Cia.gov world fact book “Nauru”
Dailyanarchist.com Forum posts.
In my last article entitled “Pointless Proselytizing”, I did a thought experiment. I will re post the second half of the article here because it is relevant. Basically, I look at a de-facto sovereign island nation with only about 50 people on it who live as they want, almost free from outside control.
I recently read an article about the least visited countries in the world and discovered Nauru.
The article is linked here:
If you have read any of my other articles, you know that I am bent on achieving liberty for ME and for those like me NOW while I am alive, and so my mind immediately went to work in that regard.
I then did a little bit of searching and I found some interesting traits about Nauru that, if true, not only support the idea that an ancap micro nation could be founded and do well, but also that Nauru is a good candidate for a charter city project.
The information I gathered did two things:
First, it supported a concept that I have written about elsewhere regarding tax free forms of “public” work funding. – Tax Free Living
Second, it brought up the idea that a charter city could be an opportunity to create a baby step towards an ancap micro-nation somewhere. The charter city would have a lot of benefits, which will be listed below. – Nauru Charter City Concept
Tax Free Living
I have written a bit about different ways a nation could fund so-called public works and common services without the use of taxes. Obviously, one way is to have no such things, but let’s say for sake of argument, one couldn’t think of any other way but to mimic the way roads and infrastructure is managed now.
A disciple of mine laid out some of the concepts I have been writing about (not yet published) in my own ancap enclave project on an anarchist forum.
A concept I like regarding tax- free living is outlined here, well worth a read:
Full Thread 1: http://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,2291.0.html
Context: I was outlining the plan I have, which is essentially
1. Create an online community that is encrypted. This serves as a communication bridge between all those in the project regardless of current location. Let me note we should screen extensively.
2. Have that community fund a company, likely a Wyoming Corporation in the US.
3. Have that company buy land (probably a large ranch in the US in a State with lax gun laws) as a training ground (Gun skills, agriculture skills, construction skills, team building) and rally point. This is the enclave phase.
4. From there, find land to buy for the purpose of sovereignty.
There is a possibility of a step being inserted between 3 and 4, which would be “found a charter city with ancap or even libertarian principles” although I would found such a city for the purposes of profit and not necessarily for purposes of political freedom.
I should also note that in between 3 and 4, a significant amount of money would have to be raised or made, likely via investments by the company or contributions from the members.
I will also note that my full plan is over 100 pages so far and looks like it will likely be released as an e-book if/when I decide to release it.
The group does not have to be big, as the “Case Study: Pitcairn Islands” thought experiment, available below, as little as 50 people could pull it off so long as they were well funded and motivated.
The relevant part of the post is here:
“Monthly fees would look suspiciously like a tax to anyone living there. What would happen when someone stops paying?”
I think I should have used the word dues. This would be much like a club/investment group. To stay a member in good standing in any club or investment group, when there are dues or capital calls you have to contribute or you fall out of good standing or are dismissed.
And so what would happen if you did not pay would simply be losing good member status and ultimately, being removed from the group.
The dues are not meant to replace taxes. The club or investment group is a precursor to any sovereign enclave movement later on. The sovereign territory has a different set of rules laid out by a charter every member who wants to go there signs. There are no taxes or dues in it.
In my system, in order to pay for recurring costs of “public goods” (even though the initial infrastructure would be built with bonds/ equity from the members) we pool money over time to form endowments for a specific purpose. For example, Harvard has an endowment, out of which interest and earnings each year are used to fund different projects. And so, we will set up road, defense, etc. endowments, where the interest and dividends and earnings off of those investments are used for repairs and new acquisitions. In this way no one pays taxes, instead, the earnings and interest off our investments and endowments pays for commonly used infrastructure (of which there will likely be little.)
This method requires a lot of money and a lot of planning, but I see no reason why it cannot be done. If a rich kid can get 50k a month from a trust fund, we can get 50k a month from a trust fund we set up and earmark that 50k for whatever “public” good we desire instead of hookers and blow. This is not the only method of funding without taxes, I have several I have explored in my full write up (about 100 pages)
Now this is important because, I had not known of any examples in the real world of a state using a trust fund to replace taxes until now.
This is proof that the concept
A) Was independently conceived by a nation state
B) Was well funded and worked for some time
C) Was meant to enable the people to continue to enjoy no income taxes
D) Failed due to incompetence/ negligence. Such a fund would indeed need to be well managed. It could have worked if they had stayed on it. As you will see in the next section, I am inclined to think these people are fucking lazy.
Nauru Charter City Concept:
What is it that might make Nauru a good candidate for a charter city?
My sources are indicated above.
Nauru is a pacific island nation. It is defended by Australia, but has no formal military. It is the world’s smallest republic and is only 8.1 SQ mi.
- It is small
It has only about 10,000 people. Indeed, if they allowed people to emigrate, it would be a good candidate for FSP type infiltration, although I have no plan or desire to do that there.
Nauru has administrative divisions; I guess one could call “counties” in Western vernacular. These divisions have an even smaller population and representation in each. This means if we focus on twisting the arms of (bribing) a representative and the people in a very small district, we have a change of multiplying how far our $ goes with them. (Anibare district looks good)
- No income taxes
This is an obvious advantage
The Charter city would perhaps be less likely to be involved in political B.S. and harassment. It is away from wars and other concerns of the big powers. I would see an opportunity to market to affluent or famous people who want to go somewhere in private.
- Pathetic economy, failed mine, relied heavily on Australian assistance
The entire island economy was mostly reliant on a now defunct mine. Estimated unemployment is around 90%!!! Not a typo. 95% of the people are “employed’ by government.
GDP was estimated to be around 5,000 per capita, and it is likely even lower. This means we should be able to easily entice the people with financial incentives.
There is one radio station and TV station. It seems they have a decent number of internet hosts. Furthermore, thy get energy by burning imported fossil fuels… solar panel or wind mills could make this place energy independent.
According to CIA: Economy: “The rehabilitation of mined land and the replacement of income from phosphates are a serious long term problem”
They are mostly dependent on external assistance.
A problem we can fix.
- Lazy people
The unemployment rate, they type of employment (government), the fact that these people squandered a 1.3 billion dollar trust fund AND the fact that 97% of men and 93% of women are obese leads me to believe that these people might have a lazy laid back culture.(which I might too if I lived in paradise…) This means those who are energetic will probably be able to out compete them easily, and they can be enticed with easy money and stipend in exchange for exploitation of their resources, namely the potential tourist industry.
- Beautiful real estate, beautiful weather: Average low of 77 degrees… beautiful beaches.
Just look up some of the photos, Let them speak for themselves.
- Virtually no tourist industry= virgin poon tang
After coming to a deal about where to have this little charter city, we get leases and start building hotels, a casino, a dance club, and maybe a venue hall in addition to other things that will be tourist attractions. We then have offices around the world pushing this as a new exciting destination. The exact target market can be developed later.
To entice the people, we tell them it will take care of their financial problems, provide jobs for the people and youth, etc. etc.
We can do public works like make public gyms (since it seems they need them…) and maybe offer everyone on the island a stipend which is a share of the profits from the ventures. We could offer to redevelop their mines for them. We could build a series of windmills and solar panels and provide free electricity to the people if they want. We do whatever it takes within reason to get the people to go along with it.
We may even convince them to let us have a red -light district (we can make it exclusive to foreigner in case they are worried about “polluting” their “culture”) with hookers and blow, which for some reason always seem to bring tourists. Of course, we can have control of drug distribution and hooker regulation, if they are worried about random traffickers distributing to their Nauruan peoples.
These are probably just unrealistic musings since I have nowhere near the capital necessary to undertake such an endeavor, still, sometimes I wish I was rich or had the ear of one of the more successful ancaps XD.
Unnecessary mass conversions
I gave examples of small groups of people living as they see fit without mass approval in the enclave method article.
I have been doing a great deal of research, and I am close to finishing up and unveiling my own enclave project, but depending on my fortune it may well be some time before I can get started. (Again, the way things are going politically here, one might not have a lot of time left to act)
Case Study: Pitcairn Islands
Consider this Case study of a small society, isolated, which could easily become sovereign under the right circumstances. When I started looking at micro nations and micro states one of the many questions I set out to answer is “Can a small sovereign nation be socially, economically, and militarily viable?” and “How small can a small sovereign nation be and still be viable?”
Quick and dirty history
Source: CIA world fact book. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pc.html
This colony was founded by 17 people, it had around 250 people at the peak of its population. It was populated in 1790, and went many generations virtually unmolested by modern states. It later became a british colony (annexed, of coarse) when the anglos went on their world conquering crusades.
Take out your google map aps and type in “Adamstown, Pitcairn Islands”
As of 2011, there are 67 people on this island. There are many other micro colonies like this dotted all over the world.
Now, here are 67 people, with a whole island to themselves, living in de facto sovereignty. They are all seven day Adventists ( ideological sameness), and are descendants of british traitors and tahitians.
If these people can manage a de facto sovereign island nation with 67 people, us ancaps should be able to, at the very least, match this feat. All I ask for is just one, only one similar territory on the whole fucking planet for the few of us out of all the 7 billion people who want to live in a completely free market society.
At this point, I ran a thought experiment. How would I convert this island into a sovereign ancap nation? In this thought experiment, let us suppose that several ancap entrepreneurs come together, and buy the island from the british government and from the current inhabitants. We would then have to determine how to prepare the island for colonization.
Even this tiny island has access to telephone, satellite internet, and television. There is a main road, which could easily be constructed or expanded with private funds. Common use objects such as roads could be funded by the interest generated from trust funds that were set up before colonization for that specific purpose.
Ports and airstrips could operate under similar rules and/or with similar funding schemes.
A well-known tactic that invaders use to demoralize a population under siege is to destroy central utilities to ruin the quality of life for people. If each house had its own utilities, this would be a difficult if not impossible feat.
For example, septic tanks are an alternative to sewers. Water towers and tanks are alternatives to central water processing. Incinolet toilets don’t even have to use water to get rid of waste, they only require electricity.
This only leaves us with electricity being centrally generated, and there are well known alternatives to this such as solar vacuum tubes, radio isotope batteries, wind power, solar power, gas generators, battery farms, biofuels, hydrogen fuel cells. etc. etc. etc.
People will be free to procure as much or as little food storage as they wish, but it would probably be wise to have several months stored up in case of bad weather or misfortune. I don’t know if the acreage available would be enough to become food independent, but one could always put nets in the waters surrounding the island and farm salt water fish.
There is no british military presence, although responsibility for defense falls under the british armed forces, you know, because china is going to invade it any day now.
Still, if we wanted to be sovereign, we would need the ability to put up some sort of resistance against an invading or assaulting power. Picture an airstrip and several SAM sites around the island perimeter. The technology exists to enable anti-ship and anti-cruise missile systems such as a land version of the CIWS to be installed and maintained if the developers thought it was necessary. You would then have a reasonable defense capable of making any but the most dedicated attackers endure a great cost in exchange for their conquest or destruction.
See my article called “Defense is not a problem” to see a run-down of some solutions to defense of a small enclave.
I would simply propose charter based law, wherein everyone who wanted to live on the island would sign onto a charter outlining what can and cannot take place. Then, any private courts could rise up and enforce the agreed upon terms based on the charter. There is a lot more about this topic that will be released later. A chart would essentially be a contract between all colonizers, similar to the contracts members of pirate vessels signed with each other before going on an adventure. (See: Under the Black Flag: The Romance and the Reality of Life Among the Pirates by David Cordingly )
I would propose that the colony try to become energy independent ASAP for many geo political and practical reasons.
Something like this nuclear battery design would enable the island to grow rapidly due to the cheap energy available. http://www.gen4energy.com/
This power could then drive electricity based machinery such as cars, construction equipment, and other tools necessary to build up the infrastructure and transport goods.
