new hampshire will just have to be a stepping stone to our first legitimate seastead.
I view it as a stepping stone to establishing an economy external to the state, just as bitcoin is.
Topic: if 10,000 libertarians moved to Nauru, ron paul could be president (Read 2996 times)
I view it as a stepping stone to establishing an economy external to the state, just as bitcoin is.
May 02, 2013, 10:11:00 AM
Just because they currently sell citizenship does not mean they would ever sit idly by and let this plan reach fruition. They'd probably milk as many of you as they thought safe, then just tighten things up again or change the laws later. Narau is poor, but every poor country has its powerful leaders and those leaders aren't interested in giving up their power or wealth.
right we would have to formalize a plan and buy marketable citizenship in bulk but it would appear that nauru might just consider selling the sovereignty of a small part of the island. apparently they have been talking to wirtland about this. This would simplify the process a great deal.
What Wirtland is asking for is a tiny portion of land that Narau has already stripped of resources. Yeah, they'd probably be willing to sell you a small part of their territory too.
But the bigger proposal - a group of libertarians emigrating to an existing country, buying citizenship, and taking over government - just isn't very likely. Government officials and other elites would never agree to this because they would be disenfranchising themselves. How much money would it take for them to give up power? And why would they trust outsiders to run the country or honor treaties? Even if the government allowed this, the population would never accept it; you would have an uprising on your hands in no time. Buying citizenship means nothing if the people already there don't want you there. Think civil war.
I think Free State folks are better off sticking to New Hampshire.
new hampshire will just have to be a stepping stone to our first legitimate seastead.
May 01, 2013, 08:20:49 PM
Down
May 01, 2013, 03:22:59 PM
Just because they currently sell citizenship does not mean they would ever sit idly by and let this plan reach fruition. They'd probably milk as many of you as they thought safe, then just tighten things up again or change the laws later. Narau is poor, but every poor country has its powerful leaders and those leaders aren't interested in giving up their power or wealth.
right we would have to formalize a plan and buy marketable citizenship in bulk but it would appear that nauru might just consider selling the sovereignty of a small part of the island. apparently they have been talking to wirtland about this. This would simplify the process a great deal.
April 30, 2013, 07:46:29 PM
"We"?
I didn't think you were part of the libertarian crowd here.
I didn't think you were part of the libertarian crowd here.
those who ain't with you must be against you, right?
Well, the thread is entitled "if 10,000 libertarians moved to Nauru," and you've been against me so many times it's hard to think you're with me now.
April 30, 2013, 07:32:51 PM
"We"?
I didn't think you were part of the libertarian crowd here.
I didn't think you were part of the libertarian crowd here.
those who ain't with you must be against you, right?
April 30, 2013, 10:13:58 AM
haha oh wow. 
Quote
Nauruans are the most obese people in the world: 97 per cent of men and 93 per cent of women are overweight or obese.
ah it's that island, i heard about the obese island phenomenon...
i'm afraid we'd bring even more wealth to this island already debauched enough by the disruptive and invasive western fast food culture
I didn't think you were part of the libertarian crowd here.
April 30, 2013, 10:03:17 AM
haha oh wow.
Quote
Nauruans are the most obese people in the world: 97 per cent of men and 93 per cent of women are overweight or obese.
ah it's that island, i heard about the obese island phenomenon...
i'm afraid we'd bring even more wealth to this island already debauched enough by the disruptive and invasive western fast food culture
April 30, 2013, 08:59:30 AM
haha oh wow.
Quote
Nauruans are the most obese people in the world: 97 per cent of men and 93 per cent of women are overweight or obese.
April 30, 2013, 08:28:40 AM
Nauru? Check it out on Google Maps, and read about it Wikipedia. The place is a dump--80% of the island is an abandoned open-pit mine. I suggest you choose somewhere more appealing.
cmon guy, the same reason why its a dump is the reason why we might actually be able to afford to buy it. Sure its ugly now but just close your eyes and picture it with sky scrapers so tall that they dwarf the hong kong sky line. Imagine a city that is taller than it is wide.
Imagine that city disappearing in a burst of white-hot light.
