Daily Anarchist Forum

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: acft on March 15, 2013, 10:19:25 PM



Title: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: acft on March 15, 2013, 10:19:25 PM
Hello Everyone. The purpose of this post is to gather feedback and points of view on the concept of forming enclaves in the real world as a method of achieving liberty in our lifetimes.

The idea is outlined here:


http://www.ancapfreethinker.info/?p=88

How would we be defended?

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

Any examples of small de-facto independent communities?

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

Find on page "Case Study : Pitcairn Islands" - Successful colony with only around 40- 70 ppl


Furthermore, these types of projects have been popping up all over the place as more and more people become convinced that mass political change is difficult if not impossible to achieve given the government’s control of education and the mass media.


Examples of these projects include, but are not limited to:


    Jeff Berwich’s projects in Mexico and Chile- largely commercial ventures for rich clients, however.

    Doug Casey’s project in Argentina- again commercial and upscale.

    The attempt for charter cities in Honduras.
    
The new projects in the US by Glenn Beck,

Seasteading (blueseed project), Venus project(socialist nonsense, I know),

The Citadel (http://iiicitadel.com/index.html), and a few more I cannot think of at the
    moment.

Any ideas for an Ancap version of one of these projects, preferably aimed at working class/middle class people? It could be staged in the states, maybe not. I would favor the States simply because even with the prospect of restriction, there are many states that still respect the right to keep and bear arms.


Here are a few questions to guide responses:


If one of these projects started up and was based on an ideology you endorsed, would you join it?


Presumably, monetary contributions would need to be given, say, to pool money in order to acquire a large track of land, for example.

How much would you be willing to contribute outright, as dues(monthly, yearly), or
maybe a large one-time stock purchase? $20/Month?

$200/year? $2,000+ one time stock purchase for lifetime membership? Money could
also be raised for specific projects I would think.


What kind of benefits would you expect to receive from this type of group besides the promise of founding a free market city or town? For example, membership in this group could bestow insurance and other business discounts, access to social events, access to group facilities, access legal advice( a club lawyer) etc etc.


The project might not require all members to move, but would you move to this new territory once it was prepared for inhabitants or would you rather be a financial or ideological supporter.


Do you think the group should have an armed wing/ militia and if so, would you participate?

I think all of the arguments for freedom are sound, and everything has been written and said that needs to be written and said, and that it is time to put some of these ideas into action in the real world.

Furthermore, I would think that such a movement would be a precursor to a larger movement outside the US for a permanent sovereign land.

Thanks in advance.


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: MAM on March 15, 2013, 11:46:28 PM
Yes the group should have a military wing, militia, and even if it wasn't full time I think it would be a good idea to have training for members that wanted it. Yes I would participate. I'm an excellent shot, I have knowledge of tactics and military history, and I'm well trained in hand to hand combat systems. The only reason I'm not a member of a militia right now is because I'm not aware of any that support my ideology anywhere much less where I live. In my limited experience on this planet I've come to the conclusion that people suck and they aren't going to leave you to your own devices, they need to know that there are consequences to their actions.

Benefits: it would be nice if there were bushcraft, weapons and tactics training available. But I can't think of anything that the market couldn't or wouldn't supply.

Yes I would move. I'm already planning on getting my ass out of this desert it's just a matter of funds.

EDIT: I'm not sure why people think that there needs to be a huge population to start off. There are southern towns with a pop of less than 100. True the more people we have the more tech we can have and the easier life will be but it's not strictly necessary. Besides once a small group proves the concept more people will be willing to come.


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on March 16, 2013, 12:23:00 AM
EDIT: I'm not sure why people think that there needs to be a huge population to start off. There are southern towns with a pop of less than 100. True the more people we have the more tech we can have and the easier life will be but it's not strictly necessary. Besides once a small group proves the concept more people will be willing to come.
It was me who chose that large number. I didn't really think there was a good answer to the question. Success isn't easy to define. And the minimum likelihood of success needed to consider it feasible isn't clear either.

Maybe I think more people would make it better, but there's always some chance of success with any number. But what if the chances with 2-100 people is significantly smaller? What if the chances with 50K people is significantly smaller but still possible? Which choice should I make in the poll? I wasn't sure.


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: MAM on March 16, 2013, 12:29:20 AM
EDIT: I'm not sure why people think that there needs to be a huge population to start off. There are southern towns with a pop of less than 100. True the more people we have the more tech we can have and the easier life will be but it's not strictly necessary. Besides once a small group proves the concept more people will be willing to come.
It was me who chose that large number. I didn't really think there was a good answer to the question. Success isn't easy to define. And the minimum likelihood of success needed to consider it feasible isn't clear either.

Maybe I think more people would make it better, but there's always some chance of success with any number. But what if the chances with 2-100 people is significantly smaller? What if the chances with 50K people is significantly smaller but still possible? Which choice should I make in the poll? I wasn't sure.

At the end of the day there are way to many variables to say what will succeed and what won't Mama Nature is boss. I would consider the population to be the least important factor. Things like training equipment knowledge mindset I consider to be the most important.



Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: acft on March 16, 2013, 12:40:54 AM
Read the thought experiment about the Pitcairn islands... they run the whole island which is de-facto sovereign with like 50 ppl. If 50 ppl can run an small island nation, there is no reason ancaps can't do something comparable.


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: Tear-Down-the-Wall on March 16, 2013, 12:52:33 AM
I selected 10-50,000 but was considering going higher.

The reason I selected that was many small cities around 35,000, give or take 10,000 or so, would encounter many of the same problems larger cities would. It'd just, obviously, be larger.

If you could have a city of around 40,000 people run a completely anarcho-capitalist community, I think it'd show the world it could work anywhere. A city that size has many of the same problems a larger city has but they're not amplified. However the solutions the smaller city solved could be amplified for larger cities.   

Now granted it'd be a harder sale to a place like New York City that has 12 million people but cities like that are rare. Most actual cities are maybe 100-200,000. The thing is they spread out so far it's one big city. Look at Fort Worth and Dallas for instance. It's a couple of million people but only around 300,000 live in Dallas. It's one big city but it's, technically, several cities joined together.

Also, when you have tens of thousands of people living freely, it'd be hard for the state to come in. A city with 40,000 folks is going to have firearms. It's going to have firearms the state says are bad (see Waco). So it won't be a walk in the park to go in there and force themselves onto the people. They'll have to roll tanks in or just firebomb the place and that doesn't look good to the rest of the world on the nightly news...even though it happens daily.


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: Syock on March 16, 2013, 07:20:17 AM
I guess you could say I have issues with enclaves inside a country.

Presumably, monetary contributions would need to be given, say, to pool money in order to acquire a large track of land, for example.

How much would you be willing to contribute outright, as dues(monthly, yearly), or
maybe a large one-time stock purchase? $20/Month?

$200/year? $2,000+ one time stock purchase for lifetime membership? Money could
also be raised for specific projects I would think.

Monthly fees would look suspiciously like a tax to anyone living there.  What would happen when someone stops paying?  

I could see paying in upfront for a large tract of land, but how would that land be divided?  Who is going to get the swamp land that no one wants instead of the meadow with the spring water?  

What kind of benefits would you expect to receive from this type of group besides the promise of founding a free market city or town? For example, membership in this group could bestow insurance and other business discounts, access to social events, access to group facilities, access legal advice( a club lawyer) etc etc.

Is that what the monthly fee is doing?  

I think it would be very important to create a separate organization if you want such things.  

Do you think the group should have an armed wing/ militia and if so, would you participate?

If we are inside an existing country, that will just bring unwanted attention if it looks too militaristic.  



How is this different than the FSP in any meaningful ancap sense?  


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: MAM on March 16, 2013, 07:31:58 AM
Quote

How is this different than the FSP in any meaningful ancap sense?

The only thing that I can think of is that presumably this would happen on a smaller scale, so it would be easier to effect change and to implement our ideology. Honestly the Free Keene, and the Free Grafton projects already exist and have these properties so...


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: acft on March 16, 2013, 09:23:59 PM
MAM
“Benefits: it would be nice if there were bushcraft, weapons and tactics training available. But I can't think of anything that the market couldn't or wouldn't supply.”