Even now, according to wiki, they are considering turning energy production over to wind power vs. gasoline generators in order to achieve energy independence.
Money does not necessarily have to be locally generated. People can go off of the island and earn money and send it back to their free nation. With tools like bitcoin, and without ability to transport physical money in and out at will, it would be feasible to erect a financial industry.
Their work force is listed as ’15 able bodied men’ and yet they manage to survive. If you look at the satellite images, it’s not like they are living it huts either.
“The inhabitants of this tiny isolated economy exist on fishing, subsistence farming, handicrafts, and postage stamps. The fertile soil of the valleys produces a wide variety of fruits and vegetables, including citrus, sugarcane, watermelons, bananas, yams, and beans. Bartering is an important part of the economy. The major sources of revenue are the sale of postage stamps to collectors and the sale of handicrafts to passing ships.” From CIA economics article.
The people also produce honey and trade it with New Zealand and England.
The number of products and services that could emerge without government interference are too numerous to count. You can use your imagine here. I would imagine a small agriculture and manufactured products industry along with a booming drug and sex tourism industry.
/end thought experiment
The very existence of this island proves a few concepts.
1. Even very small numbers of people, less than 100, when working together and cooperating, can live in peace in a sovereign enclave. Furthermore, they can be somewhat economically productive all on their own.
2. Settlements of this size are hardly worth the time and effort it takes to invade by those powers with the capability to invade.
3. The island COULD be developed economically and I see no reason why it could not become at least energy independent. A small nation could produce agriculture, manufactured goods, and/or services, which could then be traded for other goods. However, even if the island produced nothing at all, so long as the inhabitants had income from some other source, they could arrange supply drops. Many people from outside countries send money back to their home countries. Furthermore, without any taxes the colony would quickly attract money and people looking to live more freely.
My point is, that if 67 seven day Adventists can run a de facto sovereign enclave in the middle of the ocean, then ancaps, who I would hope number more than 67 worldwide, should be able to figure out a way to create a similar sovereign enclave somewhere in the world within the next 20 years, especially if they have ideological sameness and come together now to invest wisely for a fund we can use in the future to pursue such projects.
If the generalizations I made are true in enough people, the state and organized religion will be with us for a very long time. Indeed, we see that the state and organized religion has a very long track record. Nothing you do, no logical argument, no moral argument, no facts you cite and very likely no act will ever convince these people to choose long, difficult, complex, expensive options that make them feel bad over easy, simple, free or cheap options that make them feel good regardless of the effectiveness of the former. Based on the failure of the Ron Paul revolution, my own observations of human behavior, my own experiences with statists of all stripes, the general trend in world history of people’s tolerance of government tyranny and genocide, and my own thoughts considering the aforementioned I am convinced that the vast majority of statists are ALL IN, Completely Indoctrinated, and heavily entrenched, or at best apathetic and uninterested in the reality of their status.
If you are an ancap or libertarian and are interesting in seeing the truth about the world, you would do well to realize that most people are not like you and will never be able to understand the world the way you do. Accept the fact that your view is now, and will always be in the hyper minority.
Only after realizing and accepting this can serious answers to the question “what do we do about it” be pondered and entertained. I have said it before and I would say it again, based on the influences I mentioned in the first paragraph of the conclusion section, most people would be fine under a north korea like dictatorship as long as they had a hot meal and could barbeque , watch sports, drink, and fuck.
Now, this does not mean that I think that those who take the information proliferation route should stop putting information out there. Even if I did, why the hell should they care about my position? Proselytizing is different from presenting. Presenting information and letting people make up their minds about something is one thing. In my experience, people who are skeptical about the status quo tend to seek new information themselves anyway.
Arguing, protesting, and yelling, instigating state action and grand standing is a completely different tactic, where you are actively trying to change people’s minds by assaulting their views. Challenging people’s views is seen as an attack and therefore elicits an emotional response. They will respond with hatred and vitriol to you AND your message.