April 30, 2013, 06:53:08 AM
Nauru? Check it out on Google Maps, and read about it Wikipedia. The place is a dump--80% of the island is an abandoned open-pit mine. I suggest you choose somewhere more appealing.
cmon guy, the same reason why its a dump is the reason why we might actually be able to afford to buy it. Sure its ugly now but just close your eyes and picture it with sky scrapers so tall that they dwarf the hong kong sky line. Imagine a city that is taller than it is wide.
April 29, 2013, 09:05:38 PM
Nauru? Check it out on Google Maps, and read about it Wikipedia. The place is a dump--80% of the island is an abandoned open-pit mine. I suggest you choose somewhere more appealing.
April 29, 2013, 04:52:51 PM
No matter what path libertarians might take to get to their desired freedom destination, its going to take a lot of time and work. Why not join the over a thousand who have already moved and started doing the work, and become a participant in the Free State Project. We have a port for those who want to build a seasted, lots of folks already getting elected and starting to make real change, a lot of folks who are opting out of the system altogether, and more coming all the time. We also have one of the longest running weekly bitcoin meetups as well as several bitcoin businesses.
If you do join, please put down Ron Helwig as the person who referred you so I can get a Golden Porc award
If you do join, please put down Ron Helwig as the person who referred you so I can get a Golden Porc award
April 29, 2013, 03:33:12 PM
Quick question:
Wouldn't the existence of a president imply there's a strong national government, which would go against libertarian ideals?
Wouldn't the existence of a president imply there's a strong national government, which would go against libertarian ideals?
Thinking it all boils down to the question: Will Nauru once taken over by 10,000 libertarians actually be (and continue to be) a liberal state - or will it automatically develop into a less liberal state based on egoistic human nature which inevitably leads to abuse of power sooner or later?
Money would still rule the minds.
April 29, 2013, 01:11:18 PM
Quick question:
Wouldn't the existence of a president imply there's a strong national government, which would go against libertarian ideals?
Wouldn't the existence of a president imply there's a strong national government, which would go against libertarian ideals?
Thinking it all boils down to the question: Will Nauru once taken over by 10,000 libertarians actually be (and continue to be) a liberal state - or will it automatically develop into a less liberal state based on egoistic human nature which inevitably leads to abuse of power sooner or later?
i think the island is so small that will make it so that we have a real serious effect on the politics, unlike in developed nation states. Is there someone among us capable of casing the ring into the fires of mt doom? i really dont know, maybe but maybe not. I think i would do it, of course you have no reason to think that i would do it. But maybe if we elected the staff of the mises academe to all of the positions of power they would be like me, of course maybe they wouldn't. Hard to know but it seems to me worth a shot. the internet changed things.
April 29, 2013, 01:06:36 PM
There is an intuitive understanding among human beings what is someone's (or a group's) natural possession, what is just and what is unjust property.
But. This. Is. One of the core mistakes of Marxists/socialists. Or perhaps this "only" leads to one of the greatest mistakes. Indeed there is very strong intuitive understanding what possession is "natural" or "appropriate" or "unjust". Everyone has such feeling. But... somehow, each single person has it different.
There is no single "objective" fair distribution of property which all people will feel as right and natural. There is not even some "reasonable interval" which everyone will intuitively perceive as right. In the extreme case, hoarder of millions can feel as much as robbed as poor hungry guy when someone forcefully takes bread from him. And both of them have exactly the same right to feel so. And property of both should be protected by the same principle to the same extent.
Property of aristocrats gained not by voluntary trade, but by applying force, violence or threat of such is of course something completely different.
April 29, 2013, 12:21:07 PM
Quick question:
Wouldn't the existence of a president imply there's a strong national government, which would go against libertarian ideals?
Wouldn't the existence of a president imply there's a strong national government, which would go against libertarian ideals?
Thinking it all boils down to the question: Will Nauru once taken over by 10,000 libertarians actually be (and continue to be) a liberal state - or will it automatically develop into a less liberal state based on egoistic human nature which inevitably leads to abuse of power sooner or later?
April 29, 2013, 11:36:00 AM
Quick question:
Wouldn't the existence of a president imply there's a strong national government, which would go against libertarian ideals?
