We need our own island

well, if anything were to be started, I would want to see an anarcho-capitalist society in action. Perhaps start it out as libertarian though.

And of course it would probably be neccessary to buy protection from the USA.
 
well, if anything were to be started, I would want to see an anarcho-capitalist society in action. Perhaps start it out as libertarian though.

And of course it would probably be neccessary to buy protection from the USA.

an ancap society buying protection from the US? LOL. I do not believe an ancap society can succeed in contemporary times. You would need to eradicate ALL statism. I don't believe a single SOVEREIGN ancap society can peacefully coexist in a neighborhood of vicious mafia.
 
Antarctica!

I starting in reading this thread, everybody was talking about an island. I cant believe you missed a continent!

Ok, this is probably going to sound crazy, but why not Antarctica. Specifically, Marie Byrd Land which is unclaimed by any country: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Antarctica.jpg

Antarctica has several advantages:

1. Lots of natural resources and potential for mining.
2. Very remote.
3. Very hard to invade by land (remember when Napoleon and Hitler tried to invade Russia)?
4. It is free.

Problems:

1. It is cold as shit.
-The money raised for buying an island (as other proposed) can be spent on building protective structures. Perhaps a biodome or somthing
2. The sun does not shine half the year
-Well, that is true, but it is windy as shit and humans are getting very good and building turbines.
3. It is very remote
-That is a good thing! fewer people to fuck with us!


Im betting that 100 very capable couples with enough resources could start this thing with no problems.

Thoughts?


*EDIT* I finally saw that once i got to the 35th page of comments that somebody did bring up Antarctica.
 
Last edited:
I starting in reading this thread, everybody was talking about an island. I cant believe you missed a continent!

Ok, this is probably going to sound crazy, but why not Antarctica. Specifically, Marie Byrd Land which is unclaimed by any country: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Antarctica.jpg

Antarctica has several advantages:

1. Lots of natural resources and potential for mining.
2. Very remote.
3. Very hard to invade by land (remember when Napoleon and Hitler tried to invade Russia)?
4. It is free.

Problems:

1. It is cold as shit.
-The money raised for buying an island (as other proposed) can be spent on building protective structures. Perhaps a biodome or somthing
2. The sun does not shine half the year
-Well, that is true, but it is windy as shit and humans are getting very good and building turbines.
3. It is very remote
-That is a good thing! fewer people to fuck with us!


Im betting that 100 very capable couples with enough resources could start this thing with no problems.

Thoughts?


*EDIT* I finally saw that once i got to the 35th page of comments that somebody did bring up Antarctica.

Would the World Government (EU, UN, "Dubya"...) allow us to declare independence in "international territory"?
 
I starting in reading this thread, everybody was talking about an island. I cant believe you missed a continent!

Ok, this is probably going to sound crazy, but why not Antarctica. Specifically, Marie Byrd Land which is unclaimed by any country: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Antarctica.jpg

Antarctica has several advantages:

1. Lots of natural resources and potential for mining.
2. Very remote.
3. Very hard to invade by land (remember when Napoleon and Hitler tried to invade Russia)?
4. It is free.

Problems:

1. It is cold as shit.
-The money raised for buying an island (as other proposed) can be spent on building protective structures. Perhaps a biodome or somthing
2. The sun does not shine half the year
-Well, that is true, but it is windy as shit and humans are getting very good and building turbines.
3. It is very remote
-That is a good thing! fewer people to fuck with us!


Im betting that 100 very capable couples with enough resources could start this thing with no problems.

Thoughts?


*EDIT* I finally saw that once i got to the 35th page of comments that somebody did bring up Antarctica.

I think you are the first one who is trying to seriously entertain it. I highly doubt that the rest of the world would let us have it, even if it is technically unclaimed, since every country has a virtual truce on it, allowing research only. Because of the cold/snow, we probably couldn't grow our own food, unless we could do it with an unatural light source.
 
I think you are the first one who is trying to seriously entertain it. I highly doubt that the rest of the world would let us have it, even if it is technically unclaimed, since every country has a virtual truce on it, allowing research only. Because of the cold/snow, we probably couldn't grow our own food, unless we could do it with an unatural light source.

