helmuth_hubener
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,484
RonPaulIsGreat, would you support and be interested in such a thing, or are you opposed?
Creating a Free Town or County
- Thread starter helmuth_hubener
- Start date
helmuth_hubener
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,484
Religious reasons actually do seem to be successful in providing the motivation level needed for relocations and community formations. There are many successful Amish and Mennonite communities around North America, as well as Hutterite and other groups even more divergent from the surrounding culture than the Amish and Mennonites (the Hutterites, to give you an idea, speak a form of archaic German). The Mormons migrated to Ohio, then to Missouri, then to Illinois, and then finally to Utah and throughout the intermountain West. The early Celtic christians formed monastic communities all over the place.
I wonder if there is any way we could harness the kind of passion and commitment that goes along with religious motivations for a project like this.
I wonder if there is any way we could harness the kind of passion and commitment that goes along with religious motivations for a project like this.
helmuth_hubener
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,484
helmuth_hubener
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,484
Again, AF, enlighten us on your brilliant plan. Or elaborate more on what you see as the failings of this one. I mean, if you're going to come try to rain on a parade, do put a little effort into it! Surely you can do better at destroying my plans for freedom than a one-liner.
phill4paul
Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
- Messages
- 46,967
I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic. Written words are difficult to decipher at times, but it seemed to be a sarcastic comment to me. As in olde world and provincial being something that might be frowned upon. Which it really isn't. I dunno.
helmuth_hubener
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,484
And even if it is impossible to win a
majority for a decidedly antidemocratic platform on a nationwide scale, there
appears to be no insurmountable difficulty in winning such a majority in
sufficiently small districts, and for local or regional functions within the overall
democratic government structure. In fact, there seems to be nothing unrealistic in
assuming that such majorities exist at thousands of locations. That is, locations
dispersed all over the country but not evenly dispersed.
But what then? Everything else falls almost automatically from the ultimate goal,
which must be kept permanently in mind, in all of one's activities: the restoration
from the bottom-up of private property and the right to property protection; the
right to self-defense, to exclude or include, and to freedom of contract. And the
answer can be broken down into two parts.
First, what to do within these very small districts, where a pro-private property
candidate and anti-majoritarian personality can win. And second, how to deal with
the higher levels of government, and especially with the central federal
government. First, as an initial step, and I'm referring now to what should be done
on the local level, the first central plank of one's platform should be: one must
attempt to restrict the right to vote on local taxes, in particular on property taxes
and regulations, to property and real estate owners. Only property owners must be
permitted to vote, and their vote is not equal, but in accordance with the value of
the equity owned, and the amount of taxes paid. That is, similar to what Lew
Rockwell already explained has happened in some places in California.
Further, all public employees — teachers, judges, policemen — and all welfare
recipients, must be excluded from voting on local taxes and local regulation
matters. These people are being paid out of taxes and should have no say
whatsoever how high these taxes are. With this platform one cannot of course win
everywhere; you cannot win in Washington, D.C. with a platform like this. but I
dare say that in many locations this can be easily done. The locations have to be
small enough and have to have a good number of decent people.
Consequently, local taxes and rates as well as local tax revenue will inevitably
decrease. Property values and most local incomes would increase whereas the
number and payment of public employees would fall. Now, and this is the most
decisive step, the following thing must be done, and always keep in mind that I am
talking about very small territorial districts, villages.
In this government funding crisis which breaks out once the right to vote has been
taken away from the mob, as a way out of this crisis, all local government assets
must be privatized. An inventory of all public buildings, and on the local level that
is not that much — schools, fire, police station, courthouses, roads, and so forth —
and then property shares or stock should be distributed to the local private property
owners in accordance with the total lifetime amount of taxes — property taxes —
that these people have paid. After all, it is theirs, they paid for these things.
These shares should be freely tradeable, sold and bought, and with this local
government would essentially be abolished. If it were not for the continued
existence of higher superior levels of government, this village or city would now be
a free or liberated territory. What would consequently happen to education and
more importantly, what would happen to property protection and justice?
On the small local level, we can be as certain, or even more so than we could have
been one hundred years ago about what would have happened if the king abdicated,
that what would happen is roughly this: all material resources that were previously
devoted to these functions — schools, police stations, courthouses — still exist, and
so does the manpower. The only difference is that they are now privately owned, or
temporarily unemployed in the case of public employees. Under the realistic
assumption that there continues to be a local demand for education and protection
and justice, the schools, police stations, and courthouses will be still used for the
very same purposes. And many former teachers, policemen and judges would be
rehired or resume their former position on their own account as self-employed
individuals, except that they would be operated or employed by local "bigshots" or
elites who own these things, all of whom are personally known figures. Either as
for-profit enterprises, or as, and what seems to be more likely, some mixture of
charitable and economic organization. Local "bigshots" frequently provide public
goods out of their own private pocket; and they obviously have the greatest interest
in the preservation of local justice and peace.
And this is all easy enough to see to work for schools and policemen, but what
about judges and justice? Recall that the root of all evil is compulsory
monopolization of justice, that is one person says this is right. Accordingly judges
must be freely financed, and free entry into judgeship positions must be assured.
Judges are not elected by vote, but chosen by the effective demand of justice
seekers. Also don't forget that on the small local level under consideration, one is
talking actually about a demand for one or very few judges only. Whether this or
these judges are then employed by the private courthouse association or stock
company, or are self-employed individuals who rent these facilities or offices, it
should be clear that only a handful of local people, and only widely known and
respected local personalities — that is, members of the natural local elite — would
have any chance whatsoever of being so selected as judges of local peace. Only
as members of the natural elite will their decision possess any authority and
become enforceable. And if they come up with judgments that are considered to be
ridiculous, they will be immediately displaced by other local authorities that are
more respectable. If you proceed along these lines on the local level, of course it
cannot be avoided that one will come into direct conflict with the upper and
especially the federal level of government power. How to deal with this problem?
Wouldn't the federales simply crush any such attempt?
They would surely like to, but whether or not they can actually do so is an entirely
different question, and to recognize this, it is only necessary to recognize that the
members of the governmental apparatus always represent, even under conditions of
democracy, merely a teeny proportion of the total population. And even smaller is
the proportion of central government employees.
Only as members of the natural elite will their decision possess any authority and
become enforceable. And if they come up with judgments that are considered to be
ridiculous, they will be immediately displaced by other local authorities that are
more respectable. If you proceed along these lines on the local level, of course it
cannot be avoided that one will come into direct conflict with the upper and
especially the federal level of government power. How to deal with this problem?
Wouldn't the federales simply crush any such attempt?
They would surely like to, but whether or not they can actually do so is an entirely
different question, and to recognize this, it is only necessary to recognize that the
members of the governmental apparatus always represent, even under conditions of
democracy, merely a teeny proportion of the total population. And even smaller is
the proportion of central government employees.
This implies that a central government cannot possibly enforce its legislative will,
or perverted law, upon the entire population unless it finds widespread local
support and cooperation in doing so. This becomes particularly obvious if one
imagines a large number of free cities or villages as I described them before. It is
practically impossible, manpower-wise, as well as from a public relations
standpoint, to take over thousands of territorially widely dispersed localities and
impose direct federal rule on them.
Without local enforcement, by compliant local authorities, the will of the central
government is not much more than hot air. Yet this local support and cooperation is
precisely what needs to be missing. To be sure, so long as the number of liberated
communities is still small, matters seem to be somewhat dangerous. However, even
during this initial phase in the liberation struggle, one can be quite confident.
It would appear to be prudent during this phase to avoid a direct confrontation with
the central government and not openly denounce its authority or even abjure the
realm. Rather, it seems advisable to engage in a policy of passive resistance and
noncooperation. One simply stops to help in the enforcement in each and every
federal law. One assumes the following attitude: "Such are your rules, and you
enforce them. I cannot hinder you, but I will not help you either, as my only
obligation is to my local constituents."
Consistently applied, no cooperation, no assistance whatsoever on any level, the
central government's power would be severely diminished or even evaporate. And
in light of the general public opinion, it would appear highly unlikely that the
federal government would dare to occupy a territory whose inhabitants did nothing
else than trying to mind their own business. Waco, a teeny group of freaks, is one
thing. But to occupy, or to wipe out a significantly large group of normal,
accomplished, upstanding citizens is quite another, and quite a more difficult thing.
Once the number of implicitly seceded territories has reached a critical mass, and
every success in one little location promotes and feeds on the next one, it will
become inevitably further radicalized to a nationwide, municipalization movement,
with explicitly secessionist local policies and openly and contemptuously displayed
noncompliance with federal authority.
