, and to recognize this, it is only necessary to recognize that the
    members of the governmental apparatus always represent, even under conditions of
    democracy, merely a teeny proportion of the total population. And even smaller is
    the proportion of central government employees.

    Only as members of the natural elite will their decision possess any authority and
    become enforceable. And if they come up with judgments that are considered to be
    ridiculous, they will be immediately displaced by other local authorities that are
    more respectable. If you proceed along these lines on the local level, of course it
    cannot be avoided that one will come into direct conflict with the upper and
    especially the federal level of government power. How to deal with this problem?
    Wouldn't the federales simply crush any such attempt?

    They would surely like to, but whether or not they can actually do so is an entirely
    different question, and to recognize this, it is only necessary to recognize that the
    members of the governmental apparatus always represent, even under conditions of
    democracy, merely a teeny proportion of the total population. And even smaller is
    the proportion of central government employees.

    This implies that a central government cannot possibly enforce its legislative will,
    or perverted law, upon the entire population unless it finds widespread local
    support and cooperation in doing so. This becomes particularly obvious if one
    imagines a large number of free cities or villages as I described them before. It is
    practically impossible, manpower-wise, as well as from a public relations
    standpoint, to take over thousands of territorially widely dispersed localities and
    impose direct federal rule on them.

    Without local enforcement, by compliant local authorities, the will of the central
    government is not much more than hot air. Yet this local support and cooperation is
    precisely what needs to be missing. To be sure, so long as the number of liberated
    communities is still small, matters seem to be somewhat dangerous. However, even
    during this initial phase in the liberation struggle, one can be quite confident.

    It would appear to be prudent during this phase to avoid a direct confrontation with
    the central government and not openly denounce its authority or even abjure the
    realm. Rather, it seems advisable to engage in a policy of passive resistance and
    noncooperation. One simply stops to help in the enforcement in each and every
    federal law. One assumes the following attitude: "Such are your rules, and you
    enforce them. I cannot hinder you, but I will not help you either, as my only
    obligation is to my local constituents."

    Consistently applied, no cooperation, no assistance whatsoever on any level, the
    central government's power would be severely diminished or even evaporate. And
    in light of the general public opinion, it would appear highly unlikely that the
    federal government would dare to occupy a territory whose inhabitants did nothing
    else than trying to mind their own business. Waco, a teeny group of freaks, is one
    thing. But to occupy, or to wipe out a significantly large group of normal,
    accomplished, upstanding citizens is quite another, and quite a more difficult thing.
    Once the number of implicitly seceded territories has reached a critical mass, and
    every success in one little location promotes and feeds on the next one, it will
    become inevitably further radicalized to a nationwide, municipalization movement,
    with explicitly secessionist local policies and openly and contemptuously displayed
    noncompliance with federal authority.

    And it is in this situation then, when the central government will be forced to
    abdicate its protection monopoly and the relationship between the local authorities
    that reemerge and the central authorities, who are about to lose their power, can be
    put on a purely contractual level, and one might regain the power to defend one's
    own property again.

    -- Hans-Hermann Hoppe

  20. #167
    2015 bump!

    Let's build the future! We can do it!

  21. #168
    So, again, what is the value proposition? Who really stands to benefit/ Who is really dying to have a free town?

    Possibly, the libertarian community. That's certainly one market. But it's the one everyone has focused on already.

    How about this: terminally ill people! Right now it takes biotech companies ten years and about a billion dollars (plus or minus, depending) from the time they start up to the time when they can finally sell their first, single pill or treatment or whatever it is to an actual customer. Wow, entrepreneurship is already hard! Try successfully predicting not what customers want, but what they'll want in ten years!

    Now, if there were a place, a little town in the cool mountains of Arizona for instance, where the local authorities did not cooperate with the FDA, where the local economy had come to be based upon terminally ill patients coming to try cutting-edge experimental treatments before they are approved by the FDA (long before!), wouldn't that be something? Hmm...



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #169
    These people are literally dying to have freedom!

  24. #170
    IF you moved 1000 people to one location in New Zealand, they would be far more free than anywhere in the US, plus they would be a big enough swing vote to have their own Member of Parliament.

    Just sayin.
    In New Zealand:
    The Coastguard is a Charity
    Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
    The DMV is a private non-profit
    Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
    The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
    5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
    A tax return has 4 fields
    Business licenses aren't a thing
    Prostitution is legal
    We have a constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care

  25. #171
    Quote Originally Posted by idiom View Post
    IF you moved 1000 people to one location in New Zealand, they would be far more free than anywhere in the US, plus they would be a big enough swing vote to have their own Member of Parliament.
    But, member of Parliament isn't that interesting/exciting to me. I think: what if I were a member of Parliament? What would I do? Most likely: vote no on everything, and nothing would change or really be accomplished.

    So, more interesting question for me: would those 1,000 have sufficient autonomy to be able to create a completely libertarian community ala Hoppe's road map?

    I think the answer to that is probably yes, and so the even more interesting question is:

    Can we find 1,000 people who will move to Picton, New Zealand (or whatever the best place in New Zealand is)?

    That is a more difficult question. And that question applies equally to any geographical concentration strategy, wherever it is proposed to take place. And so I'm focusing on a question that aspires to answer that question:

    What can we offer people to get large numbers of them fired up to move? What kind of value proposition can we put forward? And it has to be a credible offer, not just pie-in-the-sky vaporware. What can freedom do on a town level that will change people's lives and blow their minds?

  26. #172
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    But, member of Parliament isn't that interesting/exciting to me. I think: what if I were a member of Parliament? What would I do? Most likely: vote no on everything, and nothing would change or really be accomplished.

