Topic: Who wants to start an anarchist micronation? - page 6. (Read 7196 times)

Loopholes and other shit won't work in Peru.  And at Casey's Ranch near Cafayete, Argentina, as soon as anything gets rockin' & rollin' there, the .gov will come in and ruin it.

And if one government leaves such a "independent country" (on UN legal technicalities, ah...), the next one Socialist one will undo it, confiscate what they wish, and boot out (or jail) troublemakers.

The UN and its rulez don't mean squat.  North Korea.  Or even look at Venezuela, you think Maduro would leave a wealthy enclave of producers alone?  No way.  No way other countries would recognize such a revolutionary idea as an independent group of high-producers...


EDIT:

The way I see it, you would have to buy a WHOLE ISLAND NATION, all of it, and bribe the (ex-)sovereigns from then to infinity...

EDIT 2:

"Again my point is they can't take away the land you own, so what can they do to deny your claim of sovereignty?"

Land you own?  We don't even have secure land ownership rights in the USA.  Sovereign countries will do as they please.

Again my point is they can't take away the land you own, so what can they do to deny your claim of sovereignty?

They can ignore all of your claims and get other nations to ignore them as well. And so I proposed (after purchasing the sovereign territory and declaring it sovereign) then to travel to a country that has ratified the UN Convention on Stateless Persons, and then renounce your birth citizenship. Then claim you are citizen of the sovereign State. The host country whch is ratified the UN Convention on Stateless Persons (not the country you are claiming to form an independent state with their claimed territory) must give you certain rights as stipulated in that UN convention. One of those rights is they can not deport you, thus they must either allow you to become a stateless resident of their country or they must recognize your new sovereign State passport. Either way you win, because you are either stateless (yet allowed to reside) or you are a recognized citizen of the new sovereign State. If you pick carefully the host country, then you won't be liable for any taxes on foreign earned income nor dividends. So in essence you will have become somewhat sovereign in either case.

I found a clever loophole.

Please try to understand my logic. I think most people don't even read my OP carefully.

However, I will say that my proposal is not the most efficient way of accomplishing a tax haven. And it could severely restrict your ability to travel internationally. Thus I doubt any one would want to do it. It makes no sense unless you consider that the world might enter a mad max with pandemic, global economic collapse, war, and even a Little Ice Age coming. So you might just want to pick one place in a warm climate to hunker down.

...

There was a group, some 20 - 25 years ago, who planned to try and buy some land in S America (not Peru, although it was in the running -- Fujimori) AND negotiate with the host government to allow them to have independence.

One of the major incentives the group was trying to offer was that they would let locals from the host country work there (and of course the investors/migrants buy the land).

It seemed like an OK plan, it was detailed, they were raising funds.  But, to my knowledge, it went nowhere.

*   *   *

My guess is that local sovereign countries will NEVER allow an independent state coming from "their" country.

And, as far as I know, there is NO unclaimed land in the world, every island is claimed.

Let me know if I am wrong.

That is correct. I don't like paying taxes to fund the 0.001% to capture the political process, because actually what you ignoramuses want is to fund everything in life for free, thus you allow the State to go into debt and be controlled by the banks and then after the fact you call for regulation when it is entirely too late any way and wouldn't work (Glass-Steagal was repealed by Clinton).

Let me put it more concisely. You socialist pigs want a world that steals for you.

Whereas, we want a meritocracy and one in which we can help the poor to rise up and be prosperous. And even giving them assistance while they make the transition from a life of dependence to a life of accomplishment. We would give this assistance individual-to-individual fostering local community and reputation (because we are proud of our hard work and want to share our accomplishments and see a better and happier world), so that terrorists such as yourself can't hide behind the government welfare system to avoid the shame of actually never trying to be productive. Yet your ilk labels us as the terrorists   What kind of upside, down fucked up world you have created.

Again I think you are lower in value to humanity than a pig (at least it produces food for humanity and doesn't promote a mad max hell of theft as you do). And the 0.001% that you have enabled thinks you are a "useless eater" and they are planning to exterminate you in the coming global economic collapse which you enabled with all your debt funded welfare.

Edit: also note I was also describing a safe way to become a stateless person.


That is why we are also working on an anonymous Knowledge Age:


But you need to be cognizant of the fact that the majority of people will not agree to give up the nations, because they want to use force to expropriate wealth from the "1%" and redistribute it to the 0.001% (in fact it is a redistribution of wealth from the 99.999% to the 0.001% but the ignoramuses who are poor stay poor because they have been fooled by the 0.001%). It sadly humorous to see these ignoramuses self-destructing into a blood (666) sucking NWO like dogs chasing their own tails.


Unfortunately, we anarchists can be collateral damage caused by these ignoramuses.

And that people who are inherently immoral, or stupid, can be trusted to govern others.

You make your statements, I'll make mine. I said what I meant.

A very common objection to anarchism is that people are inherently immoral, or stupid, and couldn't be trusted to govern themselves.

Change that statement to "I don't like paying taxes"

The world already suffers from having too many nations, governments and other non natural entities. Please, let's not start another one. Better destroy all the existing nations. Actually, this may prove unnecessary as they're all crumbling down. USA and Europe are built on deficit. Countries only exist because simple minds believe in them.

And who said we wouldn't help people   The point is we aren't enslaved from doing so by transferring the power to the State collective morass!

Hell’ll never understand how he makes himself political fodder for the ruling class that captures the State (and soon to be eugenics for all with imminent sovereign debt collapse). As I wrote previously...

I don't like paying taxes to help the more fortunate.

you don.t like paying taxes to help the less fortunate in life
anyone in life can hit rock bottom so in your state i would be turfed away if this happens to me
sounds like your a total capitalist so sod every one else as long as am ok

I believe the economic citizenship programs of the EU nations (even Spain will given you residency if you buy a 300,000 euro property) are a tax trap. They will change the rules on Europeans. It is SOBO (statement of the blatantly obvious) they will not allow Europeans to escape their tax obligations by residing outside the EU, because as they raise taxes on the productive citizens of the EU, the productive Europeans will of course seek out tax havens. Thus the EU will have no choice but to close the loophole that exists. The EU will harmonize with the USA system of taxation (that is what FATCA is for) where you are liable for taxes no matter when you reside. Mark my word! The EU has no fiscal choice because the EU is bankrupt! You never want to be a citizen of a bankrupt nation (or economic union) which has unassailable taxation powers. The Troika is untouchable. They have proved in Greece, they can do what ever they damn well please to you Europeeons (as in peons).



Meanwhile the powers-that-be really do intend to lock you inside the border.

I believe exactly the opposite will result. Those useless blobs of flesh will instead migrate away to nanny states (which will euthanize them).

Hey you should have voted, so we can count your "state institutionalized welfare for blobs of useless flesh" opinion.

No thanks your rules will only lead in poverty and slow progression

I am trying to find out if there are any other people in this world who think like I do, i.e. have the same political philosophy as I do. Someone who has more time and more skilled in legalese could reformulate this for as long as the themes are the same.

The Philippines taught me how to live like this. I learned a lot from the filipinos about how to live in freedom[2]!

I expect most people do not want freedom. Thus they will not vote "Yes to both". People think they want freedom, but they really don't.

Proposed Anarchy Constitution

Citizenship in the sovereign State of ________ (hereafter referred to as the State) is granted only to the initial owners of the territory purchased to form the State, to any offspring of citizens who declare their unequivocal allegiance to this Constitution, and to any person who so declares their allegiance coincident with written approval from at least two-thirds of the living adult citizens who existed at the time the two-thirds threshold was attained. Citizenship is perpetual except where voluntarily renounced. Renunciation occurs by written statement with three citizen witness signatories or implicitly immediately upon voting for any treaty, law, or amendment that violates this constitution. Non-citizens are not allowed to own private property within the State's territory. Any citizen who has renunciated explicitly or implicitly must dispose of his applicable private property within 1 year, else it will be sold at auction by any citizen of the State and the proceeds distributed proportionally to all citizens.

The State will have no power to enact laws, regulations, raise revenue, nor any euphemism or alternative formulation of the aforementioned concepts. Property rights within the State's territory will be transferred only by a trade between agreeable parties. Property ownership and contracts will be tracked by one block chain. Property rights can be enforced by any citizens at any time, so that possession of property agrees with the non-ambiguous statement of the block chain.

The State will have no power over social concerns and welfare, including but not limited to marriage, compulsory education, cohabitation, individual rights, poverty alleviation, and crime. Individuals may voluntarily enter into social contracts on the block chain, in which case the terms of the voluntary contracts can be enforced by any citizens at any time. The citizens may discourage heinous crime by carrying firearms. Punishment during the act can be death by self-defense. Retribution (punishment after the act) is against natural law and thus will not be allowed[1]. The right to carry firearms of any type is universal for all citizens, and there will be absolutely no restrictions nor procedures required to do so. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons are not allowed in the State's territory.

Any adult citizen of the State may create his or her own passport, driver's license, and other State issued document necessary to comply with international norms. Adult citizens may create passports for minor offspring but not operator licenses for machinery (i.e. teenagers may not drive in the State's territory and to be enforced by any citizen at any time).

In the case of ambiguity, citizens must respect the freedom of other citizens to do as they please.[2]

Again the State has no power of taxation nor any other form of raising revenue. Treaties of the State can grant revenue generating measures to external powers, but compliance can only be enforced by on citizens by the external power with liens against their private property that is not within the State's territory. There will be no elected officials and no salaries nor developments funded by the State.

The Constitution can not be amended and its terms are perpetual. The only way to absolve this Constitution is for all citizens to renounce their citizenship. Occupation of the State's territory by a foreign power does not suspend this Constitution, which continues even if all the citizens are residents in absentia.

When traveling abroad, citizens are subject to laws of the territorial jurisdiction corresponding to their physical presence. When in international waters, outer or inner space, or within the State's territory, citizens are indemnified by this Constitution against any jurisdictions which impinge on the sovereignty of this constitution.

The State waives its right to a 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) around its territory, and instead claims a 1-mile EEZ.

The State may enter any treaty which does not inpinge on any statement in this constitution and the treaty is valid only if approved in writing by at least three-fourths of the living adult citizens who existed at the time the three-fourths supermajority threshold was attained. Any such validated, unexpired treaty may be rescinded by a two-thirds written vote of the living adult citizens.

[1] In other words, citizens have a duty to be proactive about their self-defense, which it the optimum method of reducing crime.

[2] If you don't like your neighbor's barking dog, then move or buy him out. No nanny state here!

---

The 1933 Convention on Rights and Duties of States, also known as the Montevideo Convention provides for the free will of a people of a territory. Of course the practical problem with enforcing the actionable sovereignty (e.g. getting other states to recognize the passport, etc) of such a micronation is that other powers (e.g. states and other terrorists) will both refuse to recognize the sovereign will of the people of State's territory and some powers may even forcefully attack the territory of the State.

http://www.worldislandinfo.com/Starting%20island%20country.html
https://flagspot.net/flags/to_min.html#des
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Country_of_World_Peace#Efforts_to_obtain_sovereignty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Trinidad

As you can see from the examples above, states are very interested in making sure we remain vassals by quickly responding to any attempt by natural persons to declare sovereignty over any territory which they purchased and/or occupy. Of course, because the powers of taxation and money creation beget from subjugation of individual sovereignty.

I believe there is a loophole which can be leveraged to render the powers of the states impotent.

There exists UN Convention on Stateless Persons. If you are in a country which is a signatory to this convention and you renounce your existing citizenship (or preferably get an official recognition of your relinquished citizenship), meaning you are a stateless person, then that signatory country where you are physically present must provide certain rights to you. They must provide you with an identity and travel document.



So the action I am asking you to vote on today is as follows. I want to know who is willing to co-purchase a territory for a new State, then travel to a nation which offers residency for foreign expats and which also does not tax foreign residents on foreign income and dividends, then print passports for ourselfs in our new sovereign State, relinquish our existing citizenships, and then declare to the host nation where we are physically present to recognize our citizenship in our sovereign State. The host nation (which must be a signatory to the aforementioned UN convention) must either honor our passports or apply our rights under the stateless person's treaty.