And it is in this situation then, when the central government will be forced to
abdicate its protection monopoly and the relationship between the local authorities
that reemerge and the central authorities, who are about to lose their power, can be
put on a purely contractual level, and one might regain the power to defend one's
own property again.
-- Hans-Hermann Hoppe
majority for a decidedly antidemocratic platform on a nationwide scale, there
appears to be no insurmountable difficulty in winning such a majority in
sufficiently small districts, and for local or regional functions within the overall
democratic government structure. In fact, there seems to be nothing unrealistic in
assuming that such majorities exist at thousands of locations. That is, locations
dispersed all over the country but not evenly dispersed.
But what then? Everything else falls almost automatically from the ultimate goal,
which must be kept permanently in mind, in all of one's activities: the restoration
from the bottom-up of private property and the right to property protection; the
right to self-defense, to exclude or include, and to freedom of contract. And the
answer can be broken down into two parts.
First, what to do within these very small districts, where a pro-private property
candidate and anti-majoritarian personality can win. And second, how to deal with
the higher levels of government, and especially with the central federal
government. First, as an initial step, and I'm referring now to what should be done
on the local level, the first central plank of one's platform should be: one must
attempt to restrict the right to vote on local taxes, in particular on property taxes
and regulations, to property and real estate owners. Only property owners must be
permitted to vote, and their vote is not equal, but in accordance with the value of
the equity owned, and the amount of taxes paid. That is, similar to what Lew
Rockwell already explained has happened in some places in California.
Further, all public employees — teachers, judges, policemen — and all welfare
recipients, must be excluded from voting on local taxes and local regulation
matters. These people are being paid out of taxes and should have no say
whatsoever how high these taxes are. With this platform one cannot of course win
everywhere; you cannot win in Washington, D.C. with a platform like this. but I
dare say that in many locations this can be easily done. The locations have to be
small enough and have to have a good number of decent people.
Consequently, local taxes and rates as well as local tax revenue will inevitably
decrease. Property values and most local incomes would increase whereas the
number and payment of public employees would fall. Now, and this is the most
decisive step, the following thing must be done, and always keep in mind that I am
talking about very small territorial districts, villages.
In this government funding crisis which breaks out once the right to vote has been
taken away from the mob, as a way out of this crisis, all local government assets
must be privatized. An inventory of all public buildings, and on the local level that
is not that much — schools, fire, police station, courthouses, roads, and so forth —
and then property shares or stock should be distributed to the local private property
owners in accordance with the total lifetime amount of taxes — property taxes —
that these people have paid. After all, it is theirs, they paid for these things.
These shares should be freely tradeable, sold and bought, and with this local
government would essentially be abolished. If it were not for the continued
existence of higher superior levels of government, this village or city would now be
a free or liberated territory. What would consequently happen to education and
more importantly, what would happen to property protection and justice?
On the small local level, we can be as certain, or even more so than we could have
been one hundred years ago about what would have happened if the king abdicated,
that what would happen is roughly this: all material resources that were previously
devoted to these functions — schools, police stations, courthouses — still exist, and
so does the manpower. The only difference is that they are now privately owned, or
temporarily unemployed in the case of public employees. Under the realistic
assumption that there continues to be a local demand for education and protection
and justice, the schools, police stations, and courthouses will be still used for the
very same purposes. And many former teachers, policemen and judges would be
rehired or resume their former position on their own account as self-employed
individuals, except that they would be operated or employed by local "bigshots" or
elites who own these things, all of whom are personally known figures. Either as
for-profit enterprises, or as, and what seems to be more likely, some mixture of
charitable and economic organization. Local "bigshots" frequently provide public
goods out of their own private pocket; and they obviously have the greatest interest
in the preservation of local justice and peace.
And this is all easy enough to see to work for schools and policemen, but what
about judges and justice? Recall that the root of all evil is compulsory
monopolization of justice, that is one person says this is right. Accordingly judges
must be freely financed, and free entry into judgeship positions must be assured.
Judges are not elected by vote, but chosen by the effective demand of justice
seekers. Also don't forget that on the small local level under consideration, one is
talking actually about a demand for one or very few judges only. Whether this or
these judges are then employed by the private courthouse association or stock
company, or are self-employed individuals who rent these facilities or offices, it
should be clear that only a handful of local people, and only widely known and
respected local personalities — that is, members of the natural local elite — would
have any chance whatsoever of being so selected as judges of local peace. Only
as members of the natural elite will their decision possess any authority and
become enforceable. And if they come up with judgments that are considered to be
ridiculous, they will be immediately displaced by other local authorities that are
more respectable. If you proceed along these lines on the local level, of course it
cannot be avoided that one will come into direct conflict with the upper and
especially the federal level of government power. How to deal with this problem?