    So, more interesting question for me: would those 1,000 have sufficient autonomy to be able to create a completely libertarian community ala Hoppe's road map?

    I think the answer to that is probably yes, and so the even more interesting question is:

    Can we find 1,000 people who will move to Picton, New Zealand (or whatever the best place in New Zealand is)?

    That is a more difficult question. And that question applies equally to any geographical concentration strategy, wherever it is proposed to take place. And so I'm focusing on a question that aspires to answer that question:

    What can we offer people to get large numbers of them fired up to move? What kind of value proposition can we put forward? And it has to be a credible offer, not just pie-in-the-sky vaporware. What can freedom do on a town level that will change people's lives and blow their minds?
    Because its a multi-party system, independent MP's usually hold swing vote power, and can easily gain ministerial positions. You also get a pretty solid national stage in the media if you have something interesting to say, and a place at debates.

    Most of New Zealand is already sparsely populated enough that it is effectively autonomous. Most sectors are extremely unregulated, there are no subsidies for any industries to speak of.

    If you were a community of 1000 producers, you would be extremely welcome and very much at home.

    The country just needs a small kick to move it from very free to very libertarian. None of our politicians are particularly intellectual. A well spoken MP could get other MPs elected with him if he can get 2% of the national vote.

    Both sides of the government are ideologically small government, which is pretty weird. The two main factors are the influence of America on the Main right party making them pursue stupid NSA friendly policies, and the left wanting to maintain an effective safety net, with national debt.

    Due to the population difference, an activist is 100 times more effective here, so it would be like having a community of 100,000 people.
    In New Zealand:
    The Coastguard is a Charity
    Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
    The DMV is a private non-profit
    Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
    The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
    5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
    A tax return has 4 fields
    Business licenses aren't a thing
    Prostitution is legal
    We have a constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care

  27. #173
    Quote Originally Posted by idiom View Post
    IF you moved 1000 people to one location in New Zealand, they would be far more free than anywhere in the US, plus they would be a big enough swing vote to have their own Member of Parliament.

    Just sayin.
    Or they could move to Grafton, New Hampshire (or a similar town in NH) and have even more freedom. Plus, they would have the ability to vote. Can regular people with little savings move to New Zealand and vote?
    Last edited by Keith and stuff; 01-28-2015 at 05:10 PM.
    Lifetime member of more than 1 national gun organization and the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance. Part of Young Americans for Liberty and Campaign for Liberty. Free State Project participant and multi-year Free Talk Live AMPlifier.

  28. #174
    Quote Originally Posted by idiom View Post
    Most of New Zealand is already sparsely populated enough that it is effectively autonomous. Most sectors are extremely unregulated, there are no subsidies for any industries to speak of.

    If you were a community of 1000 producers, you would be extremely welcome and very much at home.

    The country just needs a small kick to move it from very free to very libertarian. None of our politicians are particularly intellectual. A well spoken MP could get other MPs elected with him if he can get 2% of the national vote.
    True, New Zealand is very free. It has some very serious advantages already as a jurisdiction, just as you say, with relatively low regulation and a lot of laissez faire.

    I'm liking this New Zealand idea!

    Where do you think a good location would be, idiom?

  29. #175

  30. #176
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    How about this: terminally ill people! Right now it takes biotech companies ten years and about a billion dollars (plus or minus, depending) from the time they start up to the time when they can finally sell their first, single pill or treatment or whatever it is to an actual customer. Wow, entrepreneurship is already hard! Try successfully predicting not what customers want, but what they'll want in ten years!

    Now, if there were a place, a little town in the cool mountains of Arizona for instance, where the local authorities did not cooperate with the FDA, where the local economy had come to be based upon terminally ill patients coming to try cutting-edge experimental treatments before they are approved by the FDA (long before!), wouldn't that be something? Hmm...

    These people are literally dying to have freedom!
    No one replied to my experimental medicine haven, perhaps because no one recognized it as referencing a real situation. Here's some background:

    "Arizona voters overwhelmingly approved a measure to allow terminally ill patients to obtain experimental drugs that haven’t been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

    "So-called 'right to try' laws, which have passed in several state legislatures this year, got their start with the Goldwater Institute, a conservative think tank. But Arizona was the first to put the issue directly to voters, and they passed Proposition 303 with nearly 80 percent of the vote."

    http://www.governing.com/topics/elec...s-ballots.html


    Also:

    http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMa....html?mid=1652
    An Entrepreneurial Perspective on the Life Sciences Industry



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #177
    I'm starting to think more and more that secession is the only answer.
    I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States...When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank...You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, I will rout you out!

    Andrew Jackson, 1834

  33. #178
    Kim dotcom lives in New Zealand.

    It'd be very difficult to move to new zealand. The cheapest method would be, I guess to sell everything, convert to bitcoin, and buy new stuff upon landing. I doubt they just let anyone just show up and proclaim citizenship as well.

  34. #179
    We all need to rebel against the criminal U.S and form a new country called the United States of Liberty and have Ron Paul as President!

  35. #180
    Quote Originally Posted by rg17 View Post
    We all need to rebel against the criminal U.S and form a new country called the United States of Liberty and have Ron Paul as President!
    I am all for that -- we are all all for that -- but we need to work out a lot more details than what you just provided. Please stick around and let's work out a actual plan! Post your ideas!

Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Rand: Boyd County Town Hall with @repthomasmassie
    By kahless in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-28-2016, 10:29 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-27-2013, 06:14 AM
  3. Creating a Free Market Society?
    By krazy kaju in forum Freedom Living
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-03-2008, 02:19 PM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-02-2008, 08:32 PM
  5. Strange Results for one county/town
    By ConvertedNeoCon in forum New Hampshire
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-08-2008, 08:04 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •