Daily Anarchist Forum

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Guardian on July 14, 2012, 11:18:24 PM



Title: A New Land
Post by: Guardian on July 14, 2012, 11:18:24 PM

Question: Would you ever sell all of your possessions, buy a ship/aircraft and supplies, and sail/fly away to an uninhabited island with a group other people and attempt to establish a "new world"? Would you risk everything so that you could build a new world based upon your group's religious and/or philosophical and/or political ideology?

Nothing would be guaranteed. In fact, there would be a good chance you wouldn't make it, fail, and probably die. There would be a plethora of natural and man-made things all trying to ruin and kill you. You would only have what you would bring with you and what you could make for yourself, along with what the initial group of settlers could/would help you with. Your life would be completely in your hands. Would you risk it all in the attempt to establish a better world?


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: MAM on July 15, 2012, 01:40:21 AM
Need more data.


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: Syock on July 15, 2012, 06:36:15 AM
Question: Would you ever sell all of your possessions,

No, because then I would just have to buy some back.  I am not a nudist.

...to an uninhabited island with a group other people and attempt to establish a "new world"?

Depends on how big the island is, how many people there are, the location of the island and topography of the island.

In fact, there would be a good chance you wouldn't make it, fail, and probably die.

No one makes these attempts with the expectation of death.  That first step where we sell all our stuff to buy expensive, nearly useless things unless we are starting a travel company would be a waste.  Smart resource planning is how you avoid failure and death.  So we would have a ton of boats and airplanes, and somehow be unable to leave if we think we are going to die?

There would be a plethora of natural and man-made things all trying to ruin and kill you.

There are man-made things on this supposedly previously uninhabited island trying to kill me?

You would only have what you would bring with you and what you could make for yourself...

You are suggesting we become isolationists and take a massive hit to our quality of life when we don't have to.  Why would we not take advantage of modern technology on this new island?  This question is really starting to seem rather silly.  

Would you risk it all in the attempt to establish a better world?

It is one thing to risk it all, it is another to risk it all in a stupid manner.


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: Guardian on July 15, 2012, 12:14:33 PM
It is one thing to risk it all, it is another to risk it all in a stupid manner.

I absolutely concur. The original question was just to gauge how the members of this forum felt about the prospect of actively building a voluntary society. The purpose of this question was to determine if the members here are men and women of action, or are simply "all bark and no bite" as the old saying goes.




Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: Disengage on July 15, 2012, 12:53:14 PM
Quote
there would be a good chance you wouldn't make it, fail, and probably die

I have a problem with this.    Taking a risk is one thing.    Uncertainty is a part of life, whether you choose to embrace it or not.   But right here you're flat out telling people that they're probably going to die.     This is taking some of the uncertainty OUT and replacing it with a good chance of a negative outcome.

This isn't the same as saying "There's no guarantee; this whole thing may not work and if it doesn't, you might die."   This is saying "You will probably die".

WTF, people!


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: David Giessel on July 15, 2012, 12:58:19 PM
Several of us have already left "home" and moved elsewhere. Perhaps a better poll would be, "Would you cut and run ... leave home and move to some place you perceived to have more freedom."

-Yes
-No
-Maybe
-I already did

Even moving from slave farm to slave farm incurs a cost that keeps most people firmly planted no matter how bad it gets. The poll as it reads now would almost require an off-planet expedition to accomplish.


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: Guardian on July 15, 2012, 01:21:57 PM
To fulfill the desire of some to have more specific information, here you go.


There are two possible locations for the establishment of what I call, "Freeland" or "Freeport". People from across the globe can come to this land. They can share and sell their goods and services, without any entity forcibly taking "their fair share" from them. This land is where the artist would not fear the censor, where the farmer would not fear the publican, where the trader would not fear the regulator, and where the citizen would not fear the government. It would be a place where a man would be able to keep all the fruits of his labor. A place where a man would be free and independent.


The first possible location would be at Auckland Islands:
-The archipelago has a combined area of 625 square kilometres (240 sq mi), making it the largest uninhabited, yet habitable, island in the world.
-It has a plethora of natural harbors and inlets.
-Due to these many inlets, this would allow the inhabitants to use small watercraft as the primary method of transportation, rather than automobiles which would require roads.
-Below is a topographical map of the Auckland Island archipelago:
(http://mapsof.net/uploads/static-maps/auckland_islands_topo.png)
-Below are some images of the ecology of the archipelago:
(http://www.murihiku.com/gallery/images/0223105.jpg)
(http://www.murihiku.com/gallery/images/0219050.jpg)
(http://www.murihiku.com/gallery/images/0219024.jpg)   

Now, as we all know, the three things humans need to survive are water, food, and shelter.
~Water should not be a problem on this island. While I have been unable to determine with one hundred percent accuracy if there is a natural fresh water source on the island, I would assume so due to the island's size. Also, if this assumption turned out to be incorrect, small scale desalination could be one of the many remedies. Others include rainwater collection and making distilled liquor. People have survived in the Sahara Desert, people can do it here.
~Food could prove to be a little more challenging. Since the climate on the archipelago is anything but cheery, settlers would have to get a little creative. The local wildlife (fish, seal, birds) could provide food for a short while, but the settlers would have to be cautious as not to wipe them out. I believe that agriculture could be done on this island, if larges scale greenhouses were used. The main difficulty with agriculture on this island, is the fact that on average, for 27 days per month, the sky is overcast. Nonetheless, I think agriculture would be possible using some creative techniques.
~Shelter should be fairly easy. There is a fairly large source of lumber on the islands themselves. Also, the initial settlers would be able to transport whatever they wanted, if they want they could transport building materials over with them.