On a large property that was acquired, we could have firearms training and instruction events. It would be as simple as booking a reputable instructor and setting a date. We would either need to build facilities for room and board or patronize nearby hotels for the time being. There are firearms training facilities that take group engagements that already have everything set up.

Tear-Down_the_wall
“If you could have a city of around 40,000 people run a completely anarcho-capitalist community, I think it'd show the world it could work anywhere. A city that size has many of the same problems a larger city has but they're not amplified. However the solutions the smaller city solved could be amplified for larger cities.”

I agree, however I am seriously unsure whether, at this point in time, there are 40k of us on the planet. Even if there are, I have no idea where they are or how to communicate with even most of them.

Furthermore, a whole city as an enclave would be difficult to pull off, especially if one wanted it to remain tax free, regulation free, and under the radar. What I envisioned was a ranch or small abandoned town (some of which are actually for sale) with over 100 acres. You can get a ranch in the mid-west with water on it, in a state with decent firearms laws for 500k-1.5 mil with 100-1,000 or more acres. This ranch would be a rally point and a training ground as well as a portal for foreign ancaps to train in firearms.

The water would enable us to practice farming and irrigation techniques. The land would allow us to practice homesteading and building techniques.  (homesteading as in preparing raw land for building, not as in the property theory)

The purpose of firearms training will be for defensive ability for the sovereign land we get (this enclave is a stepping stone to a sovereign land somewhere.)

Syock

“Monthly fees would look suspiciously like a tax to anyone living there.  What would happen when someone stops paying?”

I think I should have used the word dues. This would be much like a club/investment group. To stay a member in good standing in any club or investment group, when there are dues or capital calls you have to contribute or you fall out of good standing or are dismissed.

And so what would happen if you did not pay would simply be losing good member status and ultimately, being removed from the group.

The dues are not meant to replace taxes. The club or investment group is a precursor to any sovereign enclave movement later on.  The sovereign territory has a different set of rules laid out by a charter every member who wants to go there signs. There are no taxes or dues in it.

In my system, in order to pay for recurring costs of “public goods” (even though the initial infrastructure would be built with bonds/ equity from the members) we pool money over time to form endowments for a specific purpose. For example, Harvard has an endowment, out of which interest and earnings each year are used to fund different projects. And so, we will set up road, defense, etc. endowments, where the interest and dividends and earnings off of those investments are used for repairs and new acquisitions. In this way no one pays taxes, instead, the earnings and interest  off our investments and endowments pays for commonly used infrastructure (of which there will likely be little.)

This method requires a lot of money and a lot of planning, but I see no reason why it cannot be done. If a rich kid can get 50k a month from a trust fund, we can get 50k a month from a trust fund we set up and earmark that 50k for whatever “public” good we desire instead of hookers and blow. This is not the only method of funding without taxes, I have several I have explored in my full write up (about 100 pages)

“I could see paying in upfront for a large tract of land, but how would that land be divided?  Who is going to get the swamp land that no one wants instead of the meadow with the spring water?  “

Well, with the enclave phase, which would be domestic, the ranch is treated like a country club. Whatever buildings we erect there are accessible to all members, as well as the entire property.

As for the sovereignty phase, after we build up a base of dedicated trained ancaps who are serious about the idea, we go about finding land.  Let’s say for the sake of argument we get an island with 70k acres.
We set up a company that will act as the original owner of all the land. It can offer deeds as lease hold or freehold or conditional. See this article for more info on this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathian_anarchism

Anyway, everyone interested in the project pools money by buying shares in the holding company set up for that purpose. There are different classes of shareholders : vanguard, pioneers, and investors. Vanguard are the very first to go and prepare the land and take the most risk. (especially if there may be combat involved.)

 These people get to pick the first plots of land as a reward, but are limited to the % of shares they own.
For example, if I invest 20k  and the total pool is 20 mil I own .1% of the stock. We take that percentage and divide the island up according to how many shares people bought. So, on an island or land mass with 70,000 acres I get 70 acres(.1%). I register what I want with the company and we keep it moving. Now the place is secure and prepared and pioneers come to live there and build. They get the second round of choice according to their investment %. Finally investors get their choice(investors are not expected to move) again due to their share%. We might enable people to buy their way up the class scale as well. This way everyone gets land according to what they risk. Obviously, we will need capital in addition to acquisition to build on the land, and this will need to be accumulated or invested as well.

Let me note that the vanguard should be the best trained and equipped members. Among the same class, it is first come first serve, and so the first person to claim GPS coordinates of land they want and have it registered will get the deed recorded as freehold or leasehold, or a conditional deed (depending on circumstances at that time)

“How is this different than the FSP in any meaningful ancap sense?  “
1.   The project is centered around one property or town vs. all over the state
2.   We are not minarchists and have no intention of taking over the politics or freeing the state
3.   We will be more militaristic
4.   We will not tolerate socialists or collectivists
5.   We have a very specific goal and a very specific focus
6.   We have a unified organizational structure and unified investments vs. loose association with somewhat similar ideology
7.   This is specifically for ancaps that conform to a specific set of beliefs.(to be defined)
8.   We are not proselytizing, meaning trying to win converts , instead we want to aggregate already existing ancaps who are ready to act.

Eventually, the goals is to set up a sovereign charter city or nation somewhere, and not just live in a freer state of slavery.

I can’t think of more at the moment but there are probably more.


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: MAM on March 16, 2013, 09:54:22 PM
acft you obviously thought a lot about this and I commend you for your effort. I'm interested in the project, and it sounds promising to me.

However I'm not sure that now is the time. I would like to be wrong though.


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: State-God on March 16, 2013, 11:31:22 PM
Speaking broadly here, my thoughts on the subject are this- if we have a smaller group, we're not going to be taken as seriously.

What I mean by this is that if, say, we had a colony of 1000 or so anarchists living on an island, State intellectuals would simply ignore it by claiming that our political ideology can only work on a small scale- this problem is akin to the one the Communists have to deal with.

TL;DR I think we need a large group to really show how voluntarism can work.


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: MAM on March 16, 2013, 11:38:18 PM
Speaking broadly here, my thoughts on the subject are this- if we have a smaller group, we're not going to be taken as seriously.

What I mean by this is that if, say, we had a colony of 1000 or so anarchists living on an island, State intellectuals would simply ignore it by claiming that our political ideology can only work on a small scale- this problem is akin to the one the Communists have to deal with.

TL;DR I think we need a large group to really show how voluntarism can work.

We all have to start somewhere. No one starts off running a marathon. I think you're right, I'm just saying we shouldn't put off the movement just because we don't have a large enough population to convince Statists of the accuracy of the concept. Relaying on other people's standards is not a good way to succeed.


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: acft on March 17, 2013, 04:42:39 PM
acft you obviously thought a lot about this and I commend you for your effort. I'm interested in the project, and it sounds promising to me.

However I'm not sure that now is the time. I would like to be wrong though.

I too thought this way. But then I asked myself "then when?" Furthermore, I believe that after a financial collapse/after guns are confiscated here it will be too late. No capital will be able to be raised afterwards and this project is somewhat capital intensive. If they take the guns or start some kind of insurrection its game over for all of us anyway. I had to accelerate the project due to current circumstances. There will be a point at which their technological supremacy will be perfect and unable to be resisted. (similar to how cattle cannot resist slaughter houses) Any such project must take place before this time, and given the proliferation of drones and the control of the internet, I believe this time is rapidly approaching.


Speaking broadly here, my thoughts on the subject are this- if we have a smaller group, we're not going to be taken as seriously.

What I mean by this is that if, say, we had a colony of 1000 or so anarchists living on an island, State intellectuals would simply ignore it by claiming that our political ideology can only work on a small scale- this problem is akin to the one the Communists have to deal with.

TL;DR I think we need a large group to really show how voluntarism can work.

Let me be absolutely clear. I do not care what state intellectuals think. They need only not actively resist us through force of arms. The purpose of this project is NOT to prove a point. The purpose is to actually achieve freedom for those involved in the project. I would prefer it had 0% visibility and that almost no one outside ancap circles even knew about it.

I am by no means a  proselytizer. My goal is not to spread liberty or liberate mankind or a state. My goals is to free myself.


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on March 17, 2013, 05:33:13 PM
They need only not actively resist us through force of arms. The purpose of this project is NOT to prove a point. The purpose is to actually achieve freedom for those involved in the project. I would prefer it had 0% visibility and that almost no one outside ancap circles even knew about it.

This is your problem.  What makes you think that the State will not actively resist this through force of arms.  When they went after the Weavers do you really think that was about a $200 tax?  Hell no, it was about sending messages: (1)If the Feds ask you to do something you better do it or you'll regret it, (2)Don't be foolish to not pay the $200 tax or this could happen to you.  When the Feds torched Waco, do you really think that was about saving children?  If it was about saving the children then why did they burn them alive?  Again, Waco was about sending messages: (1) guns are bad maniacs stockpile guns, (2) the government is here to protect everybody from maniacs (3) IF you fuck with the Feds they will kill you no matter what it takes.  There were some other secondary messages and motives behind them, but all in all, they weren't about what the media said it was about, and most Americans cheered these incidents. 

The US has indirectly attacked Somalia for many years by supporting warlords in Somalia and supporting the Ethiopian war against Somalia.  Do you really think that the US government would not actively resist this enclave?

The US government only allows the different organizations exist which doesn't directly question it's(the US government's) power and authority, which an AnCap enclave would certainly do by its very nature of operating.  If you cannot fend off the US government or some-other government wherever you want to create the enclave, then it will not last very long.  The one thing government protects more than anything else, is its very existence; and AnCap enclave/society would dispel the belief that government is required and therefore become a threat to any and all governments.


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: MAM on March 17, 2013, 06:33:15 PM
At some point we're gonna have to hike up the skirt and get shit done. Agorist I understand your pessimism but really what is it going to accomplish? Nobody is going to beat the US military in the immediate future. If anarchy is achieved 200 years from now great but what good is that to me? I'm going to be dead in 60 years...

I want to be free. And I think it's worth the risk. acft has not suggested shirking the US with this enclave. He has stated that we need to follow all the bullshit regulations and I agree with that. Nothing Anarchist is going to exist in the US ever. You are right they will kill us if we give them a reason to. We need to be focussed on getting out of this country, and to a place with minimal military might.

I seriously doubt that every country is going to attack us at the same time and I doubt that more then one will attack us at a time. I think that it's possible that we can get this going with out provoking a gubberment to kill us. Yes they're blood thirsty and vicious, but come on. They haven't killed off the hippie communes and the commie communes why are they going to treat us differently? To them our vision is as unrealistic as the Ancomms I seriously doubt that Statists truely believe in anarchy and are just in denial. Honestly this entire situation reminds of Christians saying that there are no atheists, that everyone believes in God but some just deny HIm. It's pretty silly.

I think you have set your expectations so high that nothing will ever be good enough for you. That's fine to each his own. If you judge the risk too great for you to participate all the power to you. But you have to realize that what you want is never going to be possible. You have defined a goal and set the rules so that to you it is impossible.


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on March 17, 2013, 07:32:21 PM
At some point we're gonna have to hike up the skirt and get shit done. Agorist I understand your pessimism but really what is it going to accomplish? Nobody is going to beat the US military in the immediate future. If anarchy is achieved 200 years from now great but what good is that to me? I'm going to be dead in 60 years...

I want to be free. And I think it's worth the risk. acft has not suggested shirking the US with this enclave. He has stated that we need to follow all the bullshit regulations and I agree with that. Nothing Anarchist is going to exist in the US ever. You are right they will kill us if we give them a reason to. We need to be focussed on getting out of this country, and to a place with minimal military might.

I seriously doubt that every country is going to attack us at the same time and I doubt that more then one will attack us at a time. I think that it's possible that we can get this going with out provoking a gubberment to kill us. Yes they're blood thirsty and vicious, but come on. They haven't killed off the hippie communes and the commie communes why are they going to treat us differently? To them our vision is as unrealistic as the Ancomms I seriously doubt that Statists truely believe in anarchy and are just in denial. Honestly this entire situation reminds of Christians saying that there are no atheists, that everyone believes in God but some just deny HIm. It's pretty silly.

I think you have set your expectations so high that nothing will ever be good enough for you. That's fine to each his own. If you judge the risk too great for you to participate all the power to you. But you have to realize that what you want is never going to be possible. You have defined a goal and set the rules so that to you it is impossible.

So, the US and UK didn't work together to ensure that Ethiopia would keep Somalia to busy to continue their society without a government?  Nobody has yet to explain why a government, any government wouldn't feel that its existence would be threatened by a society which exists without a government.  Also, you can run anywhere you want outside the US, it certainly wont stop the US from attacking you.

I don't set my expectation high; but I do recognise that the existence of a peaceful society existing without a government is a threat to all governments everywhere.  You apparently do not recognize that.  To be able to -in one manner or another- neutralize the US would be the only way for an AnCap society to exist anywhere.  Some on here think the US will just leave you alone, to operate a society without a government; this will not happen.

The hippie communes, don't actually pose a threat to the very existence of government.  That is why the US government would never kill them off.  A hippie commune is ridiculous with its rules, so most people don't join them, and the hippie commune even makes many people grateful for the current government.  This would not happen in a AnCap system.  So, to compare a hippie commune which has many rules, with an AnCap society with only one rule, is worse than comparing apples to oranges.

AnComs, while being anti government do create their own methods of mass control of the populations.  The AnCom would need for everybody to be 100% on board with their system for it to work, which is why Governments don't feel threatened, besides the fact that their are more rules in communist societies then there are in our current society -this gives a very easy method to control the people; what government wouldn't like that?  Many AnComs have devised not-so-nice ways of dealing with those who do not follow along.

All forms of Statism require that only some form of Statism exists; however, non-Statism cannot exist without threatening all forms of Statism -so non-Statism is never permitted.


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: MAM on March 17, 2013, 08:09:58 PM
I think you are seriously over estimating the level of give-a-shit that gubberments will throw our way. This whole Somalia thing I find ridiculous. Why is everyone so convinced that it was ever Anarchist? Somalia got shit on end of story.


Quote
Nobody has yet to explain why a government, any government wouldn't feel that its existence would be threatened by a society which exists without a government.


Just because we prefer to be left alone and not told what to do doesn't mean that the vast majority of the population feels the same way. Value is subjective. Do you really think that people don't want to be ruled? Don't be ridiculous. News flash what we have now is a free market, what we have now is anarchy. It just happens to be that slavery is what people continue to choose over and over.

I'm sure you're familiar with the whole people voting with their dollars, choosing what they want. Well the votes are tallied, enough people want Statism to make it the dominate system on the planet. If/when people change their minds then the dominate system will change, and I'm not holding my breath for this to happen any time soon. I'd rather take my destiny into my own hands then let another decide my fate. Taking responsibility always brings risk. If you allow fear of what might happen to rule your life then you're always going to be fleeting from shadow to shadow to busy running to live.


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on March 17, 2013, 10:25:57 PM
I think you are seriously over estimating the level of give-a-shit that gubberments will throw our way. This whole Somalia thing I find ridiculous. Why is everyone so convinced that it was ever Anarchist? Somalia got shit on end of story.


Quote
Nobody has yet to explain why a government, any government wouldn't feel that its existence would be threatened by a society which exists without a government.


Just because we prefer to be left alone and not told what to do doesn't mean that the vast majority of the population feels the same way. Value is subjective. Do you really think that people don't want to be ruled? Don't be ridiculous. News flash what we have now is a free market, what we have now is anarchy. It just happens to be that slavery is what people continue to choose over and over.

I'm sure you're familiar with the whole people voting with their dollars, choosing what they want. Well the votes are tallied, enough people want Statism to make it the dominate system on the planet. If/when people change their minds then the dominate system will change, and I'm not holding my breath for this to happen any time soon. I'd rather take my destiny into my own hands then let another decide my fate. Taking responsibility always brings risk. If you allow fear of what might happen to rule your life then you're always going to be fleeting from shadow to shadow to busy running to live.


I'm sure people would rather spend their own dollars than to have government spend them; however, under currents circumstances via governments, the general population think that without government there would be mass killings in the streets.  Do you really think government didn't have any hand in pushing that image on the people?  Do you really think that if a non-government system were to emerge, which did everything a Statist system provided while increasing profits and products and having zero tax, people wouldn't desire it?

I'm not afraid what might happen; I know what will happen, if people underestimate the threat government poses for their lives.  You just want to be left alone.  Name one country that the US government just leaves alone?  If a non-government system isn't perceived as such a threat then why did the US and UK feel that it was necessary to take-out Somalia before it became a peaceful, productive, non-government system?  Do you think that if Zimbabwe starts growing their own food, thereby lifting themselves out of poverty -while not having an actual government,  the US or some-other government will just leave them alone?

While having an AnCap system wont simultaneously end Government, it will give aid to those working inside a Statist country to show as proof that the absence of government doesn't have to lead to chaos.  The existence of just one peaceful, productive, non-government system will put serious pressure on governments throughout the world.  It is not exactly like a government will be able to keep saying, "we need government because without it everybody will be dying on the streets," if there is an actual example which proves that message false.  Likewise, the government won't be able to keep bleeding the people dry, when an example exists of a system which functions better while the people don't pay any taxes.

In essence, with the existence of an AnCap society there will be physical -not just theoretical or philosophical- proof that government is not needed.  If you cannot see why governments wouldn't allow something like that to exist, then you really need to think harder on the matter.

Also, we do not have a free market.  Elections are rigged; how can that be a free market?  The 97% of all media is owned by the same people who own the Fed and politicians; how can that be a free market?  I'm not sure where you get that there is any kind of free market.  If the people in government along with their corporatist buddies in business want something passed, they just hold a vote on it.  They rig the vote and the measure passes; that sounds quite free market to me.

The current anti-gun stuff wont pass 100%, but then it is not supposed to; it is being used to divert attention.  The vast majority of people will tolerate far more pain and suffering at the hands of their own then they ever would by foreigners; and most people will be very reluctant to fire on their own police or military as opposed to foreigners.  Do you really think that if the people who went around collecting guns after Katrina were Germans, Russian, or Chinese, the Americans would have just turned over their guns?

So, Americans are extremely unlikely to start going after police or military any-time soon; and the police and military attack in numbers to overtake a situation quickly.  Whether Americans have semi-auto weapons or not, is really not going to make a difference, when 15 to 20 plus individuals in militarized fire-teams storms an individuals house at 3am.  So, then what is the whole gun debate all about then.  Guns are an issue which can rile people up on both sides and keep them arguing forever, becoming blind to everything else.

I wonder how many people in the regular world knows what's going on with Cyprus, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Germany?  I wonder how many regular people have noticed that the price of Gold has gone down, while Silver has gone up slightly, the Stock Market has gone up, while unemployment has also gone up; foreclosures are still happening while Blackwater just got let off the hook for all wrongdoing because they were following orders from the CIA.  There is so much shit going on and down right now, throughout the world and within the US as well as within each individual State and even on the local level; however, most people have no idea about any of it, because the gun debate is happening.

These last several paragraphs of my diatribe were just in explaining that the focus, and the debate are rigged and therefore there cannot be a free market; so, people are not necessarily getting what they want.  The people are getting what TPTB want people to want, by having the important information hidden from the normal public.


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: MAM on March 17, 2013, 10:59:06 PM
When I say "we" I don't mean the US I mean the world, I mean humanity, I mean existence. The market is human action. Existence is organic, it is anarchic. What exists between individuals is anarchy. They interact in a free market through human action. The state is created because it is what the actors want.

Life is anarchy, human action is the free market, this is all there is. Once you've accepted that what exists all over the world is anarchy and the free market, then you can move onto the realization that people form the State because it is what they desire.

True people are stupid and brainwashed I don't particularly care what their motivations are it doesn't matter. What matters is that the majority of the people have decided that they desire the State. It is their choice to do so.

I contend that if an AnCap society were established there would be people working to create States within it. I contend that this is what has happened already. The world is already in anarchy and in the free market this is the state of nature. But the "people" have decided that they want the State. Also back to this Somalia thing, now I'm going to put this in bold italics and all caps because I've said it on a dozen threads already and multiple times on this thread and it's not sinking in, maybe you're not reading my posts, I don't know.

 I AM NOT CONVINCED THAT SOMALIA EVER EXISTED IN THE STATE OF NATURE. The motivation of the powerful to increase their power is enough for them to justify taking over Somalia. Even if Somalia was anarchist (still not convinced) the lack of cohesion would be enough of a motivator for the US to attack it. Predators attack the weak and the lame.

Power desires more power, anything that concentrates more power is going to be desired by the power hungry. It doesn't have to be because they were "anarchist".


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on March 17, 2013, 11:02:47 PM
I'm sure people would rather spend their own dollars than to have government spend them;
I sooooo wish you were right on this one. But it's not true. Many people disagree.


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: MAM on March 17, 2013, 11:11:11 PM
War is what the state does. In fact this is the only thing that the state does. By it's nature it wants to destroy shit, it's just looking for an excuse.

I contend that keeping these projects under the radar is the best option. Your right if you go around proselytizing the State is going to kill you. If these projects were known by zero non participants I would consider it the most optimal situation.


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: acft on March 18, 2013, 04:22:03 PM
Agrarian_Agorist
Quote
What makes you think that the State will not actively resist this through force of arms.

By the state I think you mean the US, which, again, is an unfair standard. Still:

•   The US did nothing to stop the genocides in Rwanda and many other nations. The US did nothing to stop Russians invasion of Georgia (an ally)
•   The US has only recently become overtly active in africa again with africom. This means all of the atrocities and coups, and milita groups in Africa have been operating with no US troops on the ground. Indeed, no report of even drone strikes in the vast majority of those countries. (Cony 2012)
•   The US has not invaded Mexico even though the Cartels challenge their policy and violate their very borders
•   There are neighborhoods in LA the cops will not go into, feds, DEA or otherwise.
•   The US did not use force against North Korea when they openly shelled a South Korean island AND sunk a South Korean destroyer.
•   There have been numerous communes in america and around the world that already practiced what we are trying to do.
•   There were already new nation projects that were not militarily opposed by the US government in the past.
•   Monarchies still exist, and are not a "state" as we come to understand it.

•   There have been many overtly militant organizations that opposed the US (weather underground, black panthers) that did not have all its members wiped out in some mass attack. Overt terrorist organizations like the KKK or the white nationalists or the US based Hebrew Israelites operate without being bombed or gunned down. There are many many many anti-gov militias training unmolested to counter a gun grab as we speak. ( I agree they will probably fail)

•   The US is in serious financial trouble AND is over extended militarily, as you alluded to. It is hard to imagine that they will divert an aircraft carrier group or destroyer group to bomb some arcane colony. Its not like noone would take note of a random shelling of some land for no reason. They could very seriously not even afford the resources begin diverted given the Threat of an Iranian response to an isreali attack, the threat of awar in north korea, the need to intervene in Sayria or some other mid east nation.


Given all this, it is still possible, but not as likely as it is being made to sound. Furthermore, we would be prepared to respond (as evident by the article about defense I linked to and my previous responses about defense) Again, it is a risk.

Your waco example is not relevant. 1- Obviously someone had personal beef with him 2- They were an easy target, peaceful, kept to themselves, and did not desire conflict. 3 They were within the US

Quote
There were some other secondary messages and motives behind them

This cannot be understated. Not only were there reports of fully automatic weapon fire (against federal law without the proper tax stamp. But there were also reports of child molestation (marriage to little girls) which they frown upon heavily. I do not know if any of this was true.

The enclave idea within the US does not call for child sex or automatic weapons.

Somalia has and has always had numerous parties competing for power: foreign states, warlords, and 3 state regions inside Somalia(TFG, Somaliland, Puntland). Furthermore it is in the mid east and is full of natural resources. It is also a muslim country and may harbor terrorists. They are also one of the few countries that militarily expelled and embarrassed the Us (like Libya) This example could not be more unfair.

AS for the sovereign move, there are countries that have tons of child sex (Thailand sex tourism) and countries that have legal drugs, and many of them are not being bombed by the US or invaded or even sanctioned. HA, there are tons of congressman who have child sex. The Vatican is renowned for child sex and yes the Catholic church is left alone, the Vatican has not been bombed or invaded.

Quote
The US government only allows the different organizations exist which doesn't directly question it's(the US government's) power and authority

This is not true. They intervene militarily when they see their vital interests are threatened. these vital interests usually have to do with A) military bases/strategic terratory or B) natural resources. The trouble of invading or bombing has to overcome a threshold for them to be bothered with something. There are many groups and organizations that are overtly anti-american here and abroad. The US has not bombed or invaded all countries.

If what you say is true. Hong Kong should have been nuked by now. Forget Hong Kong, take Colorado and Washington state. They just legalized mary J and should have federal troops marching on them right about now. Or maybe all the states that have Medical marijuanna. The US fed gov does not instantly respond to all threats with overt force or even sanctions.

There are many countries, large and small, with significantly better conditions for business and civil liberties than the US.

Furthermore, when they intervene militarily they often need an excuse (massacres, wmds, on a small colony? ) AND they usually do it after a long series of sanctions.

Quote
If you cannot fend off the US government or some-other government wherever you want to create the enclave, then it will not last very long.  

This leads me to believe that you did not read the article on defense. This is handled extensively. It is "some other country" we have to be concerned about.

Quote
The one thing government protects more than anything else, is its very existence; and AnCap enclave/society would dispel the belief that government is required and therefore become a threat to any and all governments.


The project is based on the very concept that the masses will not and cannot have that concept dispelled form them. Again, Hong Kong exists, and yet tens of millions of liberals want more taxes. No amount of evidence is going to change the statists minds. We don't even have to go to Hong Kong, thee ate States within the Us with lower taxes that do better than other states with higher taxes and more laws and YET people still beg for more of it. this project will not dispel anything nor is its purpose to do that.

Quote
Nobody has yet to explain why a government, any government wouldn't feel that its existence would be threatened by a society which exists without a government.

No one made the claim they would not feel threatened. The claim was made that there would be a low probability of the US or another major western nation attacking us. They can feel threatened all they want. There's a good chance that decision makers wouldn't even know we existed. They don't read their own memos.

Quote
I don't set my expectation high

The ability to defend oneself against or neutralize the US or a major European power is way too high. Again, not Russia, China or Europe, probably combined, could defend against an American attack. This standard makes no sense and is impractical.

Most countries that exist today, 200 something, cannot defend against a major western power. Not even close. What matters is defensive parity between you and your neighbors.

Quote
Some on here think the US will just leave you alone, to operate a society without a government; this will not happen.

No one stated this either, again, the article and my response about meddling addresses this very issue.

Quote
The existence of just one peaceful, productive, non-government system will put serious pressure on governments throughout the world.  It is not exactly like a government will be able to keep saying, "we need government because without it everybody will be dying on the streets," if there is an actual example which proves that message false.  Likewise, the government won't be able to keep bleeding the people dry, when an example exists of a system which functions better while the people don't pay any taxes.

In essence, with the existence of an AnCap society there will be physical -not just theoretical or philosophical- proof that government is not needed.

No, that is exactly the case, the government will keep saying the same line and people will keep believing it. No matter what the government does and no matter how other countries with barely any taxes and with lax laws prosper, they will will get away with the same line for the very reasons you cited. Hong Kong is very prosperous with something like 5-10% tax rate and yet all the other regiments are keeping their taxes steady if not raising them. No matter how bad it gets, even if there is open revolt, the people will simply demand a different government. We see proof of this with the arab spring and the EU crisis. violent or non-violent, the people just vote in new governments.

Bear in mind, I am not trying to convince you of anything, I am responding to your arguments and pointing out counter examples. Furthermore, the enclave within the US is not the same as the move for a sovereign territory outside of and far away from the US.

Basically, your argument is the US will ignore millions slaughtered in genocide, unspeakable atrocities, rampant child sex and white slavery, arms dealings, legal and prolific drugs and prostitution and near o % tax rates, countries that attack and invade their allies overtly, countries that operate explicitly as tax havens to enable the rich to avoid taxes, and countries that harbor terrorists without launching invasions and without bombing the majority of these places. However, a colony with a few ancaps looking to do business with the world is completely intolerable. again I see it as possible, some congressman can take it up as their crusade or something, but I see it as significantly less likely and manageable. They are not invincible or invulnerable or all powerful or all knowing.

Your arguments are perhaps more appropriate for the blueseed project that is trying to make a seastead 12 miles off the coast of California. I can see your worries applying to them because it is close to the US, it exists in order to directly challenge the US system of gov., they explicitly plan to violate US code, and they explicitly want to prove that their system is superior to that of the US system.


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: MAM on March 18, 2013, 04:35:36 PM
Well said acft, furthermore I think the mistake that Agorist is making is that he is assuming that everyone thinks like him, has the same values and priorities. As I stated before just because we want to be left alone doesn't mean that everyone agrees.

EDIT: In addition perfect security is a myth.

Second EDIT:
Quote
The US has not invaded Mexico even though the Cartels challenge their policy and violate their very borders
The borders of New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona are not even patrolled by US troops. They are patrolled by volunteers. The Texas Militia, a constitutional militia of minarchists, conducts border security operations in these states.


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on March 18, 2013, 05:58:45 PM
Agrarian_Agorist
Quote
What makes you think that the State will not actively resist this through force of arms.

By the state I think you mean the US, which, again, is an unfair standard. Still:

•   The US did nothing to stop the genocides in Rwanda and many other nations. The US did nothing to stop Russians invasion of Georgia (an ally)
•   The US has only recently become overtly active in africa again with africom. This means all of the atrocities and coups, and milita groups in Africa have been operating with no US troops on the ground. Indeed, no report of even drone strikes in the vast majority of those countries. (Cony 2012)
•   The US has not invaded Mexico even though the Cartels challenge their policy and violate their very borders
•   There are neighborhoods in LA the cops will not go into, feds, DEA or otherwise.
•   The US did not use force against North Korea when they openly shelled a South Korean island AND sunk a South Korean destroyer.
•   There have been numerous communes in america and around the world that already practiced what we are trying to do.
•   There were already new nation projects that were not militarily opposed by the US government in the past.
•   Monarchies still exist, and are not a "state" as we come to understand it.

•   There have been many overtly militant organizations that opposed the US (weather underground, black panthers) that did not have all its members wiped out in some mass attack. Overt terrorist organizations like the KKK or the white nationalists or the US based Hebrew Israelites operate without being bombed or gunned down. There are many many many anti-gov militias training unmolested to counter a gun grab as we speak. ( I agree they will probably fail)

•   The US is in serious financial trouble AND is over extended militarily, as you alluded to. It is hard to imagine that they will divert an aircraft carrier group or destroyer group to bomb some arcane colony. Its not like noone would take note of a random shelling of some land for no reason. They could very seriously not even afford the resources begin diverted given the Threat of an Iranian response to an isreali attack, the threat of awar in north korea, the need to intervene in Sayria or some other mid east nation.


Given all this, it is still possible, but not as likely as it is being made to sound. Furthermore, we would be prepared to respond (as evident by the article about defense I linked to and my previous responses about defense) Again, it is a risk.

Your waco example is not relevant. 1- Obviously someone had personal beef with him 2- They were an easy target, peaceful, kept to themselves, and did not desire conflict. 3 They were within the US

Quote
There were some other secondary messages and motives behind them

This cannot be understated. Not only were there reports of fully automatic weapon fire (against federal law without the proper tax stamp. But there were also reports of child molestation (marriage to little girls) which they frown upon heavily. I do not know if any of this was true.

The enclave idea within the US does not call for child sex or automatic weapons.

Somalia has and has always had numerous parties competing for power: foreign states, warlords, and 3 state regions inside Somalia(TFG, Somaliland, Puntland). Furthermore it is in the mid east and is full of natural resources. It is also a muslim country and may harbor terrorists. They are also one of the few countries that militarily expelled and embarrassed the Us (like Libya) This example could not be more unfair.

AS for the sovereign move, there are countries that have tons of child sex (Thailand sex tourism) and countries that have legal drugs, and many of them are not being bombed by the US or invaded or even sanctioned. HA, there are tons of congressman who have child sex. The Vatican is renowned for child sex and yes the Catholic church is left alone, the Vatican has not been bombed or invaded.