International recognition is an interesting concept. The Confederate States of America were never recognized and they did a decent job of having a country for a while (note that i dont condone slavery, im merely looking from a historical perspective). I honestly have no clue what would happen. I mean, if you start a country and start doing well economically/socially, does it matter if you are recognized internationally?

Only 46 countries signed the antarctic treaty. Plus, i dont think that the WHOLE of Antarctica be used, just the portion that is not claimed by another nation.

The fact that it is difficult to grow food should not, in my opinion, rule it out as a possibility given its other positive attributes. Other countries import a good deal of supplies that support their economy. If the country founded was a bastion of free trade or information services or whatever, then food imports does not seem unreasonable.

Some key industries that a nation on a part of Antarctica could excel at:
-information services (like sealand was trying to do)
-eco-tourism
-climate control technologies

I know at first it seems crazy, but i think it is honestly a contender. The fact that it is remote, large, costs no money, and cold all can be seen as great positive attributes.
 
International recognition is an interesting concept. The Confederate States of America were never recognized and they did a decent job of having a country for a while (note that i dont condone slavery, im merely looking from a historical perspective). I honestly have no clue what would happen. I mean, if you start a country and start doing well economically/socially, does it matter if you are recognized internationally?

Only 46 countries signed the antarctic treaty. Plus, i dont think that the WHOLE of Antarctica be used, just the portion that is not claimed by another nation.

The fact that it is difficult to grow food should not, in my opinion, rule it out as a possibility given its other positive attributes. Other countries import a good deal of supplies that support their economy. If the country founded was a bastion of free trade or information services or whatever, then food imports does not seem unreasonable.

Some key industries that a nation on a part of Antarctica could excel at:
-information services (like sealand was trying to do)
-eco-tourism
-climate control technologies

I know at first it seems crazy, but i think it is honestly a contender. The fact that it is remote, large, costs no money, and cold all can be seen as great positive attributes.

I am not ruling it out, but there are numerous drawbacks. We do need to be self sufficient, or at least be able to be, in case of an embargo. As was the problem with creating an island from a coral reef, I would need an estimate of the costs in order to make a judgment or research it further. We would have to be in doors quite a bit, and would have to build an indoor base in order to survive.
 
ON RESISTING EVIL
by Murray N. Rothbard

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard178.html

Small Excerpt:

We are all too familiar with this sellout route and it is easy and proper to become indignant at this moral treason to a cause that is just, to the battle against evil, and to your own once cherished comrades. But there is another form of abandonment that is not as evident and is more insidious – and I don't mean simply loss of energy or interest. In this form, which has been common in the libertarian movement but is also prevalent in sectors of conservatism, the militant decides that the cause is hopeless, and gives up by deciding to abandon the corrupt and rotten world, and retreat in some way to a pure and noble community of one's own. To Randians, it's "Galt's Gulch," from Rand's novel, Atlas Shrugged. Other libertarians keep seeking to form some underground community, to "capture" a small town in the West, to go "underground" in the forest, or even to build a new libertarian country on an island, in the hills, or whatever. Conservatives have their own forms of retreatism. In each case, the call arises to abandon the wicked world, and to form some tiny alternative community in some backwoods retreat. Long ago, I labeled this view, "retreatism." You could call this strategy "neo-Amish," except that the Amish are productive farmers, and these groups, I'm afraid, never make it up to that stage.

The rationale for retreatism always comes couched in High Moral as well as pseudo-psychological terms. These "purists," for example, claim that they, in contrast to us benighted fighters, are "living liberty," that they are emphasizing "the positive" instead of focusing on the "negative," that they are "living liberty" and living a "pure libertarian life," whereas we grubby souls are still living in the corrupt and contaminated real world. For years, I have been replying to these sets of retreatists that the real world, after all, is good; that we libertarians may be anti-State, but that we are emphatically not anti-society or opposed to the real world, however contaminated it might be. We propose to continue to fight to save the values and the principles and the people we hold dear, even though the battlefield may get muddy. Also, I would cite the great libertarian Randolph Bourne, who proclaimed that we are American patriots, not in the sense of patriotic adherents to the State but to the country, the nation, to our glorious traditions and culture that are under dire attack.

-

Serious question: What will this project do to advance freedom in this world? Are you up for the task?
If so, why have you not joined up with the Free State Project?
 
