Daily Anarchist Forum

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: MAM on March 10, 2013, 09:42:04 PM



Title: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: MAM on March 10, 2013, 09:42:04 PM
One of the recuring themes I've seen throughout the anarchist circles is the idea of getting some territory where anarchists are the majority and securing this area from the State. The FSP is an example though it is minarchist not anarchist, the FSP aims to show the viability of it's ideals by demonstrating them on a small scale in NH. Seasteads are another example.

My question is simply is it even possible to purchase sovereignty? I know that countries are formed everyday buy I would be surprised if these didn't arise out of violence which is something that few anarchists even acknowledge as legitimate it seems and fewer still are actually willing to get. The point is that this leaves with one other alternative, purchasing land from a State is it even possible to do this? I'm not talking about the cost prohibitive nature of something like this I want to know if "we" had the funds could it happen. I'm not a lawyer and I have no idea where I would even look in a law library for this info, so even if you don't the answer just telling me where to look would be appreciated.


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: Syock on March 10, 2013, 10:05:00 PM
All land purchases I know of were done through the existing "legitimacy" of a government. 

My bet is a government would probably laugh at the idea of selling sovereign land to a company or individual, take your money, and then claim it to still be theirs.  That is not to say that all governments would behave that way, but the big ones probably would.  Maybe some poor government would take such a deal though. 


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: MAM on March 10, 2013, 10:11:54 PM
All land purchases I know of were done through the existing "legitimacy" of a government. 

My bet is a government would probably laugh at the idea of selling sovereign land to a company or individual, take your money, and then claim it to still be theirs.  That is not to say that all governments would behave that way, but the big ones probably would.  Maybe some poor government would take such a deal though. 

Yeah this was my thought as well. All we need is a chance, but how are we going to get it? That's the thing...


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: victim77 on March 10, 2013, 10:22:00 PM
All land purchases I know of were done through the existing "legitimacy" of a government. 

My bet is a government would probably laugh at the idea of selling sovereign land to a company or individual, take your money, and then claim it to still be theirs.  That is not to say that all governments would behave that way, but the big ones probably would.  Maybe some poor government would take such a deal though. 

Yeah this was my thought as well. All we need is a chance, but how are we going to get it? That's the thing...
Somalia?


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: MAM on March 10, 2013, 10:27:20 PM
All land purchases I know of were done through the existing "legitimacy" of a government.  

My bet is a government would probably laugh at the idea of selling sovereign land to a company or individual, take your money, and then claim it to still be theirs.  That is not to say that all governments would behave that way, but the big ones probably would.  Maybe some poor government would take such a deal though.  

Yeah this was my thought as well. All we need is a chance, but how are we going to get it? That's the thing...
Somalia?

I keep hearing shit about Somalia. What exactly is it with Somalia? I mean the US has been fucking with that country for so long that I doubt it had a chance to be anything but a failure.

EDIT: I realize that I may have come off as a dick and I apologize. I'm just not sure why people are talking about Somalia like it was an anarchist haven because I don't think it was ever anything but a pawn in some sick Statist game.


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on March 10, 2013, 11:32:23 PM
Purchasing land (if we had the money) is totally viable, it just depends on the country. Once we've achieved miniature Ancapistan, we set up shop and never let go. It's defending THAT area where you make a stand. Once we have an ancap foothold, we resist takeover, by all means necessary. That is the "right time" in my opinion. If defenses could be procured, that place has the potential (regardless of location) to be mighty profitable.


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: MAM on March 10, 2013, 11:39:49 PM
Purchasing land (if we had the money) is totally viable, it just depends on the country. Once we've achieved miniature Ancapistan, we set up shop and never let go. It's defending THAT area where you make a stand. Once we have an ancap foothold, we resist takeover, by all means necessary. That is the "right time" in my opinion. If defenses could be procured, that place has the potential (regardless of location) to be mighty profitable.

Is there a precedent for this?


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on March 10, 2013, 11:54:49 PM
Purchasing land (if we had the money) is totally viable, it just depends on the country. Once we've achieved miniature Ancapistan, we set up shop and never let go. It's defending THAT area where you make a stand. Once we have an ancap foothold, we resist takeover, by all means necessary. That is the "right time" in my opinion. If defenses could be procured, that place has the potential (regardless of location) to be mighty profitable.

Is there a precedent for this?
Can't say I know. Some guy bought an ocean look out post from some 1st world country at one point if I remember correctly. He claims it's a sovereign country.

Just think of governments as owning a lot of land, and they're facing debt problems. It's natural to look for quick fixes. We could pay a high price for otherwise unused land. Do you think every government in the world would say no?


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: MAM on March 11, 2013, 12:24:56 AM
Purchasing land (if we had the money) is totally viable, it just depends on the country. Once we've achieved miniature Ancapistan, we set up shop and never let go. It's defending THAT area where you make a stand. Once we have an ancap foothold, we resist takeover, by all means necessary. That is the "right time" in my opinion. If defenses could be procured, that place has the potential (regardless of location) to be mighty profitable.

Is there a precedent for this?
Can't say I know. Some guy bought an ocean look out post from some 1st world country at one point if I remember correctly. He claims it's a sovereign country.

Just think of governments as owning a lot of land, and they're facing debt problems. It's natural to look for quick fixes. We could pay a high price for otherwise unused land. Do you think every government in the world would say no?

No eventually one is going to agree. We just need to find it and raise the funds to make the purchase...


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: Syock on March 11, 2013, 08:24:49 AM
Somalia?

Somalia was only anarchist for about 10 years.  The constant wars with the US had them align with warlords to fight back.  Was there some reasoning behind this suggestion?


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on March 11, 2013, 08:52:02 AM
I hate to add a dose of reality to this magnificent dream;however, do you actually believe that any government in the world would tolerate a functioning Voluntaryist society?  If a Voluntaryist society could be allowed to function -without outside interference- then it would prove that government in not necessary; do you actually think any government would allow that to happen?

Somalia is a good example.  After their initial collapse, there was violence; however, that died down and peace was starting to emerge.  Then the US and UK started propping-up some of the warlords and gave Ethiopia weapons and food and had them(Ethiopia) start a war with Somalia.

No government in the world can allow for a Voluntaryist society to even start to emerge or they show the illegitimacy of all government; this will not happen.

So, even if you managed to buy some land off of a poor country; the bigger countries would nearly instantly start to cause problems so they could use those manufactured problems to show their sheep why a Voluntaryist society isn't possible.  The only chance one would have is if they have plenty of scientists and weapons experts and billions of dollars, to make a defence system to protect the society from outsiders.  However, immigration would then also have to be a hassle or you risk letting provocateurs in to your country to destabilize it.  The big problem is, in trying to protect it from outsiders the defence would basically have to be socialized at least at first to get it off-the-ground.  Everything would have to be monitored to protect the society from outsiders, that it would almost need to be a surveillance state. 

Also, most scientists are socialists by nature; because their work is extremely expensive.  The only way most even know of getting funding is through government; and the other funding the receive via Universities and Corporations are then subsidized by government via taxes.  Without government most scientists wouldn't be getting grants and therefore, they always lean towards a socialistic approach; to science at least.  However, Einstein was an advocate of Socialism in general; and so are many of the modern scientists as well.

I suppose what I'm getting at is: if people wanted to do this project, then the best way to start is to think of what would be needed to maintain and protect it and work on securing those before one even thinks about buying any land.  Things would have to move quickly to prevent being infiltrated; you would need people, money, supplies, defence, and operating procedures and many other items to be designed, tested and ready for implementation immediately upon purchasing of the land.  No government would ever allow a Voluntaryist society the time needed to do these things organically; for it would spell the end of the reign of governments everywhere.


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: State-God on March 11, 2013, 10:31:51 AM
I somewhat disagree Agorist- I think we should keep in mind how multinational corporations/companies affect government heavyhandness as well.

I mean, think about it- wouldn't the Free Territory quickly become the financial capital of the world, with most major corporations storing their money, and many corporations setting up shop there? Any attempt at an overthrow would likely make many of the world's major corporations pretty pissy and, at the moment at least, they have a heavy hand involved in almost all governments.

Mind, I'm not saying that corporations are renown for their dislike of using State power to their advantage- but what I am saying is that a voluntary society would quickly show them that they are at a much greater advantage to have no government rather than a corporatist one and, unlike us, they have the money and influence to bring about what they want into being.

While I do agree that some vaguely sentient rulers ala O'Brien would work quickly to try to invade, we should realize that, in the end, we're not dealing with Oceania here- current State rulers are hypocritical idiots who have very little conception as to the true nature of power


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on March 11, 2013, 10:58:29 AM
@ State God

Why I disagree with your assessment of the Corporations.