I do not think the focus of those serious about liberating themselves should be on converting the masses or trying to convince democrats, republicans, liberals, or conservatives that their life long belief system is a fraud. (Similarly, this is why I find attempting to convert theists as another pointless endeavor. The few who are even susceptible to becoming atheists usually seek out information independently, based on testimonials I have seen of people who had questioned their beliefs and started to do independent research for alternative views.)
At this point, the information that supports the feasibility of the idea of a stateless society based on free market capitalism is out there, mostly for free and instantly digitally available. People who want to learn more about it can learn more about it with a few Google searches.
Instead of proselytizing, I think those serous about finding liberty in their lifetimes should focus on networking with people who have ideological sameness, and engaging in entrepreneurship and empowerment, so that they have the means to free themselves and to defend their free status and property.
I don’t know if this term exists, but I think what is needed is what I call “entrepreneurial activism” where people engage in businesses for the purpose of bringing about or to prevent, a political condition.
I am not out to change the world or to impose what I think would make the world or the nation a “better” place. I desire to live freely and to be productive MYSELF, and to enjoy the fruits thereof with those who also desire to do this. I have no desire to force liberty down anyone’s throats or impose some kind of benevolent worldwide ideological revolution.
I think those who dogmatically seek to bring about some sort of nation-wide ideological revolution betray a totalitarian, all or nothing, statist mindset, wherein the people who want to “spread liberty” are akin to the people who want to spread democracy or spread christianity or spread islam. Not everyone has to live under the conditions you value. I know this is hard for you to believe, but SOME PEOPLE ARE HAPPY LIVING IN NORTH KOREA.
Finally, there have been a flurry of new enclave projects arising; this is a step in the right direction. It would be good if every state had some such endeavor.
Newer wave of US based enclaves: Other people independent of me have come to the same conclusion that the enclave method is the way to go.
Snippets of the Ancap enclave IDEA
Interesting snippets from ACFT’s post regarding the ancap enclave idea I am playing with.
Full Thread and Context : http://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,2291.0.html
*I tried to edit and I added the word “reply” to try to make it easier to follow.*
“I could see paying in upfront for a large tract of land, but how would that land be divided? Who is going to get the swamp land that no one wants instead of the meadow with the spring water?”
Well, with the enclave phase, which would be domestic, the ranch is treated like a country club. Whatever buildings we erect there are accessible to all members, as well as the entire property.
As for the sovereignty phase, after we build up a base of dedicated trained ancaps who are serious about the idea, we go about finding land. Let’s say for the sake of argument we get an island with 70k acres.
We set up a company that will act as the original owner of all the land. It can offer deeds as lease hold or freehold or conditional. See this article for more info on this.
Anyway, everyone interested in the project pools money by buying shares in the holding company set up for that purpose. There are different classes of shareholders : vanguard, pioneers, and investors. Vanguard are the very first to go and prepare the land and take the most risk. (especially if there may be combat involved.)
These people get to pick the first plots of land as a reward, but are limited to the % of shares they own.
For example, if I invest 20k and the total pool is 20 mil I own .1% of the stock. We take that percentage and divide the island up according to how many shares people bought. So, on an island or land mass with 70,000 acres I get 70 acres(.1%). I register what I want with the company and we keep it moving. Now the place is secure and prepared and pioneers come to live there and build. They get the second round of choice according to their investment %. Finally investors get their choice(investors are not expected to move) again due to their share%. We might enable people to buy their way up the class scale as well. This way everyone gets land according to what they risk. Obviously, we will need capital in addition to acquisition to build on the land, and this will need to be accumulated or invested as well.
Let me note that the vanguard should be the best trained and equipped members. Among the same class, it is first come first serve, and so the first person to claim GPS coordinates of land they want and have it registered will get the deed recorded as freehold or leasehold, or a conditional deed (depending on circumstances at that time)
“How is this different than the FSP in any meaningful ancap sense?”