Last edited:
ON RESISTING EVIL
by Murray N. Rothbard

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard178.html

Small Excerpt:

We are all too familiar with this sellout route and it is easy and proper to become indignant at this moral treason to a cause that is just, to the battle against evil, and to your own once cherished comrades. But there is another form of abandonment that is not as evident and is more insidious – and I don't mean simply loss of energy or interest. In this form, which has been common in the libertarian movement but is also prevalent in sectors of conservatism, the militant decides that the cause is hopeless, and gives up by deciding to abandon the corrupt and rotten world, and retreat in some way to a pure and noble community of one's own. To Randians, it's "Galt's Gulch," from Rand's novel, Atlas Shrugged. Other libertarians keep seeking to form some underground community, to "capture" a small town in the West, to go "underground" in the forest, or even to build a new libertarian country on an island, in the hills, or whatever. Conservatives have their own forms of retreatism. In each case, the call arises to abandon the wicked world, and to form some tiny alternative community in some backwoods retreat. Long ago, I labeled this view, "retreatism." You could call this strategy "neo-Amish," except that the Amish are productive farmers, and these groups, I'm afraid, never make it up to that stage.

The rationale for retreatism always comes couched in High Moral as well as pseudo-psychological terms. These "purists," for example, claim that they, in contrast to us benighted fighters, are "living liberty," that they are emphasizing "the positive" instead of focusing on the "negative," that they are "living liberty" and living a "pure libertarian life," whereas we grubby souls are still living in the corrupt and contaminated real world. For years, I have been replying to these sets of retreatists that the real world, after all, is good; that we libertarians may be anti-State, but that we are emphatically not anti-society or opposed to the real world, however contaminated it might be. We propose to continue to fight to save the values and the principles and the people we hold dear, even though the battlefield may get muddy. Also, I would cite the great libertarian Randolph Bourne, who proclaimed that we are American patriots, not in the sense of patriotic adherents to the State but to the country, the nation, to our glorious traditions and culture that are under dire attack.

-

Serious question: What will this project do to advance freedom in this world? Are you up for the task?
If so, why have you not joined up with the Free State Project?

The free state project, I am afraid, hasn't worked out as well as many anticipated.
I envision that within the next decade we will be under total enslavement by the government, and this is the only way out of this. Murray Rothbard died before it got this far.
 
an ancap society buying protection from the US? LOL. I do not believe an ancap society can succeed in contemporary times. You would need to eradicate ALL statism. I don't believe a single SOVEREIGN ancap society can peacefully coexist in a neighborhood of vicious mafia.

Precisely.
 
The free state project, I am afraid, hasn't worked out as well as many anticipated.[1]
I envision that within the next decade we will be under total enslavement by the government, and this is the only way out of this.[2] Murray Rothbard died before it got this far.[3]

[1] What some may not had anticipated was that the project would receive less than enough pledges thought needed to have an impact. This would be easily solved if everyone on these boards pledged to move. Problem solved. :)

[2] Yet this project wishes to entice people to move to a self-governing liberty island.
If you are serious about this project, do you anticipate more favorable results than the hardworking, well organized FSP has reaped?

[3] So did George Orwell. ;)


I think the Free State Project has been very successful. Here is some proof. :D
http://freestateblogs.net/victories06
http://freestateblogs.net/victories07


I hope you will join us and convince others you know to join up to.
However, I realize we all have our own dreams in life. Good luck with whatever you decide to do. :)
 
[1] What some may not had anticipated was that the project would receive less than enough pledges thought needed to have an impact. This would be easily solved if everyone on these boards pledged to move. Problem solved. :)

[2] Yet this project wishes to entice people to move to a self-governing liberty island.
If you are serious about this project, do you anticipate more favorable results than the hardworking, well organized FSP has reaped?

[3] So did George Orwell. ;)


I think the Free State Project has been very successful. Here is some proof. :D
http://freestateblogs.net/victories06
http://freestateblogs.net/victories07


I hope you will join us and convince others you know to join up to.
However, I realize we all have our own dreams in life. Good luck with whatever you decide to do. :)

I just don't want to raise me family in the totalitarian police state this country is becoming.
I guess it depends on how you measure "success" last I checked there was around 12k pledges with 500 people who moved.
 
Back
Top