Wouldn't the federales simply crush any such attempt?
They would surely like to, but whether or not they can actually do so is an entirely
different question, and to recognize this, it is only necessary to recognize that the
members of the governmental apparatus always represent, even under conditions of
democracy, merely a teeny proportion of the total population. And even smaller is
the proportion of central government employees.
Only as members of the natural elite will their decision possess any authority and
become enforceable. And if they come up with judgments that are considered to be
ridiculous, they will be immediately displaced by other local authorities that are
more respectable. If you proceed along these lines on the local level, of course it
cannot be avoided that one will come into direct conflict with the upper and
especially the federal level of government power. How to deal with this problem?
Wouldn't the federales simply crush any such attempt?
They would surely like to, but whether or not they can actually do so is an entirely
different question, and to recognize this, it is only necessary to recognize that the
members of the governmental apparatus always represent, even under conditions of
democracy, merely a teeny proportion of the total population. And even smaller is
the proportion of central government employees.
This implies that a central government cannot possibly enforce its legislative will,
or perverted law, upon the entire population unless it finds widespread local
support and cooperation in doing so. This becomes particularly obvious if one
imagines a large number of free cities or villages as I described them before. It is
practically impossible, manpower-wise, as well as from a public relations
standpoint, to take over thousands of territorially widely dispersed localities and
impose direct federal rule on them.
Without local enforcement, by compliant local authorities, the will of the central
government is not much more than hot air. Yet this local support and cooperation is
precisely what needs to be missing. To be sure, so long as the number of liberated
communities is still small, matters seem to be somewhat dangerous. However, even
during this initial phase in the liberation struggle, one can be quite confident.
It would appear to be prudent during this phase to avoid a direct confrontation with
the central government and not openly denounce its authority or even abjure the
realm. Rather, it seems advisable to engage in a policy of passive resistance and
noncooperation. One simply stops to help in the enforcement in each and every
federal law. One assumes the following attitude: "Such are your rules, and you
enforce them. I cannot hinder you, but I will not help you either, as my only
obligation is to my local constituents."
Consistently applied, no cooperation, no assistance whatsoever on any level, the
central government's power would be severely diminished or even evaporate. And
in light of the general public opinion, it would appear highly unlikely that the
federal government would dare to occupy a territory whose inhabitants did nothing
else than trying to mind their own business. Waco, a teeny group of freaks, is one
thing. But to occupy, or to wipe out a significantly large group of normal,
accomplished, upstanding citizens is quite another, and quite a more difficult thing.
Once the number of implicitly seceded territories has reached a critical mass, and
every success in one little location promotes and feeds on the next one, it will
become inevitably further radicalized to a nationwide, municipalization movement,
with explicitly secessionist local policies and openly and contemptuously displayed
noncompliance with federal authority.
And it is in this situation then, when the central government will be forced to
abdicate its protection monopoly and the relationship between the local authorities
that reemerge and the central authorities, who are about to lose their power, can be
put on a purely contractual level, and one might regain the power to defend one's
own property again.
-- Hans-Hermann Hoppe
helmuth_hubener
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,484
2015 bump!
Let's build the future! We can do it!
Let's build the future! We can do it!
helmuth_hubener
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,484
So, again, what is the value proposition? Who really stands to benefit/ Who is really dying to have a free town?
Possibly, the libertarian community. That's certainly one market. But it's the one everyone has focused on already.
How about this: terminally ill people! Right now it takes biotech companies ten years and about a billion dollars (plus or minus, depending) from the time they start up to the time when they can finally sell their first, single pill or treatment or whatever it is to an actual customer. Wow, entrepreneurship is already hard! Try successfully predicting not what customers want, but what they'll want in ten years!
Now, if there were a place, a little town in the cool mountains of Arizona for instance, where the local authorities did not cooperate with the FDA, where the local economy had come to be based upon terminally ill patients coming to try cutting-edge experimental treatments before they are approved by the FDA (long before!), wouldn't that be something? Hmm...
