Musings about Free Enclaves

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 :,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 :



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 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:,2275.45.html

About meddling:


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.


About Paranoia:

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 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


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.


Business opportunities:

Water purification/ irrigation

Power generation

Beekeeping/Khat production

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.