Now, to discuss how the initial settlers would get over to their destination. A group of X number of individuals would form a voluntary association, meaning no one is forced to partake in this endeavor. From there, it would really be up to those members to decide how they want to proceed. I would personally advocate that each individual sells certain 'big-ticket' items such as their house and car. With that money they would then proceed to purchase a sea-worthy vessel to reach their destination. All the members could pitch in collectively and purchase a large vessel, or everyone could have their own smaller vessel. In any case, the vessel(s) would be loaded with anything the individual wanted to bring over, such as tools, food, power generation, firearms, etc.

Once the group of settlers make it over to the island, 'the world is their oyster' as the saying goes. I would build my house and maybe build a little restaurant. People could do whatever they wanted to, as long as it brought no harm to other individuals. You could build your own bar, or bakery, or shoe store, whatever you wanted.

Now, the main obstacle in this would be the New Zealand government. Since their is no habitable land on Earth that is unclaimed, this aspect of government interference would be a challenge no matter which island is chosen. How the government would react is unknown. They may just leave us alone in hopes that we all starve. They may send in a military occupation force. They may just drop a few bombs and kill us all. They may just park a few of their naval warships around our island, and try to starve our economy. Who knows until it happens?

I am going to stop writing for now. Please make suggestions. This idea is still in its very early stages and will need much work before it can actually be put into practice. If you are wondering what the other location was, it was Eiao and Hatutu Islands located in the French Polynesia.   


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: Seth King on July 15, 2012, 03:17:26 PM
I see it like this:

When the fear of staying outweighs the fear of leaving, people will leave. When the fear of leaving outweighs the fear of staying, people will stay. It's really that simple.

Take my experience with California. Sure, I had some fears of New Hampshire such as:

Would I tolerate the winters?

Would I find fun things to do?

Would I make friends?

Would I find work?

Would I be happy?

Then I thought about California.

Do I like the summers? No.

Do I have fun things to do? Yes, but I'm bored with them.

Do I have friends? Few. The ones I do have I'm sick of.

Do I have work? No, and I've been unemployed for 3 years.

Am I happy? No, I was miserable in California.

Now that I've moved to New Hampshire I can see my fears were unfounded and am very happy now.

A similar process would happen for me moving to a different country or remote island from New Hampshire.


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: Guardian on July 15, 2012, 09:59:48 PM
Quote
A similar process would happen for me moving to a different country or remote island from New Hampshire.

So essentially what you are saying is that the only people would be willing to risk it all on this endeavor, would be those who were 'down on their luck' or 'who had nothing to lose'. That would leave me to conclude that poor and impoverished folk would be the most likely to join this quest.

If we look at the history of European settlement in the New World, the motivations for the immigrants either fall into one or more of the following categories: economic (ie: gold, fur, timber), religious, forced, and political. Economics tend to be the biggest motivation for immigration such as in the cases of the Conquistadors desire for gold and the Irish immigrants to America because of the Great Famine. Religious immigration tends to be a smaller motivation, with the two most prominent being the Mormon migration to the Western United States and the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock. Forced immigration is one often overlooked. Throughout history, slaves have been used. This is caused large groups of people to be forced to move from their places of birth, such as in the cases of Nubian slaves throughout Egypt and the Thracians, and other groups, used by the Roman Empire.

And lastly there is political, which would be one of the motivating factors behind this idea. What are some historical examples of immigration that were primarily politically motivated? What lessons could be learned from them?


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: MAM on July 16, 2012, 03:47:03 AM
It looks promising for now, however I don't want to fight a government to get it. I would rather just buy the island if possible. I don't think we could contest any governments claim to the island.


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: Guardian on July 16, 2012, 11:50:08 AM
It looks promising for now, however I don't want to fight a government to get it. I would rather just buy the island if possible. I don't think we could contest any governments claim to the island.


What do you think a government's response to such a situation be? If a hundred or more people all of a sudden, landed and started building houses and such on an uninhabited island, what would the government do?

I personally think it would go down like this:
-The government gets a report from fisherman of something going on, the government probably assume it is pirates, smugglers, or poachers. Of course, like all governments, it will take them at least three months to get around to doing anything about it, if they even do anything about it.
-The government would then probably send down an offshore patrol boat. This could be operated by either local police or navy.
-Once they gained sight of the settlement, they would first relay the information back to headquarters and probably wait for further orders.
-From there it is anyone's guess...they could send a landing party and try to talk with the settlers or they could open. They could turn on their PA system and demand that everyone vacate the island, which of course would be kindly responded with a big ole' 'fuck off!' But, who knows what they would do?



Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: MAM on July 16, 2012, 02:27:34 PM
They would either come in with guns and force us to leave, or they would just kill us. Their response will be violent. There is really no need to speculate past that.

Supposing for the sake of argument that this State doesn't decide to shoot first, I think it's safer to assume they will be violent than not and die.


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: Guardian on July 17, 2012, 12:06:33 AM
To continue writing, now I will discuss the pros and cons of one of the other choices for settlement: Eiao and Hatutu islands.

-The approximate location of the islands are: 757'S , 14036'W
-The islands lie at the most northwestern point of the Marquesas Islands which is a part of French Polynesia.
-Both islands have a combined area of slightly less than twenty square miles.
-The island of Eiao has a natural harbor (Vaituha Bay).

Below is a map of the region and some pictures of the islands themselves:
(http://www.usc.edu/dept/tsunamis/1946/marquises03.jpg)
(http://www.colonialvoyage.com/viaggi/pfEiao_south_coast_eiao.jpg)
(http://www.esacademic.com/pictures/eswiki/83/SulaNebouxi.jpg)

Now, there are some disadvantages in choosing this island over others:
1) It is small. Eiao is only 16 square miles, with Hatutu being around 4 square miles. That is really small. For comparison, the island of Oahu (Honolulu), is almost 600 square miles.
2) According to wikipedia, in the late 19th century, the island was briefly used as a leper colony island, although that enterprise was eventually abandoned because of the frequent droughts. This is not cited, so who knows if it is true.
3) Since the island is small, there is a less likely chance that there is a large natural water supply on the island. As previously discussed, this could be overcome, but it would make settlement that much more difficult.