Under Corporatism, the protection for the Corporations is paid for by the slaves ie tax payers.  However, most if not all of the Corporation's taxes -which they paid in throughout the year- are returned at the end of the year via their tax return.  Apple paid 1.46% Tax in 2011; do you think that 1.46% of their profits would have been enough money to secure their IP, their physical security and trade negotiations with other countries?  GE pays 0% tax; they would in now way want to now accept the burden of having to pay for everything that the tax payers pay for to protect GE stuff.  Also, don't forget that in a Voluntaryist society, these companies would actually have to compete to keep their market share; they wouldn't have government limiting competition for them via Rules and Regulations.  If there is a lot of competition then that isn't good for the company -it's great for the consumer- because they will necessarily have to sell their products cheaper thereby collecting less profit per item, and selling too many items could cost them dearly with the added expense to manufacture more products.

The Corporations love the Corporatists system; it is highly beneficial to them.  They get all of the benefits, with the least amount of direct costs.

If they didn't pass these costs onto the tax payer then their product price would either have to go up, or the profit of the product would have to go down.  They found a better way, and that is to have the tax payers -customers and non-customers alike- pay for their costs; just like how public schools have everybody in the area pay for the education of the students, not just the parents of students.  If only Apple customer had to pay for the expenses of Apple, I think we would see a much different price structure for their products.


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on March 12, 2013, 11:03:45 PM
@ Agrarian_Agorist:

I don't expect them to just "let" voluntaryism happen. I'm talking about the endgame. Once the foothold is established, it's a race to secure it, attract people to it, and set up defenses. It's done as quietly as possible. By the time governments decide to fuck with it, it's too late. The ancaps get in a good enough position to make their porcupine-like stand, defensively threatening to fight back against anyone who interferes. Some tool of deterrence will be needed, but it's possible. But we're not anywhere close to being ready for this. Even if I had a strip of land to call ancapistan, I haven't made enough connections with people to be able to settle on it and defend it. Over time, technological advances will give us more ways to even the playing field and enable small groups to defend themselves. Once we're there, we get a nice libertarian billionaire sponsor to help us out, and then the porcupines make their stand. It's totally possible, and maybe even in my lifetime, but not till I'm much older. If it wasn't for a couple hundred years I wouldn't be surprised though. But I'll stick to the argument that it's DEFINITELY possible.


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: MAM on March 12, 2013, 11:19:19 PM
@ Agrarian_Agorist:

I don't expect them to just "let" voluntaryism happen. I'm talking about the endgame. Once the foothold is established, it's a race to secure it, attract people to it, and set up defenses. It's done as quietly as possible. By the time governments decide to fuck with it, it's too late. The ancaps get in a good enough position to make their porcupine-like stand, defensively threatening to fight back against anyone who interferes. Some tool of deterrence will be needed, but it's possible. But we're not anywhere close to being ready for this. Even if I had a strip of land to call ancapistan, I haven't made enough connections with people to be able to settle on it and defend it. Over time, technological advances will give us more ways to even the playing field and enable small groups to defend themselves. Once we're there, we get a nice libertarian billionaire sponsor to help us out, and then the porcupines make their stand. It's totally possible, and maybe even in my lifetime, but not till I'm much older. If it wasn't for a couple hundred years I wouldn't be surprised though. But I'll stick to the argument that it's DEFINITELY possible.

Get a nuke, no one fucks with people that have nukes.


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: State-God on March 12, 2013, 11:26:00 PM
@ Agrarian_Agorist:

I don't expect them to just "let" voluntaryism happen. I'm talking about the endgame. Once the foothold is established, it's a race to secure it, attract people to it, and set up defenses. It's done as quietly as possible. By the time governments decide to fuck with it, it's too late. The ancaps get in a good enough position to make their porcupine-like stand, defensively threatening to fight back against anyone who interferes. Some tool of deterrence will be needed, but it's possible. But we're not anywhere close to being ready for this. Even if I had a strip of land to call ancapistan, I haven't made enough connections with people to be able to settle on it and defend it. Over time, technological advances will give us more ways to even the playing field and enable small groups to defend themselves. Once we're there, we get a nice libertarian billionaire sponsor to help us out, and then the porcupines make their stand. It's totally possible, and maybe even in my lifetime, but not till I'm much older. If it wasn't for a couple hundred years I wouldn't be surprised though. But I'll stick to the argument that it's DEFINITELY possible.

Get a nuke, no one fucks with people that have nukes.

They -do- fuck with people trying to get them, though -_-


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: MAM on March 12, 2013, 11:34:52 PM
@ Agrarian_Agorist:

I don't expect them to just "let" voluntaryism happen. I'm talking about the endgame. Once the foothold is established, it's a race to secure it, attract people to it, and set up defenses. It's done as quietly as possible. By the time governments decide to fuck with it, it's too late. The ancaps get in a good enough position to make their porcupine-like stand, defensively threatening to fight back against anyone who interferes. Some tool of deterrence will be needed, but it's possible. But we're not anywhere close to being ready for this. Even if I had a strip of land to call ancapistan, I haven't made enough connections with people to be able to settle on it and defend it. Over time, technological advances will give us more ways to even the playing field and enable small groups to defend themselves. Once we're there, we get a nice libertarian billionaire sponsor to help us out, and then the porcupines make their stand. It's totally possible, and maybe even in my lifetime, but not till I'm much older. If it wasn't for a couple hundred years I wouldn't be surprised though. But I'll stick to the argument that it's DEFINITELY possible.

Get a nuke, no one fucks with people that have nukes.

They -do- fuck with people trying to get them, though -_-

This is true. Go to one of the former Soviet Bloc countries pick up for a few mil.


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on March 12, 2013, 11:36:54 PM
There are a lot of things that need to fall into place...

Crucial:
-Some piece of land, that we "legitimately" own (that is, buy from a government)
-Some method of deterrence, that can be put in place almost immediately
-A good number of people, especially those with wealth and technical skills.

Helpful:
-Neighboring countries that have populations that are "soft" (think Western Europe) and less like the US (militaristic and fascistic, even the so-called left....just look at Obama). That way we can play nice with the media and paint ourselves as good neighbors, and try to make it politically costly and unpopular to mess with us. The less warlike the population is, the harder it is for the state to get away with fighting us. Being near the US is bad, because the people here are more vicious. The anti-war left is nonexistent when their great king is out bombing people. That's exactly the type of neighbor we don't want.


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: MAM on March 12, 2013, 11:40:12 PM
There are a lot of things that need to fall into place...

Crucial:
-Some piece of land, that we "legitimately" own (that is, buy from a government)
-Some method of deterrence, that can be put in place almost immediately
-A good number of people, especially those with wealth and technical skills.

Helpful:
-Neighboring countries that have populations that are "soft" (think Western Europe) and less like the US (militaristic and fascistic, even the so-called left....just look at Obama). That way we can play nice with the media and paint ourselves as good neighbors, and try to make it politically costly and unpopular to mess with us. The less warlike the population is, the harder it is for the state to get away with fighting us. Being near the US is bad, because the people here are more vicious. The anti-war left is nonexistent when their great king is out bombing people. That's exactly the type of neighbor we don't want.

I hear Italy is having problems with inflation...


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on March 12, 2013, 11:46:31 PM
There are a lot of things that need to fall into place...

Crucial:
-Some piece of land, that we "legitimately" own (that is, buy from a government)
-Some method of deterrence, that can be put in place almost immediately
-A good number of people, especially those with wealth and technical skills.

Helpful:
-Neighboring countries that have populations that are "soft" (think Western Europe) and less like the US (militaristic and fascistic, even the so-called left....just look at Obama). That way we can play nice with the media and paint ourselves as good neighbors, and try to make it politically costly and unpopular to mess with us. The less warlike the population is, the harder it is for the state to get away with fighting us. Being near the US is bad, because the people here are more vicious. The anti-war left is nonexistent when their great king is out bombing people. That's exactly the type of neighbor we don't want.

I hear Italy is having problems with inflation...
Exactly. Governments are destructive and have problems. They almost all have land that they claim but don't use. I'm not saying now is the time to make the move, but I'm saying this piece of the puzzle is not the hardest part to solve. It's getting them all together at once that's tricky. If any part is missing, ancaps lose.


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on March 13, 2013, 10:46:12 AM
When deciding on land one should not forget that freshwater is very importanthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresh_water (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresh_water); it makes up 1% or less of the world's water.  Here is a map of the world's freshwater resources(http://www.mapsofworld.com/images/world-fresh-water-resources-map.jpg).  The only other option would be to use salt-water and extract the salt -by one method or another.

Another very important item which would be required is communications.  If Ancapistan were to rely on satellite communication then the communication would be susceptible to outside interference; I'm not just talking about inside Ancapistan, but communication with the outside world.

Another thing which should be considered is, Allies.  Ancapistan would most-likely not be on the US's Christmas Card list, so that would leave little in the way of potential allies -with the exception of others which AnCaps don't really approve of.  Ancapistan would definitely need some allies.

Another thing would be to decide if Ancapistan would be better off being landlocked, have a coast, or be an island.  There are pros and cons to each of the possibilities, so that should be figured into where to look for land also.