1. The project is centered around one property or town vs. all over the state
2. We are not minarchists and have no intention of taking over the politics or freeing the state
3. We will be more militaristic
4. We will not tolerate socialists or collectivists
5. We have a very specific goal and a very specific focus
6. We have a unified organizational structure and unified investments vs. loose association with somewhat similar ideology
7. This is specifically for ancaps that conform to a specific set of beliefs.(to be defined)
8. We are not proselytizing, meaning trying to win converts , instead we want to aggregate already existing ancaps who are ready to act.
Eventually, the goals is to set up a sovereign charter city or nation somewhere, and not just live in a freer state of slavery.
I can’t think of more at the moment but there are probably more.
acft you obviously thought a lot about this and I commend you for your effort. I’m interested in the project, and it sounds promising to me.
However I’m not sure that now is the time. I would like to be wrong though.
I too thought this way. But then I asked myself “then when?” Furthermore, I believe that after a financial collapse/after guns are confiscated here it will be too late. No capital will be able to be raised afterwards and this project is somewhat capital intensive. If they take the guns or start some kind of insurrection its game over for all of us anyway. I had to accelerate the project due to current circumstances. There will be a point at which their technological supremacy will be perfect and unable to be resisted. (similar to how cattle cannot resist slaughter houses) Any such project must take place before this time, and given the proliferation of drones and the control of the internet, I believe this time is rapidly approaching.
The rest of the Thread is an entertaining read as well.
There were understandable concerns that such an enclave would be immediately destroyed upon declaring sovereignty. An exchange ensued. Again, click the link for the full exchange.
Read my article on defense before you read this exchange : http://www.ancapfreethinker.info/?p=79
What makes you think that the State will not actively resist this through force of arms.
By the state I think you mean the US, which, again, is an unfair standard. Still:
• The US did nothing to stop the genocides in Rwanda and many other nations. The US did nothing to stop Russians invasion of Georgia (an ally)
• The US has only recently become overtly active in africa again with africom. This means all of the atrocities and coups, and milita groups in Africa have been operating with no US troops on the ground. Indeed, no report of even drone strikes in the vast majority of those countries. (Cony 2012)
• The US has not invaded Mexico even though the Cartels challenge their policy and violate their very borders
• There are neighborhoods in LA the cops will not go into, feds, DEA or otherwise.
• The US did not use force against North Korea when they openly shelled a South Korean island AND sunk a South Korean destroyer.
• There have been numerous communes in america and around the world that already practiced what we are trying to do.
• There were already new nation projects that were not militarily opposed by the US government in the past.
• Monarchies still exist, and are not a “state” as we come to understand it.
• There have been many overtly militant organizations that opposed the US (weather underground, black panthers) that did not have all its members wiped out in some mass attack. Overt terrorist organizations like the KKK or the white nationalists or the US based Hebrew Israelites operate without being bombed or gunned down. There are many many many anti-gov militias training unmolested to counter a gun grab as we speak. ( I agree they will probably fail)
• The US is in serious financial trouble AND is over extended militarily, as you alluded to. It is hard to imagine that they will divert an aircraft carrier group or destroyer group to bomb some arcane colony. Its not like noone would take note of a random shelling of some land for no reason. They could very seriously not even afford the resources begin diverted given the Threat of an Iranian response to an isreali attack, the threat of awar in north korea, the need to intervene in Sayria or some other mid east nation.
Given all this, it is still possible, but not as likely as it is being made to sound. Furthermore, we would be prepared to respond (as evident by the article about defense I linked to and my previous responses about defense) Again, it is a risk.
Your waco example is not relevant. 1- Obviously someone had personal beef with him 2- They were an easy target, peaceful, kept to themselves, and did not desire conflict. 3 They were within the US
Basically, your argument is the US will ignore millions slaughtered in genocide, unspeakable atrocities, rampant child sex and white slavery, arms dealings, legal and prolific drugs and prostitution and near o % tax rates, countries that attack and invade their allies overtly, countries that operate explicitly as tax havens to enable the rich to avoid taxes, and countries that harbor terrorists without launching invasions and without bombing the majority of these places. However, a colony with a few ancaps looking to do business with the world is completely intolerable. again I see it as possible, some congressman can take it up as their crusade or something, but I see it as significantly less likely and manageable. They are not invincible or invulnerable or all powerful or all knowing.