Quote
The US government only allows the different organizations exist which doesn't directly question it's(the US government's) power and authority

This is not true. They intervene militarily when they see their vital interests are threatened. these vital interests usually have to do with A) military bases/strategic terratory or B) natural resources. The trouble of invading or bombing has to overcome a threshold for them to be bothered with something. There are many groups and organizations that are overtly anti-american here and abroad. The US has not bombed or invaded all countries.

If what you say is true. Hong Kong should have been nuked by now. Forget Hong Kong, take Colorado and Washington state. They just legalized mary J and should have federal troops marching on them right about now. Or maybe all the states that have Medical marijuanna. The US fed gov does not instantly respond to all threats with overt force or even sanctions.

There are many countries, large and small, with significantly better conditions for business and civil liberties than the US.

Furthermore, when they intervene militarily they often need an excuse (massacres, wmds, on a small colony? ) AND they usually do it after a long series of sanctions.

Quote
If you cannot fend off the US government or some-other government wherever you want to create the enclave, then it will not last very long.  

This leads me to believe that you did not read the article on defense. This is handled extensively. It is "some other country" we have to be concerned about.

Quote
The one thing government protects more than anything else, is its very existence; and AnCap enclave/society would dispel the belief that government is required and therefore become a threat to any and all governments.


The project is based on the very concept that the masses will not and cannot have that concept dispelled form them. Again, Hong Kong exists, and yet tens of millions of liberals want more taxes. No amount of evidence is going to change the statists minds. We don't even have to go to Hong Kong, thee ate States within the Us with lower taxes that do better than other states with higher taxes and more laws and YET people still beg for more of it. this project will not dispel anything nor is its purpose to do that.

Quote
Nobody has yet to explain why a government, any government wouldn't feel that its existence would be threatened by a society which exists without a government.

No one made the claim they would not feel threatened. The claim was made that there would be a low probability of the US or another major western nation attacking us. They can feel threatened all they want. There's a good chance that decision makers wouldn't even know we existed. They don't read their own memos.

Quote
I don't set my expectation high

The ability to defend oneself against or neutralize the US or a major European power is way too high. Again, not Russia, China or Europe, probably combined, could defend against an American attack. This standard makes no sense and is impractical.

Most countries that exist today, 200 something, cannot defend against a major western power. Not even close. What matters is defensive parity between you and your neighbors.

Quote
Some on here think the US will just leave you alone, to operate a society without a government; this will not happen.

No one stated this either, again, the article and my response about meddling addresses this very issue.

Quote
The existence of just one peaceful, productive, non-government system will put serious pressure on governments throughout the world.  It is not exactly like a government will be able to keep saying, "we need government because without it everybody will be dying on the streets," if there is an actual example which proves that message false.  Likewise, the government won't be able to keep bleeding the people dry, when an example exists of a system which functions better while the people don't pay any taxes.

In essence, with the existence of an AnCap society there will be physical -not just theoretical or philosophical- proof that government is not needed.

No, that is exactly the case, the government will keep saying the same line and people will keep believing it. No matter what the government does and no matter how other countries with barely any taxes and with lax laws prosper, they will will get away with the same line for the very reasons you cited. Hong Kong is very prosperous with something like 5-10% tax rate and yet all the other regiments are keeping their taxes steady if not raising them. No matter how bad it gets, even if there is open revolt, the people will simply demand a different government. We see proof of this with the arab spring and the EU crisis. violent or non-violent, the people just vote in new governments.

Bear in mind, I am not trying to convince you of anything, I am responding to your arguments and pointing out counter examples. Furthermore, the enclave within the US is not the same as the move for a sovereign territory outside of and far away from the US.

Basically, your argument is the US will ignore millions slaughtered in genocide, unspeakable atrocities, rampant child sex and white slavery, arms dealings, legal and prolific drugs and prostitution and near o % tax rates, countries that attack and invade their allies overtly, countries that operate explicitly as tax havens to enable the rich to avoid taxes, and countries that harbor terrorists without launching invasions and without bombing the majority of these places. However, a colony with a few ancaps looking to do business with the world is completely intolerable. again I see it as possible, some congressman can take it up as their crusade or something, but I see it as significantly less likely and manageable. They are not invincible or invulnerable or all powerful or all knowing.

Your arguments are perhaps more appropriate for the blueseed project that is trying to make a seastead 12 miles off the coast of California. I can see your worries applying to them because it is close to the US, it exists in order to directly challenge the US system of gov., they explicitly plan to violate US code, and they explicitly want to prove that their system is superior to that of the US system.

The first half of your comment is an entire joke.  Government -all types- are allowable, because they al serve the same purpose.  Non-governmnet is the only type of society which breaks away from the enslavement of the masses.  A monarchy, communist, socialist, fascist, republic, democracy, etc all are governments -they all force everybody within the citizenry of said government to do whatever they decree.  A voluntaryist society breaks that mould; nobody is forced to do anything.  Are you and MAM able to understand the difference between government and non-government systems?

If we can say that organizations will do what is in their best interest -just like people will- then it will be accepted that governments are organizations and therefore will also do what is in its best interest; right?  Governments tolerate people forming other governments, because the same mechanisms are in-place -no matter what kind of government one creates.  This is why the US government doesn't really care if one sets-up a communist enclave somewhere -because communism doesn't actually work beyond a certain population size, and most people wouldn't particularly like communism as a method of living their lives; it sounds great, but try it.  Communism does have more overt rules than current society; no matter who set it up.

Therefore, again if government likes its control over people, and it works to do what is in its best interest -to continue its control over people; then how exactly is it in governments best interest to allow a Voluntaryist society to exist?  This is a very simple question; and yet nobody has ever answered it.  You just point to nonsense about some communist enclave somewhere without actually pointing one out; as if allowing a communist -a large amount of control over the residence- enclave has anything remotely to do with allowing a voluntaryist -no actual government with minimum if any rules, and no forced associations- enclave. That is a marvellous comparison.  I suppose you may want to compare the hypothetical AnCapistan with Stalin's Russia.

The Democratic Party created the KKK; and the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are the same Party, so why would they go after their own organization?  Anyway; you are still missing the point.  Government will never oppose an organization which forces its residents/group to do things.  Being forced to do something by one group is the same -or very similar- as being forced to do something by any-other group -it is void of voluntary cooperation; it makes the individual pliable to being forced to do things.  Unless you are talking about some weird Voluntaryist enclave which forces people to do things -other than to basically accept NAP- then what you propose runs counter to what government will tolerate; because anything which allows people to freely associate without force, is by its very nature a threat to government.  Non of the supposed list of evidence you included in your comment has anything to do with a group of people creating a system which allows people to freely associate; so, I'm not sure how you think anything which you've used as a reply is even applicable.

You talk of Rwanda -like the US or any government cares if all of those people die or not; the same with Georgia.  As long as a government exists, they don't care which kind of government, because all government requires force and control of the population.

The US in financial problems, the entire world is in financial problems, but has that stopped anybody from doing anything?  The financial problems are being used to consolidate power; leading to a one world socialistic government.  You can't possibly think that all of these people with the best education money can buy, and they couldn't see any of this coming; seriously, that would be ridiculous.

Also, those communities which you claim the DEA won't even go in to, are for one given the ability to operate due to the CIA selling them drugs.  Those communities are also able to be used to scare people into accepting government; have you never heard people say that, "without government all areas would look like -insert a particular slum neighbourhood?"

Really, you are going to play Waco was molesting children and had automatic weapons?  That is your justification; you certainly sound like a state worshipper to me.  The facts after the incident proved that neither were they molesting children nor did they have illegal weapons.  So, support your state actions some-more.  You say they opened themselves up to it by being isolated, do you really think that your enclave wouldn't be isolated?

While some countries may have child sex or even legal drugs, they STILL HAVE government; I'm not sure how hard that is for some of you guys to understand.  Government will tolerate government; but government will not tolerate no-government, especially if it is peaceful and relatively successful.  The only situations where government will tolerate no-government is situation which are horrendous -constant violence and death, or starvation and death- other than that, and government will not tolerate the existence of a place that has no-government; because it is proof of a solution -or possibility- which government -looking out for its own interest- doesn't want people to even contemplate as an actual viable option.

