Why don't we buy a country?

RJB said:
A group of people will need nukes, the banks and trillions in disposable cash to buy their own country

The corporatarians/leftatarians will say will say because we are too stupid to have made that much money, we don't deserve one.

This country was paid for in blood. Blood >>>>(a hell of a lot more than)>>>>>Money! This is all we have. There is no, nor will there be another. As Ben Franklin said, "as long as you can keep it."
Click to expand...

I don't think it would take nukes or trillions. Plenty of countries survive without nukes, through diplomacy.

This project would however likely take at least a billion.
 
osan said:
Land is always central to control. Theye have no intention of ceding control to anyone for any reason.
Click to expand...

Money is just as important to control. Some poor countries may be willing to take the exchange.
 
osan said:
I would also point out that establishing a free land in a world as wholesale fucked as this one would likely end in lots of fire and dead bodies.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree with you. But if that's true, the only hope for freedom is on mars, or more likely, some random asteroid in the far reaches of the galaxy.
 
TheTexan said:
Ya, you aren't ever getting your freedom back upon that parcel of land.

Our ancestors knew it as well. It's why they chose to spend 66 days cramped on a boat with a high chance of drowning in the middle of the Atlantic. They did this because they knew their home was destined to be ruled by tyrants.

Good luck defending your claim.
Click to expand...

The United States proved to be no less tyrannical than the European nations. There is only one thing which made the U.S. special......
it was a frontier surrounded by oceans. Other than that, it doesn't hold up so well on the tyrannical scale against Europe, or Canada or Australia.

Anyway, the last unclaimed piece of land on Earth, outside of Antarctica which is a special case, was Western Sahara. The U.S. and Israel
have decided recently (both Trump and Biden) to recognize Western Sahara as part of Morocco. That is an entirely selfish choice, because both
have cut deals with Morocco to exploit Africa. The Polisaro Front, however, (indigenous tribes), are still supported by a majority of nations.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=western+sahara+dispute&t=ffsb&ia=web
 
I have already claimed Western Sahara . Since Dankes ancestors are Out Of Africa and he is part of my tribe now his homeland is ours also . Morocco has been notified of this treaty.
 
Last edited:
Snowball said:
The United States proved to be no less tyrannical than the European nations. There is only one thing which made the U.S. special......
it was a frontier surrounded by oceans. Other than that, it doesn't hold up so well on the tyrannical scale against Europe, or Canada or Australia.

Anyway, the last unclaimed piece of land on Earth, outside of Antarctica which is a special case, was Western Sahara. The U.S. and Israel
have decided recently (both Trump and Biden) to recognize Western Sahara as part of Morocco. That is an entirely selfish choice, because both
have cut deals with Morocco to exploit Africa. The Polisaro Front, however, (indigenous tribes), are still supported by a majority of nations.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=western+sahara+dispute&t=ffsb&ia=web
Click to expand...

Exactly right. There is no remaining unclaimed land/water on earth. Every square inch is accounted for. Which is why our ancestors' strategy of packing up and moving west will no longer work.

A new strategy is needed.
 
Pauls' Revere said:
The buyers and sellers were both sovereign states recognized by other nations. We would have to set that up first. I wrote to the UN about how to start a country. And guess what ... no reply.
Click to expand...

Just because it hasnt been done before (besides Liechtenstein) doesn't mean it doesn't work. It just means it hasn't been done before.

With no more land left unclaimed, new strategies must be adapted.

There are many poor countries in the world. Who would happily and eagerly sign a treaty in exchange for a billion+ dollars.
 
We could all move to St Kitts & Nevis and everyone run for office and legally take over the government. The constitution provides for a pathway to independence. Problem is, are we all willing to do this and how many of "us" are there?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Const... definition of the citizens of the federation.

The Constitution of Saint Kitts and Nevis was adopted on 23 June 1983 and took effect when the country became independent on 19 September 1983. It consists of 11 chapters and various schedules, which establish the rights, responsibilities and definition of the citizens of the federation. It also provides the form and structure of government, and enumerates the powers of the different branches of government. Its treatment of the island of Nevis is rather unusual among federated nations.

The current constitution of Saint Kitts and Nevis was prepared in anticipation of the country achieving independence from Britain. It is the only constitution the country has had as an independent nation, however there were several colonial constitutions before it. The union of the islands of Saint Kitts and Nevis has been controversial at least since 1882, leading the constitution to specifically provide for a path to independence for Nevis. This makes Saint Kitts and Nevis unusual among Federations.
 
TheTexan said:
Texas seceding would be good. Still wouldn't result in any significant amount of freedom. Just slightly less tyranny.

Buying a country (via treaty) is the only way I see possible to reclaim any significant amount of sovereignty.
Click to expand...

We could all move to St Kitts & Nevis and everyone run for office and legally take over the government. The constitution provides for a pathway to independence. Problem is, are we all willing to do this and how many of "us" are there?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Const... definition of the citizens of the federation.

The Constitution of Saint Kitts and Nevis was adopted on 23 June 1983 and took effect when the country became independent on 19 September 1983. It consists of 11 chapters and various schedules, which establish the rights, responsibilities and definition of the citizens of the federation. It also provides the form and structure of government, and enumerates the powers of the different branches of government. Its treatment of the island of Nevis is rather unusual among federated nations.

The current constitution of Saint Kitts and Nevis was prepared in anticipation of the country achieving independence from Britain. It is the only constitution the country has had as an independent nation, however there were several colonial constitutions before it. The union of the islands of Saint Kitts and Nevis has been controversial at least since 1882, leading the constitution to specifically provide for a path to independence for Nevis. This makes Saint Kitts and Nevis unusual among Federations.
 
Pauls' Revere said:
We could all move to St Kitts & Nevis and everyone run for office and legally take over the government. The constitution provides for a pathway to independence. Problem is, are we all willing to do this and how many of "us" are there?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Const... definition of the citizens of the federation.

The Constitution of Saint Kitts and Nevis was adopted on 23 June 1983 and took effect when the country became independent on 19 September 1983. It consists of 11 chapters and various schedules, which establish the rights, responsibilities and definition of the citizens of the federation. It also provides the form and structure of government, and enumerates the powers of the different branches of government. Its treatment of the island of Nevis is rather unusual among federated nations.

The current constitution of Saint Kitts and Nevis was prepared in anticipation of the country achieving independence from Britain. It is the only constitution the country has had as an independent nation, however there were several colonial constitutions before it. The union of the islands of Saint Kitts and Nevis has been controversial at least since 1882, leading the constitution to specifically provide for a path to independence for Nevis. This makes Saint Kitts and Nevis unusual among Federations.
Click to expand...

I like it. I'm in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
The Coming Age Of AI Government
Replies
3
Views
112
acptulsa
acptulsa
J
URGENT: Court Challenge to Warrantless, China-Style, 24/7 Surveillance Moves Forward, Judge Says 4th Amendment Includes “Expectation of Privacy"
Replies
9
Views
85
unknown
unknown
PAF
The Real National Emergency: Endless Wars, Failing Infrastructure, and a Dying Republic
Replies
5
Views
159
acptulsa
acptulsa
Brian4Liberty
Three Cheers For Rep. Thomas Massie!
Replies
5
Views
318
TheTexan
TheTexan
PAF
“Personnel Is Policy” Means the Rule of Law Is Dying
Replies
0
Views
2K
PAF
PAF
Back
Top