I would suggest we more or less stick together in the same signatory nation so have more political clout and economy-of-scale in completing the process. We could also pool our capital to buy some land and create a community we can protect in coming economic collapse. Some examples of affordable bulk land in suitable climates and signatory nations:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130503074339/http://www.byronlutz.com/antolopez.htm (recently increased to $75,000 for 12 acres)

http://www.bestranches.com.ar/ranches.html
  * 4500 acres with river, trouts, private natural sand beach in the ranch, cascades, streams for $1.4 million
  * 18,000 acres with river for $690,000!


The worst that can happen is we gain residency in this signatory nation and a travel document as stateless persons. Well a stateless person is thus a sovereign person. Thus goal achieved. We can then travel freely back to our State's territory as "stateless persons".

The best that can happen is the signatory nation decides to honor our passports and issue us a travel document to go along with it. And that others in the world might see our success and emulate it.

We should be prepared that the powers-that-be would attempt to crush us by any means possible, because this would be a direct threat to their NWO plans. Or would it? Hmmm. The majority of the people in the world are sheep. They are not going to opt for sovereignty. The powers-that-be have nothing to fear from us. Rather if they attack us, they can create sympathy for us and stir an awakening amongst the masses that they don't want. In other words, we should follow the passive, non-violent approach to attaining freedom a la Gandhi.

In the worst case, we end up with ownership of the State's territory (we can subdivide with individual titles). We get rid of our onerous Western citizenship which in the coming years will be insane expropriation albatross around the neck of every westerner with networth, a business, or income. We carry at least a stateless person's travel document. We probably do destroy our chances of being accepted for purchasing citizenship in an economic citizenship program such as Dominica, but could probably attain citizenship in the signatory country where we are physically present over some years of residency.

Downsides include the very high likelihood that the "Western" (Europeanized) countries in green in the map in the webpage linked below will surely not grant us tourist visas.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11770294/Mapped-How-the-world-is-tackling-human-trafficking.html
http://www.nestmann.com/former-u-s-citizens-face-discrimination-returning-usa

An example of an interesting island to consider is:

http://www.privateislandsonline.com/islands/macuata-island

100 acres for $2.85 million, so that is $28,500 per acre. With 25 of us each investing $114,000, we'd each get roughly 4 acres (1.6 ha).

The reason to choose an island for attempting to establish sovereignty is because no citizens of the nation claiming jurisdiction can claim that we violate their rights to passage or otherwise harm them with our assertion of our rights on our purchased property. The citizens of the claiming nation have no justification to need to travel to our territory because it is private property. One of the reasons an island nation would strongly object to one of its island territories declaring sovereignty is because the 200-mile EEZ could hamper travel within the archipelago if many of the islands so declared their sovereignty.

Also the sovereignty motion would have a better chance of success if the State entered a treaty with the claiming nation respecting the sovereign conflicting sovereign claim of the claiming nation contingent on the claiming nation agreeing to honor the constitution of the State. In other words, an unresolved matter and state of mutually respecting truce. The treaty could include an agreement to pay a VAT tax on any rental and tourism revenue generated within the State's territory, so the claiming nation could save face and also revenue, but the treaty should ideally stipulate that in return the claiming nation would need to show that it spent the VAT on projects which benefited the State such as telecommunications and transportation infrastructure to the State's island. I assume many of the citizens our our micronation would be Knowledge Age workers or have foreign investments and thus wouldn't be subjected to such a VAT any way. Also the treaty could grant our citizens the option to obtain passports from the claiming nation.

In this negotiated way, I think it may be possible to attain some semblence of sovereignty in this mad world:

http://www.worldislandinfo.com/Starting%20island%20country.html


It seems the key ingredient is making it more politically and practically painful for the claiming nation to subjugate your State's sovereignty than it is for them to accept a deal that grants them most of the power they had.

The powers-that-be want to control the physical economy. They probably also want to control the Knowledge Age economy, and they think they can by controlling the information highway leading in and out of any physical territory. Thus I doubt they are that concerned about some libertarian nutcases who want to have some sort of pseudo-sovereignty which doesn't really challenge their globalization rules significantly.

I voted "Yes to both".