You talk about Washington and Colorado; do you remember when California legalized MMJ?  What did the Feds do?  If you think that Washington and Colorado are even close to being off-the-hook you are seriously delusional; however, lets suppose the Feds left them alone.  What does that whole scenario spell out for people?  That government needs to be used to give you your freedoms; is this really a message you want to support.  This is what Gary Johnson was sporting in 2012 which is why I wouldn't vote for him, even though the vote is rigged anyway.

Why would Hong Kong have been bombed by now?  Hong Kong has a government, does it not?

You say that they need an excuse to intervene militarily; are you serious?  They can make-up any excuse and the Propaganda Ministry aka the MSM will push it; it is not like actual proof of anything is required.

Most countries 200 plus cannot defend against a Western power; while this is true, all 200+ countries have governments and either have a central bank tied to the Central Banking Cabal or are so heavily vested in Euros or Dollars, that those countries are more like vassal states than independent countries.

Do you know how our tax system works?  People buy our system because they have no alternative, most of those people are middle class and below; they are manipulated into believing things which aren't true.  You say Hong Kong has a tax between 5% and 10%, however, their wealthy and their businesses also pay this or similar, do they not?  Honk Kong doesn't have Corporations paying 0% tax or Billionaires who openly admit that they pay a smaller percent of their income than their secretary does; do they?  So, the big money pays to keep our system the way it is because they benefit from it -this is the same as looking out for their self interest.  If you think people aren't complaining about the tax system, then you certainly aren't paying attention.  However, when even when the people do agree, the politicians wont vote for it anyway.  But, the voice gets louder and louder and louder.  If you think people like the IRS or paying taxes; then you must be very young, because I don't know anybody who likes paying taxes.  If their was a system which could be shown to actually work, then it would be a threat.

Ask a neighbour what are their thoughts on Anarchism; what do you think they would say?  Anarchism is always shown in a negative connotation, I wonder why?  If an Anarchist system would emerge it would directly counter the government's argument that to exist without government is to live in poverty, and in chaos.  I wonder why governments feel the need to associate violence, chaos, and poverty with Anarchism?

While you think there would be  a low probability for the US government -or any government- to take action against your Anarchist enclave; this is highly unlikely. (1) In the beginning the enclave would be less able to protect itself -ie easier to take out, (2) If it is allowed to continue it will pose an ever greater threat to the very existence of government -why would any government want it to last? (3) A government could take-it-out in the beginning without people even knowing what happened -why would a government want to allow it to continue on?

Quote
Basically, your argument is the US will ignore millions slaughtered in genocide, unspeakable atrocities, rampant child sex and white slavery, arms dealings, legal and prolific drugs and prostitution and near o % tax rates, countries that attack and invade their allies overtly, countries that operate explicitly as tax havens to enable the rich to avoid taxes, and countries that harbor terrorists without launching invasions and without bombing the majority of these places. However, a colony with a few ancaps looking to do business with the world is completely intolerable. again I see it as possible, some congressman can take it up as their crusade or something, but I see it as significantly less likely and manageable. They are not invincible or invulnerable or all powerful or all knowing.

Yes, the US will ignore millions slaughtered -they have since forever. Terrorists are created by the US government; what do you think a terrorist is?  A few AnCaps in one society is a threat to all government, because it is living breathing proof that it can work -that government isn't absolutely needed.  You may think that they are not all knowing , but that is funny.  Have you never heard of their Eye in the Sky, have you never heard about their facility in Utah?  Have you never heard about all electronic financial transactions being monitored.  Everything in the US in now monitored; how exactly is that not all knowing?

The Seesteading project is only going to be available to the extremely wealthy, whose money and wealth creation would still be via government sanction; the government would never stop that.

MAM
Quote
Well said acft, furthermore I think the mistake that Agorist is making is that he is assuming that everyone thinks like him, has the same values and priorities. As I stated before just because we want to be left alone doesn't mean that everyone agrees.

Really; no, actually nobody does think like me, for if any did then they would be more concentrated on understanding how to keep any AnCap enclave around.  If the first enclave fails, via US intervention or bombing; how many people do you think will be willing to try on a second enclave?


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: MAM on March 18, 2013, 06:24:33 PM
So governments are all powerful all knowing, they can't be stopped. We need to accept the fact that anything we attempt to organize and do is going to end with the US and all other countries coming to kill us. An event that we can't possibly counter. Got it. Discussion over.

I had more then removed it because I realized that it was futile.


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: acft on March 18, 2013, 07:25:04 PM
Agrarian_Agorist

Quote
The first half of your comment is an entire joke.

And respectable discourse goes out the window.

Quote
Are you and MAM able to understand the difference between government and non-government systems?
Derrr no we stoopid.

Quote
then how exactly is it in governments best interest to allow a Voluntaryist society to exist

No one claimed this.

Quote
That is a marvellous comparison.  I suppose you may want to compare the hypothetical AnCapistan with Stalin's Russia.

A marvelous comparison that no one made. Communes were listed as a group that started an enclave that the government did not use force to destroy. Instead of accepting that fact, you just explain it away with your conspiracy theory.

Quote
Government will never oppose an organization which forces its residents/group to do things.

This is demonstrably historically overtly false. Gaddafi, Saddam, every government the US ever invaded forced people to do things.

Quote
I'm not sure how you think anything which you've used as a reply is even applicable.

You asked me why I don't think the state(US) is likely to actively resist this through force of arms.  You also made the claim that "The US government only allows the different organizations exist which doesn't directly question it's(the US government's) power and authority"

I then listed examples of events and organizations that were many orders of magnitudes more serious that a random colony being founded somewhere. I listed examples where US laws were broken, and the US's power was overtly challenged and yet nothing was done. That is why they are applicable.

Quote
You say that they need an excuse to intervene militarily; are you serious?  They can make-up any excuse and the Propaganda Ministry aka the MSM will push it; it is not like actual proof of anything is required.

You realize making up an excuse is still an excuse. I never said I believe them. I indicated that it would be a hard sell to say we were massacring people or developing WMDs in a small colony.

Quote
Why would Hong Kong have been bombed by now?


You claimed that a ancap colony would prove to the world that anarchy works AND that this would somehow threaten state power as the masses open their eyes to the truth that they can live w/o government.

My point was, if this was the case, then they should all be agitating for smaller government since it has been proven to be successful. Even Keynseins admit lower tax rates increase business activity and often lead to higher government revenue.

According to your logic, a smaller government being successful anywhere would then threaten the power of larger governments, and thus, they should be instantly attacked and destroyed so that there's no examples of small governments being successful.


Now lets look at some conspiracy fueled trolling on your part.

Quote
If you think people aren't complaining about the tax system, then you certainly aren't paying attention.  However, when even when the people do agree, the politicians wont vote for it anyway.  But, the voice gets louder and louder and louder.  If you think people like the IRS or paying taxes; then you must be very young, because I don't know anybody who likes paying taxes.  If their was a system which could be shown to actually work, then it would be a threat.

I don't remember even remotely hinting at any of this

Quote
While you think there would be  a low probability for the US government -or any government- to take action against your Anarchist enclave

I don't see how you could have read the article I linked, or the responses I gave, and concluded that I think that there's a low probability of ANY GOVERNMENT attacking. I again and again have said, you need to be able to fight a 3rd world type army and deter a first world army.

Furthermore, I conceded that there might be meddling and that that meddling would have to be dealt with.

Quote
Really, you are going to play Waco was molesting children and had automatic weapons?  That is your justification; you certainly sound like a state worshipper to me.  The facts after the incident proved that neither were they molesting children nor did they have illegal weapons.  So, support your state actions some-more.

Maybe you didn't see that part where I said I don't know if those things are true. Devolving into Ad hominem also,nice touch, very classy.

Quote
You talk about Washington and Colorado; do you remember when California legalized MMJ?  What did the Feds do?  If you think that Washington and Colorado are even close to being off-the-hook you are seriously delusional;

According to http://norml.org/legal/medical-marijuana-2 about 18 states have legal marijuanna.
Where are the Black Fema helicopters and the storm troopers?