I’m not sure how you think anything which you’ve used as a reply is even applicable.
You asked me why I don’t think the state(US) is likely to actively resist this through force of arms. You also made the claim that “The US government only allows the different organizations exist which doesn’t directly question it’s(the US government’s) power and authority”
I then listed examples of events and organizations that were many orders of magnitudes more serious that a random colony being founded somewhere. I listed examples where US laws were broken, and the US’s power was overtly challenged and yet nothing was done. That is why they are applicable.
Why would Hong Kong have been bombed by now?
You claimed that an ancap colony would prove to the world that anarchy works AND that this would somehow threaten state power as the masses open their eyes to the truth that they can live w/o government.
My point was, if this was the case, then they should all be agitating for smaller government since it has been proven to be successful. Even Keynseins admit lower tax rates increase business activity and often lead to higher government revenue.
According to your logic, a smaller government being successful anywhere would then threaten the power of larger governments, and thus, they should be instantly attacked and destroyed so that there’s no examples of small governments being successful.
While you think there would be a low probability for the US government -or any government- to take action against your Anarchist enclave
I don’t see how you could have read the article I linked, or the responses I gave, and concluded that I think that there’s a low probability of ANY GOVERNMENT attacking. I again and again have said, you need to be able to fight a 3rd world type army and deter a first world army.
Furthermore, I conceded that there might be meddling and that that meddling would have to be dealt with.
You talk about Washington and Colorado; do you remember when California legalized MMJ? What did the Feds do? If you think that Washington and Colorado are even close to being off-the-hook you are seriously delusional;
According to http://norml.org/legal/medical-marijuana-2 about 18 states have legal marijuana.
Where are the Black FEMA helicopters and the storm troopers?
There was another interesting Thread about whether or not it is even possible to buy Sovereignty. I was impressed with acft’s answers as well. It addresses the Paranoia of being invaded and goes into some different topics
Full thread and Context: http://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,2275.45.html
Preventing all outside interference not possible. Even the US has Israeli spies. You cannot prevent it, you have to manage it.
It is part of the game.
Most of the objections can be overcome with planning, and yes planning, training, and funding would have to be extensive for such an undertaking.
I prefer having freedom and dealing with meddling States vs. living under current slavery and dealing with TOTAL meddling, down to what I can and cannot put in my body or do with my sex organs.
Many may prefer to remain a slave because it is comfortable or safe. For those the solution is simple, don’t join one of these projects. I would not mind a reduction in quality of life for true sovereignty.
Some say we would be instantly attacked as soon as we went sovereign. We would deserve to be wiped out if we did not have a formidable defensive strategy in place beforehand. Still, I do not think it would be that much of a danger depending on how we go about getting the land and declaring sovereignty.
I agree, states are vicious and ruthless murdering organizations, but even they are limited in power and somewhat rational. Again, unless we had a very well-oiled military machine with MODERN military arms on contract (say, from Saab http://www.saabgroup.com/) I wouldn’t bother. We wouldn’t even have to be big, 100 men well-armed and supported by light armored infantry can conquer most cities in the US.
On the one hand, we have the example of Israel declaring independence and then immediately being attacked by all surrounding countries at once.
At the same time, there have been many countries that have been peacefully created without such bloodshed. Keep in mind, states have limited resources, limited capability, and limited interests. I mean, there have been genocides that states have virtually ignored. If they would ignore the murder of millions in Rwanda, why would they bother with a small peasant territory ? Unless we are dumb enough to meddle with their resources I doubt they would even blink. Still, even if they did, only a handful of states have striking capability outside their own borders. This is yet another reason why I prefer a remote location. Think Gough island or Prince Edwards islands (google map these)
There are some historical examples of enclaves and new nations in this article as well http://www.ancapfreethinker.info/?p=88
A Bit more about Defense
“I also, think that as far as land goes it would be better to have at least one port -so some water access would be preferable. I would advise against an island, because it could easily be surrounded.”