Possibly, the libertarian community. That's certainly one market. But it's the one everyone has focused on already.
How about this: terminally ill people! Right now it takes biotech companies ten years and about a billion dollars (plus or minus, depending) from the time they start up to the time when they can finally sell their first, single pill or treatment or whatever it is to an actual customer. Wow, entrepreneurship is already hard! Try successfully predicting not what customers want, but what they'll want in ten years!
Now, if there were a place, a little town in the cool mountains of Arizona for instance, where the local authorities did not cooperate with the FDA, where the local economy had come to be based upon terminally ill patients coming to try cutting-edge experimental treatments before they are approved by the FDA (long before!), wouldn't that be something? Hmm...
helmuth_hubener
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,484
These people are literally dying to have freedom!
helmuth_hubener
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,484
But, member of Parliament isn't that interesting/exciting to me. I think: what if I were a member of Parliament? What would I do? Most likely: vote no on everything, and nothing would change or really be accomplished.
So, more interesting question for me: would those 1,000 have sufficient autonomy to be able to create a completely libertarian community ala Hoppe's road map?
I think the answer to that is probably yes, and so the even more interesting question is:
Can we find 1,000 people who will move to Picton, New Zealand (or whatever the best place in New Zealand is)?
That is a more difficult question. And that question applies equally to any geographical concentration strategy, wherever it is proposed to take place. And so I'm focusing on a question that aspires to answer that question:
What can we offer people to get large numbers of them fired up to move? What kind of value proposition can we put forward? And it has to be a credible offer, not just pie-in-the-sky vaporware. What can freedom do on a town level that will change people's lives and blow their minds?
Because its a multi-party system, independent MP's usually hold swing vote power, and can easily gain ministerial positions. You also get a pretty solid national stage in the media if you have something interesting to say, and a place at debates.
Most of New Zealand is already sparsely populated enough that it is effectively autonomous. Most sectors are extremely unregulated, there are no subsidies for any industries to speak of.
If you were a community of 1000 producers, you would be extremely welcome and very much at home.
The country just needs a small kick to move it from very free to very libertarian. None of our politicians are particularly intellectual. A well spoken MP could get other MPs elected with him if he can get 2% of the national vote.
Both sides of the government are ideologically small government, which is pretty weird. The two main factors are the influence of America on the Main right party making them pursue stupid NSA friendly policies, and the left wanting to maintain an effective safety net, with national debt.
Due to the population difference, an activist is 100 times more effective here, so it would be like having a community of 100,000 people.
Keith and stuff
Member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2009
- Messages
- 10,554
Or they could move to Grafton, New Hampshire (or a similar town in NH) and have even more freedom. Plus, they would have the ability to vote. Can regular people with little savings move to New Zealand and vote?
Last edited:
helmuth_hubener
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,484
True, New Zealand is very free. It has some very serious advantages already as a jurisdiction, just as you say, with relatively low regulation and a lot of laissez faire.
I'm liking this New Zealand idea!
Where do you think a good location would be, idiom?
helmuth_hubener
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,484
Idiom?
helmuth_hubener
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,484
No one replied to my experimental medicine haven, perhaps because no one recognized it as referencing a real situation. Here's some background:
"Arizona voters overwhelmingly approved a measure to allow terminally ill patients to obtain experimental drugs that haven’t been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
"So-called 'right to try' laws, which have passed in several state legislatures this year, got their start with the Goldwater Institute, a conservative think tank. But Arizona was the first to put the issue directly to voters, and they passed Proposition 303 with nearly 80 percent of the vote."
http://www.governing.com/topics/elections/gov-arizona-experimental-drugs-ballots.html
Also:
http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?mid=1652
An Entrepreneurial Perspective on the Life Sciences Industry
RonPaulIsGreat
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,462
Kim dotcom lives in New Zealand.
It'd be very difficult to move to new zealand. The cheapest method would be, I guess to sell everything, convert to bitcoin, and buy new stuff upon landing. I doubt they just let anyone just show up and proclaim citizenship as well.
It'd be very difficult to move to new zealand. The cheapest method would be, I guess to sell everything, convert to bitcoin, and buy new stuff upon landing. I doubt they just let anyone just show up and proclaim citizenship as well.
helmuth_hubener
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,484
I am all for that -- we are all all for that -- but we need to work out a lot more details than what you just provided. Please stick around and let's work out a actual plan! Post your ideas!
Similar threads