Also, one could look into a long term lease of the land.  It wouldn't actually have to be owned outright; this would probably make it easier to find a place.  Obviously the terms of the lease would have to be such that Ancapistan could be Ancapistan, and that Ancapistan would essentially make it's own rules with the host country giving-up rights to impose rules and regulations onto Ancapistan.

Also, I don't really think a billionaire would be necessary nor do I think one would be found to help all that much with this project.  For if they did, then they would be black-balled by TPTB; I don't think many billionaires would be willing to risk everything on Ancapistan until it was already functioning -then a billionaire may be willing, but I would still highly doubt it.


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on March 13, 2013, 02:27:55 PM
@ Agrarian_Agorist:

I don't expect them to just "let" voluntaryism happen. I'm talking about the endgame. Once the foothold is established, it's a race to secure it, attract people to it, and set up defenses. It's done as quietly as possible. By the time governments decide to fuck with it, it's too late. The ancaps get in a good enough position to make their porcupine-like stand, defensively threatening to fight back against anyone who interferes. Some tool of deterrence will be needed, but it's possible. But we're not anywhere close to being ready for this. Even if I had a strip of land to call ancapistan, I haven't made enough connections with people to be able to settle on it and defend it. Over time, technological advances will give us more ways to even the playing field and enable small groups to defend themselves. Once we're there, we get a nice libertarian billionaire sponsor to help us out, and then the porcupines make their stand. It's totally possible, and maybe even in my lifetime, but not till I'm much older. If it wasn't for a couple hundred years I wouldn't be surprised though. But I'll stick to the argument that it's DEFINITELY possible.

Do you really think that you would be able to purchase or lease land to make Ancapistan and outside governments wouldn't know about it?  You would need to spread the word to get people to finance and populate Ancapistan; and in doing so the other governments will know and prevent it from happening.  There will be no way of keeping it secret while simultaneously procuring everything needed, resources and people, for Ancapistan to survive and thrive.  So, there is no start, let alone "until it gets a foothold;" because they won't let it get a foothold. 

If you wanted it to happen then most things would have to be ready to go at the drop of a hat.  Meaning that defence system would have to have been designed tested and built in advance of populating Ancapistan.  The other countries will never give a Voluntaryist society a chance to build those things organically; so they must be build before hand.

Also, I wouldn't count on any billionaire(s) sticking his or her neck out too far for this idea; they would stand to lose way more than anybody else does when the world governments turn on the idea.


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on March 13, 2013, 09:41:03 PM
I actually have some tricky ideas that would allow us to have a lot of these things before ever purchasing the land. So the "quiet" part isn't crucial. It's all about doing things atomically. I won't release those ideas here though. Maybe I'll release them somewhere else under another pseudonym and hope it gets linked here at some point! It's definitely doable, and I'd love to prove you wrong.


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: MAM on March 13, 2013, 10:38:48 PM
I actually have some tricky ideas that would allow us to have a lot of these things before ever purchasing the land. So the "quiet" part isn't crucial. It's all about doing things atomically. I won't release those ideas here though. Maybe I'll release them somewhere else under another pseudonym and hope it gets linked here at some point! It's definitely doable, and I'd love to prove you wrong.

Why would you bother with another pseudonym?

EDIT: If you're going to put it up somewhere and hope that it gets linked here what exactly is the other pseudonym doing for you? I guess we won't know that it was your creation I'm just not seeing what the anonymity accomplishes. Unless you're worried that someone might be able to figure out who you are with it...


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on March 13, 2013, 11:32:34 PM
I actually have some tricky ideas that would allow us to have a lot of these things before ever purchasing the land. So the "quiet" part isn't crucial. It's all about doing things atomically. I won't release those ideas here though. Maybe I'll release them somewhere else under another pseudonym and hope it gets linked here at some point! It's definitely doable, and I'd love to prove you wrong.

Why would you bother with another pseudonym?
Posting under a pseudonym on a forum does not give you much anonymity. There are certain things I will not say in a place like this. I would need to find a way to release the information in a way that would make it 100% impossible to trace back to me. The outline for how a future civilization might establish and defend ancapistan is bland enough that I'm comfortable posting it here... but the details, not so much.


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on March 14, 2013, 04:10:34 PM
I actually have some tricky ideas that would allow us to have a lot of these things before ever purchasing the land. So the "quiet" part isn't crucial. It's all about doing things atomically. I won't release those ideas here though. Maybe I'll release them somewhere else under another pseudonym and hope it gets linked here at some point! It's definitely doable, and I'd love to prove you wrong.

Why would you bother with another pseudonym?
Posting under a pseudonym on a forum does not give you much anonymity. There are certain things I will not say in a place like this. I would need to find a way to release the information in a way that would make it 100% impossible to trace back to me. The outline for how a future civilization might establish and defend ancapistan is bland enough that I'm comfortable posting it here... but the details, not so much.

Quote
The outline for how a future civilization might establish and defend ancapistan is bland enough that I'm comfortable posting it here
[/b] However, you haven't provided an actual outline; you've just said that it is possible, which is itself not an outline.  If you are talking about saying somethings which would be needed as being an outline, well that is not an outline either it is just a list.

I do not believe it is possible, and I have indicated why -external influences which desire for no Voluntaryist-type society to exist.  I have also stated what I think would be needed to make it possible.   Given this, I believe that it would prove to be impossible to overcome the external influences due to time constraints and materials needed in advance.  I believe it would require organizing the likes of which Anarcho-Capitalists/Voluntaryists have never seen before; and it would require centralized authority to oversee it -both of these items are anathema to the entire concept of Anarcho-Capitalism and Voluntaryism, making it an even greater reason as to why Ancapistan would never go anywhere.


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: MAM on March 14, 2013, 04:25:27 PM
I actually have some tricky ideas that would allow us to have a lot of these things before ever purchasing the land. So the "quiet" part isn't crucial. It's all about doing things atomically. I won't release those ideas here though. Maybe I'll release them somewhere else under another pseudonym and hope it gets linked here at some point! It's definitely doable, and I'd love to prove you wrong.

Why would you bother with another pseudonym?
Posting under a pseudonym on a forum does not give you much anonymity. There are certain things I will not say in a place like this. I would need to find a way to release the information in a way that would make it 100% impossible to trace back to me. The outline for how a future civilization might establish and defend ancapistan is bland enough that I'm comfortable posting it here... but the details, not so much.

Quote
The outline for how a future civilization might establish and defend ancapistan is bland enough that I'm comfortable posting it here
[/b] However, you haven't provided an actual outline; you've just said that it is possible, which is itself not an outline.  If you are talking about saying somethings which would be needed as being an outline, well that is not an outline either it is just a list.

I do not believe it is possible, and I have indicated why -external influences which desire for no Voluntaryist-type society to exist.  I have also stated what I think would be needed to make it possible.   Given this, I believe that it would prove to be impossible to overcome the external influences due to time constraints and materials needed in advance.  I believe it would require organizing the likes of which Anarcho-Capitalists/Voluntaryists have never seen before; and it would require centralized authority to oversee it -both of these items are anathema to the entire concept of Anarcho-Capitalism and Voluntaryism, making it an even greater reason as to why Ancapistan would never go anywhere.


So what is your plan? Do you have any ideas as to how AnCap can actually be achieved? Seems like a lot of people like to shotgun quarterback and spend so much time doing so that actually achieving a free society is never going to happen. The main reason why I don't think AnCap Society is ever going to happen is because there is no centralized authority everyone myself included just runs around like chickens with there head cut off and nothing ever gets accomplished.


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on March 14, 2013, 05:34:05 PM
I actually have some tricky ideas that would allow us to have a lot of these things before ever purchasing the land. So the "quiet" part isn't crucial. It's all about doing things atomically. I won't release those ideas here though. Maybe I'll release them somewhere else under another pseudonym and hope it gets linked here at some point! It's definitely doable, and I'd love to prove you wrong.

Why would you bother with another pseudonym?
Posting under a pseudonym on a forum does not give you much anonymity. There are certain things I will not say in a place like this. I would need to find a way to release the information in a way that would make it 100% impossible to trace back to me. The outline for how a future civilization might establish and defend ancapistan is bland enough that I'm comfortable posting it here... but the details, not so much.

Quote
The outline for how a future civilization might establish and defend ancapistan is bland enough that I'm comfortable posting it here
[/b] However, you haven't provided an actual outline; you've just said that it is possible, which is itself not an outline.  If you are talking about saying somethings which would be needed as being an outline, well that is not an outline either it is just a list.

I do not believe it is possible, and I have indicated why -external influences which desire for no Voluntaryist-type society to exist.  I have also stated what I think would be needed to make it possible.   Given this, I believe that it would prove to be impossible to overcome the external influences due to time constraints and materials needed in advance.  I believe it would require organizing the likes of which Anarcho-Capitalists/Voluntaryists have never seen before; and it would require centralized authority to oversee it -both of these items are anathema to the entire concept of Anarcho-Capitalism and Voluntaryism, making it an even greater reason as to why Ancapistan would never go anywhere.