I have to disagree here for a number of reasons:
360 degree radar for air and sea without worrying normal traffic from other countries.
An island with finite coordinates can be easily gridded out for zone defense in case of invasion and/or artillery fire .
With an island, you see your enemy (unless a sub) coming from a long way away and you have no air space restriction etc. which means you can stalk, observe and engage them on your terms without worrying about airspace violations.
Islands are ideal for long range stand-off weapons, ranging up to and over 100 miles. With no terrain, unless the enemy has significant ecm capability (some western nation) they are going to be susceptible to ground to sea anti-ship missiles.
Ability to create port city where wealthy can come with yatchs, etc and not be bothered by other countries. More ports opens possibility up for more trade and tourism.
The more remote the better:
Only a handful of nations have aircraft carriers, furthermore, if we had even a dozen anti-ship missiles, risking a carrier to fuck with some anarchists on an island makes no sense.
Out of sight out of mind, if we are remote we are less likely to register on peoples radar screen.
Distance from current conflicts
Distance from existing states
Distance from resources
The more remote, the harder it is to be meddled with. Few nations have the ability to refuel mid-air, so even air strikes become problematic without a carrier or mid-air refueling. Furthermore, even with ships, say a destroyer, if you are remote enough even they would need a place to refuel and resupply.
Again, very few states have the capability to send an army across the sea.
WMDs like Nukes are not necessary. One has to worry about defensive parity of surrounding countries and/or credible and reasonable threats more than anything. No one can defend against a US led cruise missile assault and invasion. This is not reason to not do the project.
More than anything, the project will be dependent on
1. Having people willing to kill, fight, die for the project and
2. Defense contracts for the arms we need.
3. Planning and funding
Stop thinking of defense as : how can I defend against the US. NO ONE CAN DEFEND AGAINST THE US. Please stop thinking you or any nation will be able to stop a large western nation from invading. If Libya and Iraq could not do it you won’t be able to. You need to be able to stop 3rd world nations and large 3rd world militias and DETER western nations. If they really want to, they will get you and no nukes will be necessary. Risk is part of the game.
“My question is simply is it even possible to purchase sovereignty?”
Maybe, but it would have to be upheld through force of arms. I would STRONGLY suggest anywhere but US and Europe as far as a sovereign movement. An enclave movement can be set up anywhere.
I would jump at the chance to start a private charter city in Somalia. Not only do they need investment and commerce, but it would be a great opportunity for developing private defense industries. They have tons of wide open uninhabited land. Somalia has good grazing lands for cattle, fertile land for growing produce (when out of drought seasons). Very mountainous terrain in some parts making true invasion very difficult.
No real air force or navy to speak of, SUPER IDEAL. Competing “governments”, clans, and warlords means no unified opposition.
For example, google map “xaafun” A private charter city on that peninsula would be ideal IMO. We go in as a private corporation with development in mind. Even if technically we are under their gov., over time we develop power and eventually the would be unable to tax us. Slowly our businesses gain market share and slowly we build up arms and soldiers. If we gain enough influence, we might even be able to bribe our way into sovereignty.
Ally with a local tribe and chieftan to get permission, provide jobs for the locals and meanwhile, Build up as much military power as you can.
Water purification/ irrigation
Garbage disposal, Gun manufacture, ammo manufacture, gold/silver currency production, contract binding and enforcement.
“I believe it would require organizing the likes of which Anarcho-Capitalists/Voluntaryists have never seen before; and it would require centralized authority to oversee it -both of these items are anathema to the entire concept of Anarcho-Capitalism and Voluntaryism, making it an even greater reason as to why Ancapistan would never go anywhere.”
I agree it would take a great deal of organizing. However, central authority is not anathema to Anarcho-capitalism, COERCIVE/INVOLUNTARY central authority is. There is nothing wrong with joining an organization and playing a role with a common interest or goal in mind. There is also nothing wrong with large scale voluntary organizing.