The advantages of this island over other choices include:
1) It's warm! The islands lie pretty close to the equator, so it is probably be easier to grow food on the island.
2) French Polynesia is not a large military power. However, France is so this point might be moot.
3) It is located in the center of the South Pacific, which would hopefully mean there would be more trade going on.



What do you guys think? What advantages/disadvantages do you guys see with this choice over the previous choice?

Also, if you think you found a great location, please feel free to share with the rest of us.


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: Syock on July 17, 2012, 06:44:52 AM
They would either come in with guns and force us to leave, or they would just kill us. Their response will be violent. There is really no need to speculate past that.

Supposing for the sake of argument that this State doesn't decide to shoot first, I think it's safer to assume they will be violent than not and die.

I don't believe the New Zealand government will kill us for settling an island that has been attempted to settle on several times in the past. 

I expect they would treat it the same as if you were on one of the bigger islands that are settled, checking for immigration status.  If things checked out they would start the taxing.  Violent? Yes, but not shoot on sight or anything. 


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: MAM on July 17, 2012, 07:42:00 AM
They would either come in with guns and force us to leave, or they would just kill us. Their response will be violent. There is really no need to speculate past that.

Supposing for the sake of argument that this State doesn't decide to shoot first, I think it's safer to assume they will be violent than not and die.

I don't believe the New Zealand government will kill us for settling an island that has been attempted to settle on several times in the past. 

I expect they would treat it the same as if you were on one of the bigger islands that are settled, checking for immigration status.  If things checked out they would start the taxing.  Violent? Yes, but not shoot on sight or anything. 

Well I don't intend to go through thuggish checks ever again my goal is to remove myself from the State as much as possible, I don't want to add anything else I want to remove items.

However supposing that you are right and they would start taxing us and behaving like any other govt etc... Why should we bother to leave?


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: Guardian on July 19, 2012, 01:56:42 PM
...If things checked out they would start the taxing.  Violent? Yes, but not shoot on sight or anything. 


Consider that the Auckland Islands are a UNESCO World Heritage Site, and the island is a nature reserve towards the New Zealand government. Do you think this would factor into the equation of determining the type of response from the New Zealand government? Would it allow other governments (Australian, US, UK) to intervene on behalf of the United Nations?



Also note, the settlers in this idea would not submit to any outside government, whether it be New Zealand, Australia, or the United Nations, nor would they submit to any form of taxation or regulation.

Another note, the plan would not be to immigrate to New Zealand first, and then go down to the Auckland Islands, unless you wanted to I guess. Since, it is probable that the majority of people partaking in this endeavor would be from the United States or Canada; these people would sail from their close port of origin(Port of Oakland, Los Angeles, Seattle, Vancouver, etc) and arrive right off the shore of the Auckland Islands, and begin settlement. 


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: MAM on July 19, 2012, 04:28:48 PM
...If things checked out they would start the taxing.  Violent? Yes, but not shoot on sight or anything. 


Consider that the Auckland Islands are a UNESCO World Heritage Site, and the island is a nature reserve towards the New Zealand government. Do you think this would factor into the equation of determining the type of response from the New Zealand government? Would it allow other governments (Australian, US, UK) to intervene on behalf of the United Nations?



Also note, the settlers in this idea would not submit to any outside government, whether it be New Zealand, Australia, or the United Nations, nor would they submit to any form of taxation or regulation.

Another note, the plan would not be to immigrate to New Zealand first, and then go down to the Auckland Islands, unless you wanted to I guess. Since, it is probable that the majority of people partaking in this endeavor would be from the United States or Canada; these people would sail from their close port of origin(Port of Oakland, Los Angeles, Seattle, Vancouver, etc) and arrive right off the shore of the Auckland Islands, and begin settlement. 

So then they'd just kill us when we refuse to submit to them...


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: Guardian on July 19, 2012, 10:59:21 PM

So then they'd just kill us when we refuse to submit to them...

I would have to disagree. I think that if the initial settlers played their cards rights, they could avoid bloodshed.  If the settlers arrived while New Zealand was in the middle of an election year, and the settlers contacted news reporters from various news agencies the moment New Zealand's military was spotted off shore, I think this might be able to prevent the New Zealand military from acting. No government, especially during an election year, will want video showing its soldiers slaughtering hundreds of people.

Don't get me wrong, I think there would be a small chance of having the whole thing turning out bloodless. But I don't think it is a guarantee bloodbath. 


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: MAM on July 19, 2012, 11:08:50 PM

So then they'd just kill us when we refuse to submit to them...

I would have to disagree. I think that if the initial settlers played their cards rights, they could avoid bloodshed.  If the settlers arrived while New Zealand was in the middle of an election year, and the settlers contacted news reporters from various news agencies the moment New Zealand's military was spotted off shore, I think this might be able to prevent the New Zealand military from acting. No government, especially during an election year, will want video showing its soldiers slaughtering hundreds of people.

Don't get me wrong, I think there would be a small chance of having the whole thing turning out bloodless. But I don't think it is a guarantee bloodbath. 

It's what governments do kill people, it's what they're for.


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: Guardian on July 20, 2012, 01:34:35 PM

It's what governments do kill people, it's what they're for.

Yes, but like any beast, it can be distracted and manipulated. When analyzing the government, I like to use the metaphor of an octopus. The octopus, like government, grows with time and stretches its tentacles out and suffocates all those who come near it. However,  the octopus has only eight tentacles, which are slow to react and move. If we could tie up, or even cut off, the octopus's tentacles and divert its attention to other matters, we may be able to succeed.   


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: Josh D on July 21, 2012, 10:02:42 PM

It's what governments do kill people, it's what they're for.

Yes, but like any beast, it can be distracted and manipulated. When analyzing the government, I like to use the metaphor of an octopus. The octopus, like government, grows with time and stretches its tentacles out and suffocates all those who come near it. However,  the octopus has only eight tentacles, which are slow to react and move. If we could tie up, or even cut off, the octopus's tentacles and divert its attention to other matters, we may be able to succeed.   

I remember reading somewhere that most species of octopus are really intelligent, and that they continue learning throughout their entire lives.  I can't seem to find the quote but I recall a scientist saying that humanity should be thankful that most octopus only live for a few years, and that if they lived for 70 or 80 years humanity would be in serious danger.


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: MAM on July 22, 2012, 12:36:19 AM

It's what governments do kill people, it's what they're for.

Yes, but like any beast, it can be distracted and manipulated. When analyzing the government, I like to use the metaphor of an octopus. The octopus, like government, grows with time and stretches its tentacles out and suffocates all those who come near it. However,  the octopus has only eight tentacles, which are slow to react and move. If we could tie up, or even cut off, the octopus's tentacles and divert its attention to other matters, we may be able to succeed.   

I remember reading somewhere that most species of octopus are really intelligent, and that they continue learning throughout their entire lives.  I can't seem to find the quote but I recall a scientist saying that humanity should be thankful that most octopus only live for a few years, and that if they lived for 70 or 80 years humanity would be in serious danger.

Though you are right that octopi only live short spans and learn quickly I don't think we would be in danger if they did live longer, we live on land they in water...


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on July 22, 2012, 12:45:47 AM

It's what governments do kill people, it's what they're for.

Yes, but like any beast, it can be distracted and manipulated. When analyzing the government, I like to use the metaphor of an octopus. The octopus, like government, grows with time and stretches its tentacles out and suffocates all those who come near it. However,  the octopus has only eight tentacles, which are slow to react and move. If we could tie up, or even cut off, the octopus's tentacles and divert its attention to other matters, we may be able to succeed.   

I remember reading somewhere that most species of octopus are really intelligent, and that they continue learning throughout their entire lives.  I can't seem to find the quote but I recall a scientist saying that humanity should be thankful that most octopus only live for a few years, and that if they lived for 70 or 80 years humanity would be in serious danger.

Though you are right that octopi only live short spans and learn quickly I don't think we would be in danger if they did live longer, we live on land they in water...
They can leave the water though. Also, they've been shown to make use of the resources in their environment in very intelligent ways, such as using rocks to build defensive walls before they go to sleep. That's a small step away from developing science and then taming the sharks and arming them with stef's famous laser beams.


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: MAM on July 22, 2012, 01:19:18 AM

It's what governments do kill people, it's what they're for.

Yes, but like any beast, it can be distracted and manipulated. When analyzing the government, I like to use the metaphor of an octopus. The octopus, like government, grows with time and stretches its tentacles out and suffocates all those who come near it. However,  the octopus has only eight tentacles, which are slow to react and move. If we could tie up, or even cut off, the octopus's tentacles and divert its attention to other matters, we may be able to succeed.   

I remember reading somewhere that most species of octopus are really intelligent, and that they continue learning throughout their entire lives.  I can't seem to find the quote but I recall a scientist saying that humanity should be thankful that most octopus only live for a few years, and that if they lived for 70 or 80 years humanity would be in serious danger.

Though you are right that octopi only live short spans and learn quickly I don't think we would be in danger if they did live longer, we live on land they in water...
They can leave the water though. Also, they've been shown to make use of the resources in their environment in very intelligent ways, such as using rocks to build defensive walls before they go to sleep. That's a small step away from developing science and then taming the sharks and arming them with stef's famous laser beams.

Hehehe I guess you're right and when this starts the fundies get scared and decide to kill the abominations and we have a genocide on our hands.


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: Guardian on July 22, 2012, 11:17:38 PM
For those of you that have stated that you would embark on such an endeavor, do you have any insights that you wish to share with the rest of us? Do you think that the two choices are suitable for this mission? What would you want to get out of this whole quest? What other thoughts do you have in regards to this idea?


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: acft on August 28, 2012, 05:07:40 PM
Guardian: have a look at this article about a similar project. http://www.ancapfreethinker.info/?p=88


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: helio on August 28, 2012, 05:27:04 PM
I think this is a distraction. I want to see anarchists try these sort of things in my lifetime but in order to do that we need cold hard cash.  I hope to encourage people to make money so we can seriously invest in ventures of this type.  Put the capitalist in Anarcho-capitalist.


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: Syock on August 28, 2012, 05:37:50 PM
I think this is a distraction. I want to see anarchists try these sort of things in my lifetime but in order to do that we need cold hard cash.  I hope to encourage people to make money so we can seriously invest in ventures of this type.  Put the capitalist in Anarcho-capitalist.

The 'capitalists' that get rich enough to pull off this type of stuff tend to be playing the governments game.  A lot of ancaps refuse to do that.  Odds are most ancaps will get/are stuck in the middle ground with the rest of the private market.


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: helio on August 28, 2012, 06:28:55 PM
Quote
playing the governments game

What game would that be? 


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: acft on August 28, 2012, 09:12:09 PM
" I want to see anarchists try these sort of things in my lifetime but in order to do that we need cold hard cash.  I hope to encourage people to make money so we can seriously invest in ventures of this type.  Put the capitalist in Anarcho-capitalist."

I agree 100%. It has to start somewhere. Also, I think engaging in business with the eventual goal of starting these kinds of projects is realistic.


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: Syock on August 28, 2012, 10:11:08 PM
Quote
playing the governments game

What game would that be?  

Overpriced government contracts and subsidies.


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: helio on August 29, 2012, 10:14:29 AM
I dont think a businessman or enterprise need play that game to be successful.  My goal is a software shop with a few million in revenue each year.  A modest goal.  Enter 100 other voluntarist enterprises of similar measure and they could easily pool resources to try some of these projects. 



Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: MAM on August 29, 2012, 11:21:51 AM
I dont think a businessman or enterprise need play that game to be successful.  My goal is a software shop with a few million in revenue each year.  A modest goal.  Enter 100 other voluntarist enterprises of similar measure and they could easily pool resources to try some of these projects. 



I'm currently working on getting a few businesses off the ground. We'll see what happens. I'm trying to turn some hobbies of mine into money making ventures.


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: Syock on August 29, 2012, 12:19:51 PM
I dont think a businessman or enterprise need play that game to be successful.  My goal is a software shop with a few million in revenue each year.  A modest goal.  Enter 100 other voluntarist enterprises of similar measure and they could easily pool resources to try some of these projects. 

Revenue isn't the hard part.  Becoming rich despite government taxes and regulations is. 


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: helio on August 30, 2012, 08:59:43 AM
I think it is a matter of degree.  How rich is rich?  Do we need to be Zuckerbergs to make things happen? That would draw too much attention.  But having a few million in assets that are hidden while living modestly is entirely possible.  If we had just a few voluntarist angel investors we could do some really awesome things.


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: Guardian on November 07, 2012, 12:14:42 AM
I think this is a distraction. I want to see anarchists try these sort of things in my lifetime but in order to do that we need cold hard cash.  I hope to encourage people to make money so we can seriously invest in ventures of this type.  Put the capitalist in Anarcho-capitalist.

From my understanding there are six primary ways of obtaining funds.
    1) Work & Save : Meaning work at a job, and save a certain percentage of your annual income and once you have enough money, buy whatever you need outright. Pros: Legally own it. Cons: Takes a lifetime and will be constantly taxed and will be a relatively small amount.
    2) Diverting funds from Corporation: Obtain a high level position in a corporation and allocate funds from said corporation into a shell company and transfer those funds to your project. Pros: Obtain alot of money and possibly a source of regular income. Cons: If caught, could be subject to job termination or, at worst, imprisonment for embezzlement, depending upon the manner in which the money was diverted.
    3) Diverting funds from Government: Similar to the above idea, but you'd obtain a position (local or state) as a director of the treasury or other government institution in charge of allocating funds. Pros: Same as previous. Cons: If done in a legal, but distasteful manner, the worst would be forced resignation.
    4) 'Illicit' Enterprise: Sell guns, priceless artifacts, etc. Pros: Get rich really, really quick, tax Free. Cons: Other Crime Lords / INTERPOL / DEA / FBI / Etc. will hunt you down.
    5) Default on Loans: You'd have to take out a large amount of money from a bank under the guise of a small business start-up loan. You'd either have to take the money out under a false name, or you'd have to change your identity afterwards. Pros: Decent amount of money within a few months. Cons: You are out on the lam for the rest of your life.
    6) Enterprise: This option would be to construct your own business. You then take a portion of the proceeds from said business and fund our organization. Pros: Completely legitimate. Cons: Taxed and regulated by government. Relies on the business being successful.

Just wanted to throw these options out for everyone on how funds would be obtained, not just for an endeavor, but in a general sense.


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: Syock on November 07, 2012, 12:22:13 AM

    5) Default on Loans: You'd have to take out a large amount of money from a bank under the guise of a small business start-up loan. You'd either have to take the money out under a false name, or you'd have to change your identity afterwards. Pros: Decent amount of money within a few months. Cons: You are out on the lam for the rest of your life.
    6) Enterprise: This option would be to construct your own business. You then take a portion of the proceeds from said business and fund our organization. Pros: Completely legitimate. Cons: Taxed and regulated by government. Relies on the business being successful.

Why would you not start the company, get loans and/or venture capitalists, angel investors etc and make it a real business?  The whole thing is worthless if it is not economically viable anyway. 


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: MAM on November 07, 2012, 12:29:55 AM

    5) Default on Loans: You'd have to take out a large amount of money from a bank under the guise of a small business start-up loan. You'd either have to take the money out under a false name, or you'd have to change your identity afterwards. Pros: Decent amount of money within a few months. Cons: You are out on the lam for the rest of your life.
    6) Enterprise: This option would be to construct your own business. You then take a portion of the proceeds from said business and fund our organization. Pros: Completely legitimate. Cons: Taxed and regulated by government. Relies on the business being successful.

Why would you not start the company, get loans and/or venture capitalists, angel investors etc and make it a real business?  The whole thing is worthless if it is not economically viable anyway. 

+1 Also 4 and 6 are the same thing.


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: Guardian on November 14, 2012, 09:42:36 PM
Another option for colonization would be the uninhabited atolls of the Maldive Islands located southwest of the Indian subcontinent. While all of the islands within the general area are claimed by the Maldivian government, it would not be impossible to colonize one of the more remote islands and remain undetected. Sustenance would primarily be gained from fishing. While agriculture would be difficult, it would not be impossible with aquaponics and other modern techniques/technology. 

Below are some images related to the Maldive Islands:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Maldives_pol98.jpg)
(http://traveltamed.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/uninhabited-islands-of-maldives.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3455/3765500821_113dac2570_z.jpg?zz=1)

One of the long term challenges to colonization would be the rising sea levels. Some say that within fifty to one-hundred years, many of these islands will become submerged, with the entire archipelago being submerged in two hundred years. However, going off of the recently mentioned topic of Seasteading, anarchists would use an atoll as a foundation for an artificially created island. Once the rest of the Maldivian island chain is swept over by water, there would be no government to interfere in our affairs and anarchists could use the shallow atolls as building grounds.   


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: Syock on November 14, 2012, 10:03:18 PM
The Maldives are home to a company I was looking into working for.  hehe

(http://vizirepules.hu/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/viking22.jpg)


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: MAM on November 15, 2012, 12:44:55 AM
All I think the idea looks good. So how do we get started? I think we need more info. I think the spot looks good but what you have up there is an outline of a plan not a complete plan...


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: State-God on November 15, 2012, 07:26:30 AM
Eh, I definitely would want to bring some stuff with me, because if we're actually looking to build a new society there's no reason to go out-and-out survivalist. Generally speaking though, yeah, if given the opportunity I would try to make an Anarcho-Capitalist society a reality.


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: Syock on November 15, 2012, 07:34:06 AM
Should we have a Free Island Project, where we vote on what islands to steal in the name of ancap?  I wouldn't vote for the Maldives.  It is really hot there. 


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: State-God on November 15, 2012, 08:17:50 AM
Should we have a Free Island Project, where we vote on what islands to steal in the name of ancap?  I wouldn't vote for the Maldives.  It is really hot there. 

Stealing from the top thief (the state) doesn't usually end well.


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: Syock on November 15, 2012, 09:21:26 AM
Should we have a Free Island Project, where we vote on what islands to steal in the name of ancap?  I wouldn't vote for the Maldives.  It is really hot there. 

Stealing from the top thief (the state) doesn't usually end well.

Which is why we also have the seasteading thread.


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: MAM on November 15, 2012, 09:56:29 AM
Should we have a Free Island Project, where we vote on what islands to steal in the name of ancap?  I wouldn't vote for the Maldives.  It is really hot there. 

Stealing from the top thief (the state) doesn't usually end well.

Which is why we also have the seasteading thread.

So what exactly are we going to do then? Sit around and twiddle our thumbs some more? It's been quite effective so far.


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: Syock on November 15, 2012, 10:04:18 AM
I don't believe we would ever get enough people together to go steal some island.  My money would be on a business venture for underwater seasteading/land reclamation. 

I'm not sure enough incentive can be created to warrant any such costs though.  There isn't anything it could offer that isn't offered somewhere else, with lower overhead. 


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: MAM on November 15, 2012, 10:09:59 AM
I don't believe we would ever get enough people together to go steal some island.  My money would be on a business venture for underwater seasteading/land reclamation. 

I'm not sure enough incentive can be created to warrant any such costs though.  There isn't anything it could offer that isn't offered somewhere else, with lower overhead. 

It's easy to despair you know? Feels like nothing can be done. It also feels like anything greater than a one person job isn't go to have enough support to get off the ground. It's all good.


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: Syock on November 15, 2012, 10:17:22 AM
It's easy to despair you know? Feels like nothing can be done. It also feels like anything greater than a one person job isn't go to have enough support to get off the ground. It's all good.

Sure is.  Look at the Free State Project.  Sure, they are having political progress.  That is difficult for an ancap to get excited about though.  They have also been at it for over a decade now and still have a long way to go. 


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: Guardian on November 15, 2012, 07:54:25 PM
They have also been at it for over a decade now and still have a long way to go. 

That is why anarchists need to start now. Since the concept of anarchism was 'formalized' during the 19th century, what has the 'movement' accomplished? Nothing positive, only negative. Currently, the vast majority of the population sees anarchism as a radical, violent, criminal ideology. Anarchists are viewed as little more than cop hating, rioters that torch buildings, shoplift, and don't pay taxes. Furthermore, the vast majority of the population has never even heard of our specific branch, Anarcho-Capitalism.

If anarchism wants to ever gain any ground, anarchists need to start becoming proactive. The first and foremost is education. While the state has a near monopoly on formalized education, anarchists can gain ground elsewhere. Private schools, flyers, posters, youtube, radio, debates, Facebook; these tools can be utilized to educate the masses about what anarchism truly is.


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: Syock on November 15, 2012, 10:49:39 PM
That is why anarchists need to start now. Since the concept of anarchism was 'formalized' during the 19th century, what has the 'movement' accomplished? Nothing positive, only negative. Currently, the vast majority of the population sees anarchism as a radical, violent, criminal ideology. Anarchists are viewed as little more than cop hating, rioters that torch buildings, shoplift, and don't pay taxes. Furthermore, the vast majority of the population has never even heard of our specific branch, Anarcho-Capitalism.

If anarchism wants to ever gain any ground, anarchists need to start becoming proactive. The first and foremost is education. While the state has a near monopoly on formalized education, anarchists can gain ground elsewhere. Private schools, flyers, posters, youtube, radio, debates, Facebook; these tools can be utilized to educate the masses about what anarchism truly is.

It was formalized as socialism. 

Radio (http://lrn.fm)


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: Guardian on November 23, 2012, 01:25:29 AM
Possible Location: Somalia

While most of the southern portion of the country is currently in a state of civil war, the northern portion of the country is relatively peaceful, with the exception being pirates along the coastline.

Pictures of Somalia:
(http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/africa/somalia_rel02.jpg)
(http://www.kuoni.co.uk/SiteCollectionImages/EN/holiday/Africa/Kenya/Kenya-Beach/Malindi/Malindi-holidays/TravelAreaStyleKE000300kenyabeachb001.jpeg)
(http://www.afmaal.com/media/landscape-wildlife/somali-camel-geel.jpg)

The biggest challenge to establishing "freeland" would be:
1) UN-backed Mogadishu
2) Surrounding Clans
3) Pirates

However, there would be positives to this region:
1) Oil resources
2) Fishing
3) Population weary of authoritarian rule

While this region is not the best for colonization, in my opinion, it would still work.


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: Seth King on November 23, 2012, 01:48:44 AM
It would be funny as shit if a bunch of AnCaps took the statists' advice and moved to Somalia. ;D

It'd be even funnier if we turned it into a paradise.  :D


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: Syock on November 23, 2012, 02:00:19 AM
Somalia is in the middle of a war against Ethiopian troops paid for by the USA.  That is why there are pirates (for war funding) and warlords.  It is not currently in anarchy.  

They were working on turning it into an ancap paradise when the USA brought the boot down.   


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: State-God on November 23, 2012, 09:01:29 AM
It would be funny as shit if a bunch of AnCaps took the statists' advice and moved to Somalia. ;D

It'd be even funnier if we turned it into a paradise.  :D

I'd be up for it after getting some firearms training and learning the local culture/language....and also getting even more firearms training :S


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: MAM on November 23, 2012, 10:24:53 AM
It would be funny as shit if a bunch of AnCaps took the statists' advice and moved to Somalia. ;D

It'd be even funnier if we turned it into a paradise.  :D

I'd be up for it after getting some firearms training and learning the local culture/language....and also getting even more firearms training :S

I'm already interested in getting some more firearms training.


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: Guardian on November 23, 2012, 10:30:41 PM
It would be funny as shit if a bunch of AnCaps took the statists' advice and moved to Somalia. ;D

It'd be even funnier if we turned it into a paradise.  :D

It seems that Africa, specifically Somalia, is always cited by statists as an example of lack of a strong government. I guess they forget the whole European colonization (government) of the continent, and the more recent Cold War division of the continent between capitalists (really corporatist) and communists (totalitarianism).


Somalia is in the middle of a war against Ethiopian troops paid for by the USA.  That is why there are pirates (for war funding) and warlords.  It is not currently in anarchy. 

They were working on turning it into an ancap paradise when the USA brought the boot down.   

Going off of your point, the political situation in Somalia is quite complicated. Somalia is divided into four main regions, Somalialand, Puntland, Central Somalia, and Southern Somalia. Somalialand is actually fairly peaceful (statists attribute this to the presence of government). Puntland and Central Somalia is controlled by priates and nomadic clans. In the south, you have the UN-backed government in Mogadishu that only controls the capital on the surface. Recently, Kenya moved over the border and bombarded the city of  Kismayo  (http://www.economist.com/node/21534828). Al-Shabaab, an Islamic extremist organization, probably with foreign ties, is the most publicized faction vying for power. Currently, the control most of the southern countryside.  Also, Ethiopia has had their hand in the southern region for quite some  time  (http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article17807).


Notice one common theme.......government. Either the people in power want to maintain their control of the government, or people are wanting to control the government themselves. Government, government, government.





I'd be up for it after getting some firearms training and learning the local culture/language....and also getting even more firearms training :S



I'd recommend learning Arabic. While Somali is more widely spoken, I don't think you'd be able to learn it outside of eastern africa. Arabic is taught at almost every, if not all, mosques in the world. And, if you'd learn Arabic, you'd be able use it throughout the Middle East. From my understanding, their local culture centers around clans and their legal system known as Xeer. Clans are often invovled in a single trade/craft (merchants, fishing, farming, etc.). Since I have only gone shooting recreationally, I can't be too much of a help. However, if we were to establish a settlement based upon voluntaryism, I'd hope we could avoid conflict with any faction.


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: State-God on November 24, 2012, 06:56:07 PM
@Guardian I'll definitely look into it...I'm still immobile (no permit/license at 18 -_-), which may be a problem since I don't think there are any mosques in my area. But I've been wanting to learn a foreign language, so why the hell not!



Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: Guardian on December 09, 2012, 12:55:42 AM
~Beneath the Earth, Anywhere~

Recently, I wrote about the Hmong people for an anthropology class. For two thousand years, these people have fought for self-determination and independence. They have fled from or fought any government that tries to suppress them. More to the point, I have came to the conclusion that it is impossible to flee from the government, on the surface that is. While it has been discussed about building an underwater city or surface ocean city, I propose an underground city.

This city, constructed completely in secrecy, could be built anywhere on Earth. Preferably, this location would somewhere with low seismic activity, good soil (not too rocky, not too loose), and a normal amount of rainfall (not too much, not too little).

In practical terms this could be done as follows with as little as ten people:
~Someone purchases a sizable amount of land (ranch, 400+ acres). This land would be in an area where there has been a low amount of construction historically, and there is a very low likelihood of the government using eminent domain; ex: not on the edge of a air force base that they might expand in the future.
~This land would be owned legally by your average guy (let's call him Mister Anderson), who happens to be a devote voluntaryist. He may work as the local city engineer, pay his taxes, and make model airplanes as his hobby. We would want your characteristic average joe to own the property to avoid unwanted attention from opposing forces.
~ Preferably most, if not all, of Mister Anderson's property is heavily wooded.
~ On the weekends Mister Anderson's associates visit a remote part of his ranch and construct the 'city'.
~ They use backhoes, tractors, and whatever else they have access to for construction.  
~ Since the goal of this city would be to remain hidden, there are would have to several things that happened
---Low amount of destruction to forests. If you level all of the surrounding trees, the eyes in the sky will see you.
---No large explosions. It may get noticed on local seismometers.
---All of the excavated soil must be spread across the landscape. If someone finds your giant pile of dirt, you're screwed.
~Since industrial scale equipment could not be used, this project would take at least five years to get the basic structure built. The structure would be design in such a way (modular) so that additions could be easily installed.
~A requirement for this project would be to have at least one geologist, one mining engineer, and one civil engineer, involved in the construction.
~Now to be self-sufficient, we would need food, water, shelter, and electrical power.
------While food could be foraged from the nearby area of the entrance, it would be less risky to grow food underground with UV lamps and hydroponics.
------The groundwater reservoirs could be tapped into. It would be imperative to monitor water usage as to avoid the government water agency from poking around.
------Shelter; there could be several approaches to the construction of the physical structure underground. One approach would be a literal underground city (think  Assassin's Creed Brotherhood (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2MK6zzNK_4) or like this (http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs49/f/2009/174/6/c/underground_city_by_gamefan84.jpg)) . Another approach would be to have an interconnecting city such as modern subway stations or like  this (http://www.jeffangiegoh.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/cappadocia_kaymakli_underground_city_000771.jpg).
------Power; this would actually be one of the most challenging parts to do covertly. Nuclear is often popularized in fiction, however, I am not too big of a fan having someone jimmy rigging a reactor on the cheap. We could have above ground solar and wind generators, but again, these would be seen. Whoever own the property could operate a solar/wind farm and sell some of the generated power to the city and divert some to our settlement. However, all it takes is for someone to start asking questions about the amount of generators and the amount being sold.

So, just some food for thought. I know that most of you will probably write this idea off as impossible, but I figured I'd share my idea. Who knows, someone could have already done this and nobody will ever know.


EDIT: If you wish to post about this specific topic, please post here (http://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,2106.0.html)


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: bsg1206 on December 14, 2012, 08:22:41 PM
I just don't feel like running underground where they can't see us is freedom. You still would pay taxes on everything you would buy on the surface, which would be virtually everything. Food, water, and energy are easy, but wouldn't you want your comforts and a normal life?


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: Guardian on December 15, 2012, 12:33:09 AM
I just don't feel like running underground where they can't see us is freedom. You still would pay taxes on everything you would buy on the surface, which would be virtually everything. Food, water, and energy are easy, but wouldn't you want your comforts and a normal life?

Your feelings are completely understandable. This idea of living underground would not be for everyone. Yes, someone on the surface would have to pay taxes for the surface land so that a community could live freely underground. I would be willing to bare that burden, but I know that not everyone would. The person would have to volunteer to be the Atlas for the group.

As to the issue of comfort, I do agree that, at first, sacrifices would have to be made. The way I see it, our current societal and economic structure is highly unstable, especially in the United States. One example is that some things, such as corn, oil, etc. are grossly under-priced due to subsidies. Other things are grossly overpriced due to government regulation. But more to the point, society underground would not look like society as it is now. For instance, people would consume less resources as resources are going to be alot more limited.

However, after a few generations, society will further change. What the city itself would look like is unknown to me. It could look like this (http://www.pxleyes.com/images/contests/underground%20world/fullsize/underground%20world_4c3eeb11ea957.jpg), this (http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/en/images/6/65/Aenar_underground_city.jpg), or something else entirely. As a student of anthropology, I can only begin to speculate on how society would look, behave, and act like. Oh sure, since it would be a voluntaryist society, there are some things you can assume. But other things are not so clear. How would a marriage look like? It would be voluntary of course, but how would it look like? How would people raise their children? What would happen to religion? Would there be status? How would status be shown? If this venture were to ever get put into action, it would interesting to say the least.


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: Guardian on March 01, 2013, 06:50:16 PM
Recently, I have come to the conclusion that voluntaryism cannot be achieved while humanity is confined to a single planet. The institution of the State has existed on this planet for the past ten thousand years, and it is improbable that humanity will move towards a voluntaryistic society, in unison or even at all. Here in lies the problem, if everyone in the western hemisphere decided to become voluntaryists, the States of the eastern hemisphere would simply move in and conquer and subjugate the people of the western hemisphere.

Therefore, my most recent idea for colonization is as follows:

Location:  Another planet.

In my lifetime, I can only expect to see spacecraft that have the capability of transporting individuals within the confines of our solar system. Within one hundred or two years, humans may develop the technology to traverse to other nearby star systems, which in that case, I would encourage voluntaryists to seek refuge in those other star systems, hidden away from the rest of humanity.

As to during my lifetime, I will try and put energy into the effort of allowing self-sufficient colonies in our solar system. If you are a voluntaryist, such as myself, who does not possess the technical know how (engineering skills), there are ways to further the progress of space colonization. One such way to to fund organizations that research 'future' technologies, such as carbon nanotechnology and fusion reactor technology. Another such way is to build your own space industry business. One such individual was Richard Branson, who has assets in airlines, music, telecommunications, and space industries.
(http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/70sArt/AC75-1086-1q.jpeg)
(http://likethehours.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/habitat.jpg)


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: Syock on March 01, 2013, 08:06:23 PM
Here in lies the problem, if everyone in the western hemisphere decided to become voluntaryists, the States of the eastern hemisphere would simply move in and conquer and subjugate the people of the western hemisphere.

If you believe there is absolutely no defense against a state, why would a different planet be safe?  Why wouldn't they see the new planet as a goldmine of potential new subjects to control?


Title: Re: A New Land
Post by: Guardian on March 01, 2013, 09:49:24 PM

If you believe there is absolutely no defense against a state, why would a different planet be safe?  Why wouldn't they see the new planet as a goldmine of potential new subjects to control?

Oh absolutely they would. However, let us say that the technology to build sleeper ships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeper_ship) with FTL technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTL_Drive) is developed. Voluntaryists (or any political group) could build a few of these and send out their followers across the galaxy to the most remote parts of space, away from governments, states, etc.

But even with our level of technology, voluntaryists could forge a new land. If a group of voluntaryists built a self-sufficient colony on an isolated moon (ie: Europa or Titan) they would most likely be unharnessed by Earth governments for quite sometime. And hopefully by the time the Earth's government decide to take a more hostile interest in the voluntaryist colony, the voluntaryists would have developed the technology to either pacifisticly defend themselves (planetary shield) or flee further into space (http://richard-holt.com/images/national-geographic-milky-way-reference-map1.jpg) (via FTL technology).