So what is your plan? Do you have any ideas as to how AnCap can actually be achieved? Seems like a lot of people like to shotgun quarterback and spend so much time doing so that actually achieving a free society is never going to happen. The main reason why I don't think AnCap Society is ever going to happen is because there is no centralized authority everyone myself included just runs around like chickens with there head cut off and nothing ever gets accomplished.

I do have a plan for everything, but the most important thing, which is how to prevent other governments from interfering with Ancapistan like they had done with Somalia.  If that could be figured out, then the entire thing would be a breeze including where to get the land.  As you have mentioned, the lack of any type of authority would end this campaign before it even started because some one or some entity(a council or something) would need to oversee the progress.

I also, think that as far as land goes it would be better to have at least one port -so some water access would be preferable.  I would advise against an island, because it could easily be surrounded.  I would also advise against being landlocked because that would make Ancapistan dependent on the countries with water access for not only shipping via sea but also shipping via air.  If Ancapistan had its own port or coastal region then it wouldn't have to need necessarily to transport anything over land not owned or leased by Ancapistan as well as not needing to fly over land not owned or leased by Ancapistan; this will reduce possible disputes between neighbours -and disputes with neighbours is not what Ancapistan would want.

The problem with the defences would be that, Ancapistan would probably suffer negative Propaganda throughout the world, building anti-Ancapistan sentiment.  The method of attack would probably be by ICBM or Cruise Missile or something of that nature.  The least likely method of attack would be with ground troops.  So, Ancapistan would need some-kind of missile defence shield to protect itself.  Without the defence being figured out, then the entire project would be futile.

I am definitely all ears if someone can prevent missiles from wiping-out Ancapistan; but I really don't see that a as a possibility at the moment.


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: MAM on March 14, 2013, 05:53:17 PM
Like I keep saying you don't need a defence grid if you have a couple nukes. The threat of nuclear retaliation would be enough of a deterrent that I would be willing to bet no one would mess with AnCapistan.  As far antimissile defence systems go they already exist though they are very expensive, but if we have the money to buy the land to make Ancapistan then we probably have the money to buy the defence system.



Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on March 14, 2013, 06:26:56 PM
Like I keep saying you don't need a defence grid if you have a couple nukes. The threat of nuclear retaliation would be enough of a deterrent that I would be willing to bet no one would mess with AnCapistan.  As far antimissile defence systems go they already exist though they are very expensive, but if we have the money to buy the land to make Ancapistan then we probably have the money to buy the defence system.



Nukes would be far more difficult to get then you assume.  The former soviet block sold them, however, most were sold under government authority.  No government would sell a future Ancapistan any nukes, because Ancapistan would prove that governments are not necessary; no government wants their people realizing that government is not necessary.

If I had $5 bil I could buy a place to create Ancapistan, or I could buy a partial defence shield, but I couldn't buy both.  Assuming because a group of people could buy land to create Ancapistan means that they could buy a missile defence shield also is illogical; maybe they spent too much money of the land and they couldn't purchase the shield.

Also, just because one has land to setup Ancapistan doesn't mean that it would be able to retaliate after an attack; maybe all of Ancapistan got wiped-out, then wither Ancapistan had a nuke or not would be meaningless, because nobody would be around to use it in retaliation.

You have actually not solved -or even hinted at a viable solution to- any problem whatsoever about the defensive needs of a potential Ancapistan.


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: MAM on March 14, 2013, 06:55:30 PM
Like I keep saying you don't need a defence grid if you have a couple nukes. The threat of nuclear retaliation would be enough of a deterrent that I would be willing to bet no one would mess with AnCapistan.  As far antimissile defence systems go they already exist though they are very expensive, but if we have the money to buy the land to make Ancapistan then we probably have the money to buy the defence system.



Nukes would be far more difficult to get then you assume.  The former soviet block sold them, however, most were sold under government authority.  No government would sell a future Ancapistan any nukes, because Ancapistan would prove that governments are not necessary; no government wants their people realizing that government is not necessary.

If I had $5 bil I could buy a place to create Ancapistan, or I could buy a partial defence shield, but I couldn't buy both.  Assuming because a group of people could buy land to create Ancapistan means that they could buy a missile defence shield also is illogical; maybe they spent too much money of the land and they couldn't purchase the shield.

Also, just because one has land to setup Ancapistan doesn't mean that it would be able to retaliate after an attack; maybe all of Ancapistan got wiped-out, then wither Ancapistan had a nuke or not would be meaningless, because nobody would be around to use it in retaliation.

You have actually not solved -or even hinted at a viable solution to- any problem whatsoever about the defensive needs of a potential Ancapistan.

First of all arms dealers have access to nukes. Second of all you don't tell the guy your buying the nuke from what it's for. If nothing else you forge some papers and make it look like you work for some State that doesn't have nukes. Third of all I seriously doubt that the land is going to cost 5billion dollars we don't need to buy a continent all we need is a little sliver of land no bigger than Iwo Jima. Fourth of all who said the nuke would be in Ancapistan? Why not put  it in the US somewhere? Then leverage the threat of killing a few million Americans to get the US to bully everyone into leaving us alone. And if they don't believe you'll blow it up get another and blow that one up proving that you'll do it. Fifth of all even if you don't want to leverage the US like that if you have a nuke DO NOT put in Ancapistan, because like you pointed out it would be a simple matter to wipe it off the map, you want to be able to retaliate no matter what happens to Ancapistan. Preferably the nuke would be on a sub hiding somewhere, that way NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS to Ancapistan people will die. Think like nuking DC NYC or London... Sixth of all Patriot Missile defence systems cost 2-3 mill a piece. That isn't that much money in this context.

Lastly instead of being a nay sayer to everything I and JUSTIN come up with how about providing something that you think will work so that I can dismantle it and we can close this down by coming to the conclusion that there is no solution.

EDIT: What bothers me isn't that you are pointing out the holes in what I'm saying. What bothers me is that you aren't providing solutions. Apparently this is contained to my micro culture, but where I come from when you see a problem instead of pointing out the problem and walking away you come up with a solution.


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: MAM on March 14, 2013, 07:17:54 PM
Another thing to consider is this: you can have a plan and that's all well and good however "[a] battle plan is only good until you make contact with the enemy" -George S Patton


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on March 14, 2013, 07:24:21 PM
I actually have some tricky ideas that would allow us to have a lot of these things before ever purchasing the land. So the "quiet" part isn't crucial. It's all about doing things atomically. I won't release those ideas here though. Maybe I'll release them somewhere else under another pseudonym and hope it gets linked here at some point! It's definitely doable, and I'd love to prove you wrong.

Why would you bother with another pseudonym?
Posting under a pseudonym on a forum does not give you much anonymity. There are certain things I will not say in a place like this. I would need to find a way to release the information in a way that would make it 100% impossible to trace back to me. The outline for how a future civilization might establish and defend ancapistan is bland enough that I'm comfortable posting it here... but the details, not so much.

Quote
The outline for how a future civilization might establish and defend ancapistan is bland enough that I'm comfortable posting it here
[/b] However, you haven't provided an actual outline; you've just said that it is possible, which is itself not an outline.  If you are talking about saying somethings which would be needed as being an outline, well that is not an outline either it is just a list.
I) Interesting,
II) because that's what I thought
III) an outline was....
    a) Unless you didn't see enough
    b) indentation. I suppose we could define
    c) an outline as an ordered list of ordered lists
        i) or maybe even an ordered list of ordered lists of ordered lists
        ii) if you hit the third level.
IV) Next time I'll put some
    a) space clusters of size 4 in, that way
    b) I can satisfy your definition.
        i) Is this
        ii) better?

The ways to make it possible (in your eyes) are all impossible (in your eyes), so what's the point? The road to ancapistan isn't going to be paved in front of us. We'll have to be creative and make our own trails. If there is really NO WAY you can see any variation of this idea working, then I find you lacking in the area of creativity. This is one of the least far-fetched ideas out there. Unless you think one day everyone will download Rothbard's work?
Really, there are only 2 ways ancapistan could happen:
1) Everyone does it all at once (the whole world)
2) Some people prove the concept in a world that still has governments

Option #1 isn't going to happen. Option #2 is the only choice. If THAT is impossible to you, then you've run out of options.


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on March 14, 2013, 08:10:16 PM
Like I keep saying you don't need a defence grid if you have a couple nukes. The threat of nuclear retaliation would be enough of a deterrent that I would be willing to bet no one would mess with AnCapistan.  As far antimissile defence systems go they already exist though they are very expensive, but if we have the money to buy the land to make Ancapistan then we probably have the money to buy the defence system.



Nukes would be far more difficult to get then you assume.  The former soviet block sold them, however, most were sold under government authority.  No government would sell a future Ancapistan any nukes, because Ancapistan would prove that governments are not necessary; no government wants their people realizing that government is not necessary.

If I had $5 bil I could buy a place to create Ancapistan, or I could buy a partial defence shield, but I couldn't buy both.  Assuming because a group of people could buy land to create Ancapistan means that they could buy a missile defence shield also is illogical; maybe they spent too much money of the land and they couldn't purchase the shield.

Also, just because one has land to setup Ancapistan doesn't mean that it would be able to retaliate after an attack; maybe all of Ancapistan got wiped-out, then wither Ancapistan had a nuke or not would be meaningless, because nobody would be around to use it in retaliation.

You have actually not solved -or even hinted at a viable solution to- any problem whatsoever about the defensive needs of a potential Ancapistan.

First of all arms dealers have access to nukes. Second of all you don't tell the guy your buying the nuke from what it's for. If nothing else you forge some papers and make it look like you work for some State that doesn't have nukes. Third of all I seriously doubt that the land is going to cost 5billion dollars we don't need to buy a continent all we need is a little sliver of land no bigger than Iwo Jima. Fourth of all who said the nuke would be in Ancapistan? Why not put  it in the US somewhere? Then leverage the threat of killing a few million Americans to get the US to bully everyone into leaving us alone. And if they don't believe you'll blow it up get another and blow that one up proving that you'll do it. Fifth of all even if you don't want to leverage the US like that if you have a nuke DO NOT put in Ancapistan, because like you pointed out it would be a simple matter to wipe it off the map, you want to be able to retaliate no matter what happens to Ancapistan. Preferably the nuke would be on a sub hiding somewhere, that way NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS to Ancapistan people will die. Think like nuking DC NYC or London... Sixth of all Patriot Missile defence systems cost 2-3 mill a piece. That isn't that much money in this context.

Lastly instead of being a nay sayer to everything I and JUSTIN come up with how about providing something that you think will work so that I can dismantle it and we can close this down by coming to the conclusion that there is no solution.

EDIT: What bothers me isn't that you are pointing out the holes in what I'm saying. What bothers me is that you aren't providing solutions. Apparently this is contained to my micro culture, but where I come from when you see a problem instead of pointing out the problem and walking away you come up with a solution.

If arms dealers have nukes, then don't you think Iraq would have had one of those?  Don't you think someone might have used a nuke against the US by now?

Even if arms dealers apparently had nukes, they wouldn't just sell one to anybody.  They would only sell one -if they had it- to someone whom they've done business with for many years; this is not the movies.  Without that connection, then the arms dealer -even if they had a nuke- wouldn't sell it to you; especially considering if their are any still out on the market, then the owners are probably either known or limited to just a few possible people -at any rate they wouldn't just hand a nuke over.

The smaller the land mass which you plan to purchase, the more likely it will be terminated quickly.  Also, it would need to be big enough for several years of heavy growth.  Also, how much do you think decent land would cost anyway?

Even if the Nuke wasn't in Ancapistan, who cares?  Ewww you get to set-off one nuke after you are annihilated.  More people in the US will die the next time the New Madrid Faultline has an earthquake.  Also, if these are old soviet nukes which you think are on the black market, then there is another problem and that is that they are little more than a dirty bomb by now -due to radioactive decay.

So, now you have a landmass or island the size of Iwo Jima, you have a nuke, and a sub.  Can I place an order for a Particle beam weapon affixed to four satellites?

Sorry but Patriot missiles cost -if your right- $2-3 million each, not the defence system; only the missile -there is a difference.  How many patriot missiles do you think you would need?  Don't forget there wouldn't be getting any-more once they are used up.  Oh and you would have a hard time acquiring the Patriot Missiles in the first place, since the US is the only people officially able to sell them, and Israel are the only ones who have sold any unofficially.

Like I said, defence is the one thing I haven't figured out.  Because every government in the world would want Ancapistan ended before the idea spread.  This is a very big problem for a potentially small landmass with limited financial resources.  To figure this problem out, all of the negative variables must be accounted for, or the solution will fail.


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on March 14, 2013, 08:40:48 PM
I actually have some tricky ideas that would allow us to have a lot of these things before ever purchasing the land. So the "quiet" part isn't crucial. It's all about doing things atomically. I won't release those ideas here though. Maybe I'll release them somewhere else under another pseudonym and hope it gets linked here at some point! It's definitely doable, and I'd love to prove you wrong.

Why would you bother with another pseudonym?
Posting under a pseudonym on a forum does not give you much anonymity. There are certain things I will not say in a place like this. I would need to find a way to release the information in a way that would make it 100% impossible to trace back to me. The outline for how a future civilization might establish and defend ancapistan is bland enough that I'm comfortable posting it here... but the details, not so much.

Quote
The outline for how a future civilization might establish and defend ancapistan is bland enough that I'm comfortable posting it here
[/b] However, you haven't provided an actual outline; you've just said that it is possible, which is itself not an outline.  If you are talking about saying somethings which would be needed as being an outline, well that is not an outline either it is just a list.
I) Interesting,
II) because that's what I thought
III) an outline was....
    a) Unless you didn't see enough
    b) indentation. I suppose we could define
    c) an outline as an ordered list of ordered lists
        i) or maybe even an ordered list of ordered lists of ordered lists
        ii) if you hit the third level.
IV) Next time I'll put some
    a) space clusters of size 4 in, that way
    b) I can satisfy your definition.
        i) Is this
        ii) better?

The ways to make it possible (in your eyes) are all impossible (in your eyes), so what's the point? The road to ancapistan isn't going to be paved in front of us. We'll have to be creative and make our own trails. If there is really NO WAY you can see any variation of this idea working, then I find you lacking in the area of creativity. This is one of the least far-fetched ideas out there. Unless you think one day everyone will download Rothbard's work?
Really, there are only 2 ways ancapistan could happen:
1) Everyone does it all at once (the whole world)
2) Some people prove the concept in a world that still has governments

Option #1 isn't going to happen. Option #2 is the only choice. If THAT is impossible to you, then you've run out of options.

By your definition of an outline one could make this: buy land, populate the land, build defences, live happily ever after.  I'm sorry but that is not an outline, and it is only slightly more simpler than what you proposed.

As of right now, you cannot defend a hypothetical Ancapistan from the governments of the world; therefore, it will not work.  Why would any government just sit by while you build Ancapistan?  They won't and you've already admitted it.  So if the governments of the world won't just let Ancapistan happen, then you must be able to defend it from their attack; with the possibility of several Nations attacking Ancapistan.  These other governments would risk everything, because the success of Ancapistan would end their reign anyway; so they would have nothing to lose.  Also, if Ancapistan ends-up killing civilian citizens in its retaliation -such as MAM is suggesting- then you can kiss Ancapistan goodbye, because the governments of the world will decimate Ancapistan and it will be at the behest of their citizens.  So, either you stay completely on defence or Ancapistan would need to have be responsible for little to no collateral damage in its retaliation; which still doesn't mean that one of the aggressing countries would do something and blame it on Ancapistan.

Without an actual defensive ability the whole thing is moot.  Even if Ancapistan bought a nuke; without the ability to manufacture them, nobody would really be that threatened.  Also, as I've stated if you kill innocent civilians then there would be no place on earth to hide, Ancapistan would be obliterated by decree of the citizens of the other countries.

As you've stated option one isn't going to happen: Anarcho-Communists are making better headway then Anarcho-Capitalists, because they are directly effecting massive amounts of people through their Communist Gardening Initiatives in the major cities.  These people positively effected by those agricultural works will only realize that the communist system won't work after it has failed; which means that Anarcho-Capitalism isn't going to even be a thought on most people's minds any-time soon. 

Option two isn't going to work without a viable defensive plan and capability.

There is a third option which is even less realistic then the other two, but it does exist within the realms of possibilities, and that would be to take to space.  While this possibility doesn't have the challenges that the other two options have, it does have its own severe challenges to its viability as an actual possibility.

So, what we have is as follows:

Option (1) wont work, unless we can convince the vast majority of the world of the superiority of a Voluntary society as opposed to the government-style society which they all utilize in one form or another.  Chances of success: Highly unlikely.

Option (2) wont work, unless we can figure out a defensive shield capability to deter the vast nations of the world from attacking Ancapistan.  Possibility of success: Not very good.

Option (3) won't work, unless we can figure out a quicker method of space travel and better shielding from the van Allen Radiation Belt.  Also, would need to develop gravity generating devices, and settlement enclosures; plus other things:  Possibility of success: Less likely then Option (1) or (2).

The only possible solution is Option (2), however, it is not even a possibility without the ability to repel and defend itself from all Governments -possibly even simultaneously.


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: MAM on March 14, 2013, 08:57:49 PM
The nukes are there I guarantee it. Why? Because the Soviets had thousands of them when they collapsed. Why haven't nukes been deployed against the US? I have no fucking clue I've been asking that question for years. Supposing that the nukes from the cold war era have decayed past their usefulness then why not make one? Again even if every single Soviet and US and British and Chinese and Korean and Indian and Pakistani (you get the picture?) nuclear weapon is somehow magically accounted for, a prospect which I find dubious at best and is likely fucking ridiculous why not make them? The knowledge on how to build these things is not esoteric or arcane. Am I saying that it would be easy? NO! I didn't say that getting a nuke would be easy either. You made yourself look like an ass by assuming that I said it would be easy. Obviously if it was easy everything we're talking about here would already be done.  Furthermore the MIM-104 Patriot Missile Defence SYSTEM costs wait for it ~2-3mil per unit. The AN/MSQ-104 Engagement Control Station (ECS) costs 6mil per unit. The Patriot missile itself costs between 1-6mill per unit. Patriot batteries are hardly the only option for defence vs. missiles they're just the one I picked seeing as my Paps worked those during one of his tours in Iraq and thus I knew the name.