Wouldn't the existence of a president imply there's a strong national government, which would go against libertarian ideals?
April 29, 2013, 08:45:31 AM
Thesis: Property is something natural and God-Given.
Antithesis: There is no property, it's an illusion.
Synthesis: Property rights don't necessarily have to be tied to individuals, but can also apply to collectives (collective property rights aka communism). But the collective could also be of size 1, an individual. There is an intuitive understanding among human beings what is someone's (or a group's) natural possession, what is just and what is unjust property (e.g. large unproductive amount land owned by aristocrats, while folks around have no land and starve, would be felt as unjust and detrimental to the further development of this society). Such property would be disputed; thus, in general, upkeep of large property is not free, as it would have to be defended by its inconsiderate owners. Compensation would have to be spent on guards. This essentially means there's corrosion or depreciation of land property just like with most natural goods. A more civilized implementation of this fact would be some kind of land tax. If we don't trust a government to collect tax, a more decentralized way of collecting and redistributing unearned wealth would have to be found.
Antithesis: There is no property, it's an illusion.
Synthesis: Property rights don't necessarily have to be tied to individuals, but can also apply to collectives (collective property rights aka communism). But the collective could also be of size 1, an individual. There is an intuitive understanding among human beings what is someone's (or a group's) natural possession, what is just and what is unjust property (e.g. large unproductive amount land owned by aristocrats, while folks around have no land and starve, would be felt as unjust and detrimental to the further development of this society). Such property would be disputed; thus, in general, upkeep of large property is not free, as it would have to be defended by its inconsiderate owners. Compensation would have to be spent on guards. This essentially means there's corrosion or depreciation of land property just like with most natural goods. A more civilized implementation of this fact would be some kind of land tax. If we don't trust a government to collect tax, a more decentralized way of collecting and redistributing unearned wealth would have to be found.
or just general respect among a society for libertarian principals.
The only reason aristocrats have ever been aristocrats is because the public believes that they are aristocrats. Sometimes wealth is justly acquired and sometimes it is unjustly acquired, but always it is a constant that property rights are a reflection of the beliefs of individuals, nothing more. If i were to just run out into the street naked screaming i own the whole world would that make the whole world my property? why not? because no one would take me seriously. We could have a society where an aristocrat claiming that he owns some big plot of land somewhere that he has never touched would seem equally as ludicrous as the afore mentioned example with me naked in the street.
April 29, 2013, 05:55:24 AM
Thesis: Property is something natural and God-Given.
Antithesis: There is no property, it's an illusion.
Synthesis: Property rights don't necessarily have to be tied to individuals, but can also apply to collectives (collective property rights aka communism). But the collective could also be of size 1, an individual. There is an intuitive understanding among human beings what is someone's (or a group's) natural possession, what is just and what is unjust property (e.g. large unproductive amount land owned by aristocrats, while folks around have no land and starve, would be felt as unjust and detrimental to the further development of this society). Such property would be disputed; thus, in general, upkeep of large property is not free, as it would have to be defended by its inconsiderate owners. Compensation would have to be spent on guards. This essentially means there's corrosion or depreciation of land property just like with most natural goods. A more civilized implementation of this fact would be some kind of land tax. If we don't trust a government to collect tax, a more decentralized way of collecting and redistributing unearned wealth would have to be found.
Antithesis: There is no property, it's an illusion.
Synthesis: Property rights don't necessarily have to be tied to individuals, but can also apply to collectives (collective property rights aka communism). But the collective could also be of size 1, an individual. There is an intuitive understanding among human beings what is someone's (or a group's) natural possession, what is just and what is unjust property (e.g. large unproductive amount land owned by aristocrats, while folks around have no land and starve, would be felt as unjust and detrimental to the further development of this society). Such property would be disputed; thus, in general, upkeep of large property is not free, as it would have to be defended by its inconsiderate owners. Compensation would have to be spent on guards. This essentially means there's corrosion or depreciation of land property just like with most natural goods. A more civilized implementation of this fact would be some kind of land tax. If we don't trust a government to collect tax, a more decentralized way of collecting and redistributing unearned wealth would have to be found.
Jump to: