Topic: Bitcoin Town: Let's Make the Future Come to us - page 5. (Read 54827 times)

What is the point of making a town inside of the US? You would still have to follow federal and state law, which defeats the purpose.

You are absolutely correct @Mike Christ.

Although many of us disagree on details - the vast majority agree on the major issues. And that gives me hope. Now if we can just somehow (and please, dear God don't anyone suggest voting or protesting) get rid of the dangerous criminals in congress... people who are really just bought/paid for mafia type "capos" working for the corporations... and then maybe, just maybe... we can begin to restore our democracy.

Good Point! Agreed....

Don't forget that people and cultures are different, too. An anarchist biker gang town would look radically different from an anarchist high class society town/gated community.

They wouldn't.  But government is not about what makes sense, it's about governance.

I was about to concede that one point but then a couple thoughts hit me: 1. Actually they have done all sorts of crazy construction there. 2. And even if it's illegal...why would they shit all over the place that they live?

How free is it, really, when no one is even able to own and develop the land they park their RV on? It's free, and it looks like an undeveloped craphole precisely because no one is allowed to develop it.

Bitcoin town?
Amazing!

I'll consider a way of life free when I am no more a slave to my good conscious as any other man; if there's someone above the law, you're not free, only the person above that law is ever truly free.  There was a time where there was freedom, but you likely wouldn't want to live in it

Sure it's not completely free, however, it's the "free-ist" that we have: besides is or has anywhere ever been completely free? Even a city such as the one that your questions presuppose  - it would not be free if any of your desired answers were in the positive.

Can I do any of the following in Slab City?:

* Purchase land to establish a permanent residence, business location, or easement for utilities such as power lines and water pipes
* Open a bank for savings and investments that can finance development projects
* Open a business without having to submit paperwork that lets someone else tell me if I'm allowed to open it
* Build housing, business, and industrial facilities wherever I think they would be best located
* Provide private security to keep the peace and keep the area clean


If no, then it's not a "free city." And since slab city is still in US government property, that means that it is still subject to all the rules, regulations, and restrictions as any other city. Basically all the restrictions and regulations of government, and none of the benefits.

I was actually considering this anarchism idea, but then I found out about "slab city" - touted as the last free city on earth. Google it (especially for pics) and tell me - isn't this what would happen in an anarchist society? And if not, why not?

Skimming through some of the posts here, I get the feeling that maybe instead of setting up a Bitcoin town, you guys should set up an INTJ/INTP town.

50? I should say at least that many for an average sized community or town. Since this idea is designed to encourage as well as facilitate rapid legal evolution and experimentation, I would expect such communities to develop organically into whatever sizes are suitable and seem right to the people involved.

As for what to call them, I've begun calling them 'Tuatha' after the Irish name for independent communities which feature from their legal history as an independent nation.

I think communities would form along the lines of people's highest values in terms of how to live. There may be some who value quiet above all else, and they will form a community which caters to this value. That's virtually impossible in today's world outside being rich. Visitors to such areas would be asked to respect decorum and quiet as a condition of visitation. Since the streets would be privately owned as well, kicking out an offender is really easy compared to living in a modern city, where again, nothing short of being rich or rather well-off will get you a gated community. In a tuath, every community is effectively gated.

You might have a community of people on ketogenic diets, where the only food sold is extremely low-carb. Imagine that.

Naturally there would be communities stratified by age, by interest, party-going college-town type wild places where partying into the night is expected and celebrated and you'd never get the cops called on you.

You'd have large places where people raise families and look out for each others' kids in that way.

The possibilities of how to setup such places are really endless, and that's very exciting to me, to see what people would do with such a place.

Anyway, I've been quietly building a client program to facilitate this, to allow people to serve contracts to others effortlessly, using the web, and I call it "Bitlaw." Uses P2P messaging and decentralization to send out contracts either publicly or privately, allows instant editing of contracts and back-and-forth negotiation of contracts, digital sales receipts, and more.

Law is the last major bastion to escape the impact of the coming digital age. I intend to change all of that with Bitlaw and unleash a revolution of creative legal development.

I think of it as the revenge of individualism. 150 years ago the socialists believed socialism as a principle for ordering society would be an effective way to order economic affairs. They produced communism and it failed spectacularly to produce economic gains over the free market--which was intrinsically individualist.

Now I want to take the next step and introduce political individualism taken to its ultimate extreme--individual sovereignty as a social system.

This has never been tried before. It's going to change everything.

It's completely different from that, actually, even if the result is somewhat similar. Any society is going to have law, I'm proposing a radically different way to generate it.

Each person and property owner has 100% control over their legal circumstances; it is the ultimate form of individualism, each person a sovereign, no one can force anyone to adopt any particular law. That is extreeeeeemely different from the scheme you're living in now, so much as to make how you're living now appear to be at least a partial tyranny by contrast.

That's the big difference. If you don't like the law in such a society as what I propose you don't have to move. You simply toss off the law, remain in place, and propose a new law for yourself, and no one can stop you. Big difference.

Awe TomUnderSea, you're silly.

But hey Anenome5, I think I'm starting to warm up to this idea. So how many communities will there be? Oh IDK, uh, say... how about 50 or so? And what will we call these communities?

Gee, maybe I should bring this idea up at the next home owners association meeting.  Having a slightly more restrictive set of laws, enforced by a small additional fee, that everyone agrees to when they buy in is such a novel concept.

Really, guys?

Tell me again how this scheme differs from what I am living in right now.  I have the US law, with the local state law (CA) layered on top of that.  Then the local county law and, in my case, the local homeowners association "rules".    If I don't like the HOA, I sell and buy elsewhere.  If I don't like the CA state laws, I move to a different state.  If I don't like the US law, I immigrate to a place with "better" laws like Cuba (free medical) or Pitcairn Island (age of consent is 16 or perhaps lower).  Personally, I like my current location better than my experiences in the Pacific Orient, Europe or the Middle East.

It's likely entire communities would adopt similar contracts, sort of like Blue Sky laws. Thus you'd only need to know what's common in that area and anywhere that points differ could be automatically pointed out for you.