So what more people are going to die in an Earth quake? It's not about the number of people you kill off, it's about having the ability to use them. There is a reason why the US is so determined to keep nations from getting nukes and it's not because the leaders in the nation are good natured people. It's because the more people who have nukes the less power the US has... Ever notice how it's the countries that don't have nukes that get bullied while the ones that do get left alone? It's not a co-ink-i-dink.

Quote
So, now you have a landmass or island the size of Iwo Jima, you have a nuke, and a sub.  Can I place an order for a Particle beam weapon affixed to four satellites?


Because what I'm suggesting is so improbable right? Getting a nuke is beyond possibility to you, and yet you expect all these pieces to magically fall into place at the same time... Reality check all the pieces lining up nice and pretty ain't gonna happen. You have to make due with what you've got.

Quote
Like I said, defence is the one thing I haven't figured out.  Because every government in the world would want Ancapistan ended before the idea spread.  


I think you are giving way to much credit to government. We're talking about an organization that does the same thing over and over again and wonders why it's economy keeps tanking. We're talking about a bureaucracy so cumbersome that it takes years for the simplest tasks to get done. We're talking about an organization that can't even secure it's borders. In other words we're talking about an incompetent organization. A dangerous organization true but it hardly wins medals for intelligence and efficiency. While we recognize that letting our society get a foothold would hail the end of the government age do the governments of the world realize this?

So basically based on your response to JUSTIN we should all give up because the chances of anything resembling freedom ever happening are slim to none. Sorry but if I quit that easy I would have shot myself in the head a long time ago I didn't then I'm not about to do that now.


EDIT: Nukes are powerful and capable of destroying alot of shit. But that is their weakest feature. Their greatest strength is the fear they generate, enough I think to cause the citizens of this country and the world in general to leave us alone.


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on March 14, 2013, 08:59:37 PM
Quote
As of right now, you cannot defend a hypothetical Ancapistan from the governments of the world; therefore, it will not work.
Now I know you're not reading my posts.
/discussion


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on March 14, 2013, 09:41:23 PM
There is a reason why one wouldn't want to make a nuke.  As soon as you start buying the equipment to build one -a good one- the US will know.  All of that equipment is monitored.  If you start hiring Nuke specialist, the US will know. If you think they don't have an eye on those with the education to build a proper nuke, then you aren't paying attention.  The raw material alone is monitored; unless you have a Uranium mine hidden somewhere, then the US government will know if you try to buy some.

You seem to think that the US is trying to prevent countries from getting nukes.  The US is trying to prevent countries from acquiring the technology and capability of creating their own nukes; there is a difference. One would be limited to the number of nukes purchased, the other would only have limits based on the amount of raw material it had at its disposal.

Quote
We're talking about an organization that does the same thing over and over again and wonders why it's economy keeps tanking. We're talking about a bureaucracy so cumbersome that it takes years for the simplest tasks to get done. We're talking about an organization that can't even secure it's borders. In other words we're talking about an incompetent organization.
 

You assume that, it wonder's why it's economy keeps tanking, that it is not intentional for things to get done late or not at all, and that it wants to secure it's own borders.  I contend that the US government wants the opposite of what you think it wants.  I contend that the US government wants exactly what it gets, to further drive the situation into a Global Government Solution.

While you may think that I don't want to do anything; the truth is that I won't do anything which is highly likely to fail.  I would want Ancapistan to succeed, and therefore I am compelled to look at all of the obstacles which stands in the way of achieving that goal.

@JSNTS
Quote
Now I know you're not reading my posts.
/discussion
  I've read all of your posts.  You say build defences, and then you said that you have a tricky way of doing it.  Those statements don't actually refute what I stated, which you quoted.


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: MAM on March 14, 2013, 09:51:47 PM
Quote
While you may think that I don't want to do anything; the truth is that I won't do anything which is highly likely to fail.
We live in a world dominated by governments, statists, and evil. Anything that resembles freedom, or liberty, or anti-totalitarian, is likely to fail, that doesn't mean we should wait. I live my life today, I wait for no one.



Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on March 14, 2013, 10:05:13 PM
@MAM
Quote
Think like nuking DC NYC or London

You are forgetting, or you didn't know, about the Continuity Of Government and the Continuity Of Operations, none of those cities even matter any-more.  You wouldn't accomplish anything, so what would be the point?  

Also, as you pointed out that a small Patriot missile system would cost starting at -once all of the prices are added- around $12 million and up.  
Quote
Furthermore the MIM-104 Patriot Missile Defence SYSTEM costs wait for it ~2-3mil per unit. The AN/MSQ-104 Engagement Control Station (ECS) costs 6mil per unit. The Patriot missile itself costs between 1-6mill per unit.

How many missiles would that include?  Once those missiles were gone where would you get any-more? The US, UK, FR, AU, CA, RU, CH, JP, and a hole host of others could launch attack after attack and you would be done after the first wave.

You mentioned all of the countries which have Nuke capabilities, however, you still didn't reason as to why they would sell you one or more -given the fact that they haven't sold anybody else any.

Quote
Nukes are powerful and capable of destroying alot of shit. But that is their weakest feature. Their greatest strength is the fear they generate, enough I think to cause the citizens of this country and the world in general to leave us alone.

Only if those nukes are attached to an ICBM and if the country had an ability to produce more of said nukes.  If a country only has a few nukes -with no ability to make any-more- and it only had short-range missile capability then the people here wouldn't fear going to war with them to stop that country from acquiring the capabilities which it was lacking.

Seriously, many people in the US believed Iraq possibly even had nukes at its disposal, and they still approved of the war, because Iraq didn't have a ICBM capable of reaching us.  Americans only fear something if they are possibly directly effected or could be directly effected.  Most Americans, though, if you threatened them would approve of covert military actions against such a country; so I would watch if you want Ancapistan to threaten the US, it will most-likely back-fire.


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: MAM on March 14, 2013, 10:09:22 PM
Quote
You mentioned all of the countries which have Nuke capabilities, however, you still didn't reason as to why they would sell you one or more -given the fact that they haven't sold anybody else any.

I'm not sure you read my post. I don't think they would sell them to me. I don't think they're competent enough to hold on to them. I have no ethical qualms about stealing from or killing agents of the State.


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on March 15, 2013, 07:10:40 AM
Quote
You mentioned all of the countries which have Nuke capabilities, however, you still didn't reason as to why they would sell you one or more -given the fact that they haven't sold anybody else any.

I'm not sure you read my post. I don't think they would sell them to me. I don't think they're competent enough to hold on to them. I have no ethical qualms about stealing from or killing agents of the State.

Whether you steal it(them) or buy it(them), the problem is still the same; and that is, you would only have a limited number of nukes -most likely only one.  It is not possible to deter the entire world with one nuke and no capability to make or acquire any more.

The idea of using nukes is a lost cause for the fact that as I pointed out earlier, you are just going to legitimize -within the peoples of the world- the use of force by their government(s) to neutralize Ancapistan before it has the ability to produce its own nukes.


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: Syock on March 15, 2013, 08:11:04 AM
This thread got pretty long pretty quickly. 

Everyone has made some good points. 

My thoughts:
There are cheaper ways to shoot down stuff than patriot missiles; with off the shelf industrial/commercial products.  Radar is common in aviation and nautical shipping.  Lasers that cut metal like a hot knife through butter are common in automotive industry. 

Stop worrying about how you will deploy a weapon you probably won't have (everyone would have them), and shouldn't be using even if you did have it (MAD).  They are for deterrence only.  The only time they were ever used in war was when the enemy did not have them.  The best we can reasonably expect to do is knock down any that are shot at us. I suspect it is unlikely to happen anyway, considering no one has nuked the middle east through the seemingly never ending wars.  Don't say oil either, because it isn't like every inch of the place is an oil well. 

Considering an ancap country would be such an open society, defense could be quite a tricky issue.  It wouldn't exactly be challenging for a statest to come on over and become a saboteur.  Personally I wouldn't want a nuke around even without such a security risk, because I simply don't like them.  I think there are better ways of doing things. 

I would prefer an island.  As Agrarian Agorist said, most of the troops in the world are ground forces.  The only country that has a ton of force projection power is the USA though.  Everyone else would prefer to set up base nearby and drive in.  An island would deter many threats before they even begin.  So long as we can grow our own food we should be fine.

The water map is deceiving.  Australia for example has a rain forest in the north, and deserts in the south.  The map says they have plenty of water, but the population which mostly is in the dryer regions don't have easy access to the water from the rainforest.  Desalination is always a possibility that people ignore.  There are expensive and cheap ways to go about that.  Either way it is cheaper than buying bottled water in the USA.  The only reason it is even an issue is because states tend to provide near free water, so there is no incentive to create more than the natural rainfall even in shortage areas. 

/Activates flame shield


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on March 15, 2013, 09:39:36 AM
Syock, this might be what you're looking for http://www.landwatch.com/Chile-Land-for-sale/pid/130003071 (http://www.landwatch.com/Chile-Land-for-sale/pid/130003071) (http://images.secondspace.com/p/SUP/16/33/93/E4/BA/7AL_01.jpg) Do you know anybody with $12 mil?  The thing I don't like about this is that it is an island and the US has the largest Navy in the World.  I wouldn't mind so much if the island was on the western side of Africa but in South America it seems to close to the US.  Also, it is only 16k acres; I don't think that is big enough to actually create a very well balance country.

Also, I'm not sure that I like the laser idea due to the fact that lasers don't just stop.  If the target is missed, will the laser have detrimental effects to the ozone layer, ionosphere, magnetosphere, etc? I don't think I would want to find out in an accident.

I do agree with the idea of nukes, I've never been a fan of them.

I was never a fan of the island idea, but, in the grand scheme of things that is not that important.

Yes, the water map was/is horrible.  I only noticed how bad it really was after I posted it; however, it did give a general idea of where quantities of fresh water are found.


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on March 15, 2013, 09:47:49 AM
Here is more information on the island: http://www.islasanpedrochile.com/ (http://www.islasanpedrochile.com/)

I found a converter which states that 16k acres is 25 square miles?  I don't think that would be enough; what do you guys think?


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: MAM on March 15, 2013, 10:11:36 AM
Here is more information on the island: http://www.islasanpedrochile.com/ (http://www.islasanpedrochile.com/)

I found a converter which states that 16k acres is 25 square miles?  I don't think that would be enough; what do you guys think?

25 miles isn't alot but beggars can't be choosers and it's better than nothing. So I would go for it. The more I think about it the more I think that Guardian might have been onto something. Is the island large enough to support an international airport? I don't really know that much about it.


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: Syock on March 15, 2013, 10:27:26 AM
Also, I'm not sure that I like the laser idea due to the fact that lasers don't just stop.  If the target is missed, will the laser have detrimental effects to the ozone layer, ionosphere, magnetosphere, etc? I don't think I would want to find out in an accident.

A laser is the same stuff that comes out of a lightbulb, or radio, or radar, or microwave, or cell phone, or sun, etc etc etc.  It is just a specific wavelength directed into a beam rather than a wide area.  Lasers are already commonly shot through the atmosphere with no ill-effects.  If you shot the water with it, it would just heat up the water.  


25 miles isn't alot but beggars can't be choosers and it's better than nothing. So I would go for it. The more I think about it the more I think that Guardian might have been onto something. Is the island large enough to support an international airport? I don't really know that much about it.

Hong Kong built an international airport on reclaimed land (man made) because they didn't have room.  



That island looks like it is simply a park that they are selling.  They are not selling the sovereignty over it. 


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on March 15, 2013, 10:48:34 AM
Here is more information on the island: http://www.islasanpedrochile.com/ (http://www.islasanpedrochile.com/)

I found a converter which states that 16k acres is 25 square miles?  I don't think that would be enough; what do you guys think?

25 miles isn't alot but beggars can't be choosers and it's better than nothing. So I would go for it. The more I think about it the more I think that Guardian might have been onto something. Is the island large enough to support an international airport? I don't really know that much about it.

Well, it would depend on how big one actually wanted the airport to be; as in, how many planes it could handle.  For a 747 and bigger a runway of 8000 feet is a minimum; and the International Airport at Pittsburgh -the 4th largest in the US- is on 12k+ acres.  An international airport is usually identified as such due to its ability to handle the very large planes which require the long runways.  So, technically one could have a single runway airport with the runway of 8k feet and it would be considered an international airport.

Thanks Syock, after the comment on man-made Island for the HK International Airport I got stuck reading an online debate on whether it actually is artificial or not.  Apparently it was an island and there was a platform which extended from the island, and HK decided to engineer it to use the platform and expand  the original island -or something like that.  Some people say that since it uses dirt and natural materials that it is not artificial and others say that since it was designed by humans that it is artificial. 

Anyway, it would be possible to expand the island, however, not sure how much that would cost; it seems it might possibly cost more to expand the island than it costs to buy the island.


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on March 15, 2013, 12:03:31 PM
Here is another island for sale it is 36k+ acres which is 56+ square miles.  It is on the coast of Brazil, but it is surrounded by other Brazilian islands. http://www.privateislandsonline.com/islands/ilha-das-pacas# (http://www.privateislandsonline.com/islands/ilha-das-pacas#)  It is $10 million; it is cheaper than the Chilean island and more than twice the size, but it is more surrounded by the host country.


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: MAM on March 15, 2013, 03:19:16 PM
Quote
Some people say that since it uses dirt and natural materials that it is not artificial and others say that since it was designed by humans that it is artificial.

As opposed to super natural materials right?

If Syock's laser grid can defend us vs ICBMs then we would still need enough of a ground force to hold off an invasion. Regardless of whether or not the gubberments want to stop us because they don't want our proof of concept to succeed they may just see us as easy pickins and try to kill us anyway.

EDIT: I don't want to use nukes as a defence mechanism. It's just something that I thought could work, maybe, even if sub optimal. However nukes have one use that makes me want to be able to build them. Project Orion. I don't really see the Earth taking to anarchy so I would like to be able to leave the planet and settle somewhere else.


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on March 15, 2013, 04:09:12 PM
Quote
Some people say that since it uses dirt and natural materials that it is not artificial and others say that since it was designed by humans that it is artificial.

As opposed to super natural materials right? 

Hah. No.  That it was made with rock and dirt piled within a structure as opposed to a steel structure entirely designed and manufactured -bolted and welded together- by humans as the entire island. 


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: Syock on March 15, 2013, 08:55:34 PM
Thanks Syock, after the comment on man-made Island for the HK International Airport I got stuck reading an online debate on whether it actually is artificial or not.  Apparently it was an island and there was a platform which extended from the island, and HK decided to engineer it to use the platform and expand  the original island -or something like that.  Some people say that since it uses dirt and natural materials that it is not artificial and others say that since it was designed by humans that it is artificial.  

Anyway, it would be possible to expand the island, however, not sure how much that would cost; it seems it might possibly cost more to expand the island than it costs to buy the island.

Hah, I never claimed it was inexpensive.  It was dredged up and placed there to create area above the waterline though.  

Most construction on earth is based around dirt, rock and lumber.  Concrete is rock.  Bricks are dirt.  Asphalt roads are rocks and oil products.  Glass is sand.  Steel skyscrapers are usually covered in concrete or glass, aka rocks/dirt/earth.  Of course steel is made of iron and carbon, which is also extracted from dirt.  

We probably won't need to even worry about such an airport for some time.  Water based aircraft and boats would do fine for a small population.  


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: MAM on March 15, 2013, 09:26:09 PM
Thanks Syock, after the comment on man-made Island for the HK International Airport I got stuck reading an online debate on whether it actually is artificial or not.  Apparently it was an island and there was a platform which extended from the island, and HK decided to engineer it to use the platform and expand  the original island -or something like that.  Some people say that since it uses dirt and natural materials that it is not artificial and others say that since it was designed by humans that it is artificial.  

Anyway, it would be possible to expand the island, however, not sure how much that would cost; it seems it might possibly cost more to expand the island than it costs to buy the island.

Hah, I never claimed it was inexpensive.  It was dredged up and placed there to create area above the waterline though.  

Most construction on earth is based around dirt, rock and lumber.  Concrete is rock.  Bricks are dirt.  Asphalt roads are rocks and oil products.  Glass is sand.  Steel skyscrapers are usually covered in concrete or glass, aka rocks/dirt/earth.  Of course steel is made of iron and carbon, which is also extracted from dirt.  

We probably won't need to even worry about such an airport for some time.  Water based aircraft and boats would do fine for a small population.  

The first step is to organize and get people moving in a unified direction.


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on March 15, 2013, 10:44:59 PM
I apologize for being an asshole earlier in the thread. I shouldn't blame Agrarian_Agorist for not understanding what I'm communicating. It's my job to explain better. I fail. I don't have the energy to explain it. Just wanted to say it was my fault.

Also,
"It is not possible to deter the entire world with one nuke and no capability to make or acquire any more."

^I disagree with that. A man with a gun and one shot can keep a group of people at bay. No one wants to be the one guy who shows himself first. The fact that standoffs exist demonstrates this. Now imagine multiplying it by a huge factor. If a country had one nuclear weapon, could they keep the other countries at bay? I think we may overestimate the number of countries that are going to get actively involved to begin with.


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: MAM on March 15, 2013, 11:21:06 PM
I apologize for being an asshole earlier in the thread. I shouldn't blame Agrarian_Agorist for not understanding what I'm communicating. It's my job to explain better. I fail. I don't have the energy to explain it. Just wanted to say it was my fault.

Also,
"It is not possible to deter the entire world with one nuke and no capability to make or acquire any more."

^I disagree with that. A man with a gun and one shot can keep a group of people at bay. No one wants to be the one guy who shows himself first. The fact that standoffs exist demonstrates this. Now imagine multiplying it by a huge factor. If a country had one nuclear weapon, could they keep the other countries at bay? I think we may overestimate the number of countries that are going to get actively involved to begin with.

Sergeant York captured a shit load of Germans single handedly no one wants to die this motivation is generally enough to get people thinking twice. I open carry my 1911 and no one fucks with me ever. Even when I a juerro walk in el bario.


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: acft on March 15, 2013, 11:47:06 PM
Hello Everyone, let me jump in here, since I am actively working on such a project for ancaps.

MAM
“My question is simply is it even possible to purchase sovereignty?”

Maybe, but it would have to be upheld through force of arms. I would STRONGLY suggest anywhere but US and Europe as far as a sovereign movement. An enclave movement can be set up anywhere.

Victim77
“Somalia?”

I would jump at the chance to start a private charter city in Somalia. Not only do they need investment and commerce, but it would be a great opportunity for developing private defense industries. They have tons of wide open uninhabited land. Somalia has good grazing lands for cattle, fertile land for growing produce (when out of drought seasons). Very mountainous terrain in some parts making true invasion very difficult.
No real air force or navy to speak of, SUPER IDEAL. Competing “governments”, clans, and warlords means no unified opposition.

For example, google map “xaafun” A private charter city on that peninsula would be ideal IMO. We go in as a private corporation with development in mind. Even if technically we are under their gov., over time we develop power and eventually the would be unable to tax us. Slowly our businesses gain market share and slowly we build up arms and soldiers. If we gain enough influence, we might even be able to bribe our way into sovereignty.

Ally with a local tribe and chieftan to get permission, provide jobs for the locals and meanwhile, Build up as much military power as you can.

Business opportunities:
Water purification/ irrigation
Power generation
Beekeeping/Khat production
Garbage disposal, Gun manufacture, ammo manufacture, gold/silver currency production, contract binding and enforcement.

 “Agrarian_Agorist”

“I believe it would require organizing the likes of which Anarcho-Capitalists/Voluntaryists have never seen before; and it would require centralized authority to oversee it -both of these items are anathema to the entire concept of Anarcho-Capitalism and Voluntaryism, making it an even greater reason as to why Ancapistan would never go anywhere.”

I agree it would take a great deal of organizing. However, central authority is not anathema to Anarcho-capitalism, COERCIVE/INVOLUNTARY central authority is. There is nothing wrong with joining an organization and playing a role with a common interest  or goal in mind. There is also nothing wrong with large scale voluntary organizing.

“I do have a plan for everything, but the most important thing, which is how to prevent other governments from interfering with Ancapistan like they had done with Somalia. “

Preventing all outside interference not possible. Even the US has Israeli spies. You cannot prevent it, you have to manage it.

“I also, think that as far as land goes it would be better to have at least one port -so some water access would be preferable.  I would advise against an island, because it could easily be surrounded.”

I have to disagree here for a number of reasons:

Defense:  

360 degree radar for air and sea without worrying normal traffic from other countries.

An island with finite coordinates can be easily gridded out for zone defense in case of invasion and/or artillery fire .

With an island, you see your enemy (unless a sub) coming from a long way away and you have no air space restriction etc. which means you can stalk, observe and engage them on your terms without worrying about airspace violations.

Islands are ideal for long range stand-off weapons, ranging up to and over 100 miles. With no terrain, unless the enemy has significant ecm capability (some western nation) they are going to be susceptible to ground to sea anti-ship missiles.

Ability to create port city where wealthy can come with yatchs, etc and not be bothered by other countries. More ports opens possibility up for more trade and tourism.

The more remote the better:

Only a handful of nations have aircraft carriers, furthermore, if we had even a dozen anti-ship missiles, risking a carrier to fuck with some anarchists on an island makes no sense.

Out of sight out of mind, if we are remote we are less likely to register on peoples radar screen.

Distance from current conflicts
Distance from existing states
Distance from resources

The more remote, the harder it is to be meddled with. Few nations have the ability to refuel mid-air, so even air strikes become problematic without a carrier or mid-air refueling. Furthermore, even with ships, say a destroyer, if you are remote enough even they would need a place to refuel and resupply.
Again, very few states have the capability to send an army across the sea.

I have a relevant thought experiment here:

http://www.ancapfreethinker.info/?p=181

Find on Page “Case Study Pitcairn Islands”

About defense and nukes: If nothing else PLEASE READ THIS

http://www.ancapfreethinker.info/?p=79

Seriously, please read this.
WMDs like Nukes are not necessary. One has to worry about defensive parity of surrounding countries and/or credible and reasonable threats more than anything. No one can defend against a US led cruise missile assault and invasion. This is not reason to not do the project.

More than anything, the project will be dependent on 1. Having people willing to kill,fight, die for the project and 2. Defense contracts for the arms we need. 3. Planning and funding

Stop thinking of defense as : how can I defend against the US. NO ONE CAN DEFEND AGAINST THE US. Please stop thinking you or any nation will be able to stop a large western nation from invading. If Libya and Iraq could not do it you won’t be able to. You need to be able to stop 3rd world nations and large 3rd world militias and DETER western nations. If they really want to, they will get you and no nukes will be necessary. Risk is part of the game.

About meddling:

It is part of the game.
Most of the objections can be overcome with planning, and yes planning, training, and funding would have to be extensive for such an undertaking.

I prefer having freedom and dealing with meddling States vs. living under current slavery and dealing with TOTAL meddling, down to what I can and cannot put in my body or do with my sex organs.

Many may prefer to remain a slave because it is comfortable or safe. For those the solution is simple, don’t join one of these projects. I would not mind a reduction in quality of life for true sovereignty.

About Paranoia:
Some say we would be instantly attacked as soon as we went sovereign. We would deserve to be wiped out if we did not have a formidable defensive strategy in place beforehand. Still, I do not think it would be that much of a danger depending on how we go about getting the land and declaring sovereignty.

I agree, states are vicious and ruthless murdering organizations, but even they are limited in power and somewhat rational. Again, unless we had a very well-oiled military machine with MODERN military arms on contract (say, from Saab http://www.saabgroup.com/) I wouldn’t bother. We wouldn’t even have to be big, 100 men well-armed and supported by light armored infantry can conquer most cities in the US.

On the one hand, we have the example of Israel declaring independence and then immediately being attacked by all surrounding countries at once.

At the same time, there have been many countries that have been peacefully created without such bloodshed. Keep in mind, states have limited resources, limited capability, and limited interests. I mean, there have been genocides that states have virtually ignored. If they would ignore the murder of millions in Rwanda, why would they bother with a small peasant territory ? Unless we are dumb enough to meddle with their resources I doubt they would even blink. Still, even if they did, only a handful of states have striking capability outside their own borders. This is yet another reason why I prefer a remote location. Think Gough island or Prince Edwards islands (google map these)

There are some historical examples of enclaves and new nations in this article as well http://www.ancapfreethinker.info/?p=88


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: MAM on March 16, 2013, 12:05:16 AM
The attrition rate with today's weapons is extreme and urban combat takes alot more man power then simple country side actions...


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on March 16, 2013, 12:18:53 AM
acft with a hell of a post. Somalia isn't as bad as what you're led to believe by the talking heads on TV. A lot of what has usually been derided as "rule by warlords" really describes a set of traditions that they use to handle disputes. Transgress against someone else and the leaders of your "clan" (which you can leave, btw) and respected members of the victim's clan decide how much needs to be paid in restitution. It's really polycentric law, where clans are like PDAs. The price you pay for joining is the share you owe when one of your own clan members can't pay the fee for his transgression. Of course, everything I have read on Somalia (quite a bit) was written around or prior to 2007. Things change, and I haven't paid attention to recent US meddling in their affairs.


Title: Re: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty
Post by: Syock on March 16, 2013, 06:31:58 AM
They gave up polycentric law when they joined up with the muslim warlord to fight US backed Ethiopia.  They killed the previous warlords because they had no use for them at the time, just like they killed the US planted president before them.  There are not a lot of warlords either.  There is one in the south doing pretty much all of the fighting.  Even if we could park ourselves there, the US is already actively pushing a war on that country from both sides.  The Navy is parked on one side, and Ethiopia is invading from the other.  Lets assume the warlords ignore us because they have better things to do.  When we start making money, we will have to fight them, for the same reason they started sending out pirates.  They want money to fight the US funded troops.  Lets say they fall, then we have to fight the US funded troops ourselves. 

Why pick a place that is already in the middle of a decades long war with the country you are trying to avoid having a war with?