Quote
Government will tolerate government

Except when they invade or destroy them, of coarse. Or maybe its all part of their master plan.

Quote
leading to a one world socialistic government
Quote
given the ability to operate due to the CIA selling them drugs
Quote
while this is true, all 200+ countries have governments and either have a central bank tied to the Central Banking Cabal or are so heavily vested in Euros or Dollars, that those countries are more like vassal states than independent countries.

This one takes the cake

Quote
You may think that they are not all knowing , but that is funny.  Have you never heard of their Eye in the Sky, have you never heard about their facility in Utah?  Have you never heard about all electronic financial transactions being monitored.  Everything in the US in now monitored; how exactly is that not all knowing?

HAAHAHAHA OK, they are all knowing let me get my tinfoil hat.
So let me get this straight, you called me a "state worshiper", and that I should "support state actions some more", none of which I did.

Meanwhile... you think the Government is all powerful AND all knowing.

So somehow I am a state worshiper supporter of government action who thinks the state can be defeated and is not all knowing.

It is now obvious to me you are either a statist troll or a conspiracy nut (maybe both) I will not respond to any more of your posts unless you 1. apologize for your ad hom nonsense and 2. address the topics at hand without flying off the handle.


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: MAM on March 20, 2013, 01:15:30 AM
So how do we get this started?


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: acft on March 20, 2013, 05:55:11 PM
So how do we get this started?

Well, I am slowly compiling a very long plan. I don't know when it will be finished or if I will even get to finish it. I will then probably start a Wyoming corporation (at my expense) and launch a marketing campaign.


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: MAM on March 20, 2013, 06:48:14 PM
So how do we get this started?

Well, I am slowly compiling a very long plan. I don't know when it will be finished or if I will even get to finish it. I will then probably start a Wyoming corporation (at my expense) and launch a marketing campaign.

All I got's is time, how can I help?


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: acft on March 21, 2013, 02:05:27 AM


All I got's is time, how can I help?

Well at this point, wait. I suppose you can join the forum at http://www.ancapfreethinker.info/Community (its not  really active), where more will be announced later, although my purpose on this forum (daily anarchist) is not really to recruit anyone or advertise, but to engage in philosophical discussion about ancap topics.


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: MAM on March 21, 2013, 12:02:57 PM


All I got's is time, how can I help?

Well at this point, wait. I suppose you can join the forum at http://www.ancapfreethinker.info/Community (its not  really active), where more will be announced later, although my purpose on this forum (daily anarchist) is not really to recruit anyone or advertise, but to engage in philosophical discussion about ancap topics.

All right man. Good luck!


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: MAM on March 23, 2013, 07:11:31 PM
This is never going to work. Please tell me why I'm wrong.

I think this is way to ambitious, it would require way more man power then I think is available. Instead maybe we should see about making a fleet of sailfarms.

Let say that all you need is 50 people to get this done. I think you'd be hard pressed to find 20 or even 10 people. With the sailfarm idea you'd only need a one man crew to have a boat. So you could build the fleet slowly rather than trying to recruit people en masse.

You know I'd be pleasantly surprised if you could find 5 people to actually get together and do this. Me and you acft that's two, to surprise me all you have to do is find three more people. Can it be done? Good luck man.


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: janos on April 04, 2013, 12:10:24 AM
Hey guys (first post, yay!)

I've enjoyed reading about the island idea, but I think first of all we need to establish an IRL/offline community.
Anywhere, really, just get together, and do some daily brainstorming and see what happens.

I'm willing to go anywhere and do pretty much anything if the company is good enough. I'm sick of all the statist fuckers around me. ;) I'm from Europe, but I lived in Thailand for a year, so I know what it's like to live in a completely different country as an expat. If you're alone, it can get insanely hard, but if you have a few friends with you, it's the easiest thing in the world.

So where to go? I prefer avoiding the US, for obvious reasons, but if the only way to be around anarchists is to move to New Hampshire, then so be it. There are worse places to live. :) But the visa situation is pretty gruesome, even if I can get a long term visa of some kind, the sad truth is that the fascists can deport me on any day for any BS reason, or just deny my next entrance etc.

South America seems like a valid option, especially Chile. Any thoughts on that? You guys know anything about Jeff Berwick's project there?


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: MAM on April 04, 2013, 12:39:14 AM
Who cares about getting a visa? Is English your first language? Is it good enough that you can function in this country? If it is you can get a job with or start a business Agoristically.

As far as South America goes before going there I'd think that you'd want to have your people trained and armed. I know Peru and Columbia have huge problems with armies of private thugs (as opposed to gubberment goons).

The Communists in those countries are known to kid nap and kill people. So yeah I know I'd be able to shoot back, would anyone else though? I wouldn't really want to go there if I didn't think those I went with were competent to defend themselves, who knows my life might be in their hands at some point. Just saying....

At least in the States if you're smart you can avoid most of the thugs, and handle those that come after you anyway.

Anyway welcome to the forum.

Peace be with you. 


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: janos on April 04, 2013, 12:59:43 AM
Who cares about getting a visa? Is English your first language? Is it good enough that you can function in this country? If it is you can get a job with or start a business Agoristically.

As far as South America goes before going there I'd think that you'd want to have your people trained and armed. I know Peru and Columbia have huge problems with armies of private thugs (as opposed to gubberment goons).

The Communists in those countries are known to kid nap and kill people. So yeah I know I'd be able to shoot back, would anyone else though? I wouldn't really want to go there if I didn't think those I went with were competent to defend themselves, who knows my life might be in their hands at some point. Just saying....

At least in the States if you're smart you can avoid most of the thugs, and handle those that come after you anyway.

Anyway welcome to the forum.

Peace be with you. 

English is not my first language, but I'm fluent. So yeah, I could manage to get around, that's not a problem. I just don't want to live there if I can help it. But as I said, if that's the only way, so be it.

South America has a bad rep for sure, but it's changed a lot in the last couple of decades. Especially Chile I think is pretty safe, honestly I'd feel safer there than in the US (not to mention what happens if USD collapses), and I can always bribe myself out of most things. I love corrupt governments! :)

Anyways I don't think safety is a big issue, if you choose the location wisely and don't do anything stupid.

Speaking of Chile, according to this site it has the 7th freest economy in the world (US is 10th):

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

So good things are going on on that farm, relatively of course.

Other than that, I think it's really useful to travel around, and see the different flavors of statism and other superstitions. ;) It's also fun.


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: State-God on April 04, 2013, 08:23:19 AM
I think I brought this up earlier, but I don't think Chileans are particularly keen on libertarians of any brand after Friedman and Pinochet shoved free market policies down their collective throats.

Not that the policies were bad, but they continue to associate the free market with tyrants like Pinochet.


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: janos on April 05, 2013, 10:49:46 PM
I think I brought this up earlier, but I don't think Chileans are particularly keen on libertarians of any brand after Friedman and Pinochet shoved free market policies down their collective throats.

Not that the policies were bad, but they continue to associate the free market with tyrants like Pinochet.

What's your source for this, you're just speculating? In any case, ppl everywhere love their rulers and hate the free market, even in New Hampshire.


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: MAM on April 05, 2013, 10:50:54 PM
Quote
What's your source for this, you're just speculating? In any case, ppl everywhere love their rulers and hate the free market, even in New Hampshire.

That is why I call them Team Ostrich.


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: Syock on April 06, 2013, 07:55:10 AM
Hey guys (first post, yay!)

I've enjoyed reading about the island idea, but I think first of all we need to establish an IRL/offline community.
Anywhere, really, just get together, and do some daily brainstorming and see what happens.

Welcome! 

The closest to that currently is the Free State Project.  It is inside the federal turf of the USA, for better or worse. 


At least in the States if you're smart you can avoid most of the thugs, and handle those that come after you anyway.

People travel all the time.  You hear the horror story as such because it is so rare to occur against foreigners.  People like tourist money, even if they take issue with their country of origin.  The same stuff happens in the USA, but because it is so common it only makes the local news.  The thugs in the USA tend to have better resources of any other common thug in the world.  If you mess with organized crime in any country, that is a whole different mess.


Speaking of Chile, according to this site it has the 7th freest economy in the world (US is 10th):

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

Unfortunately I wouldn't put much stock in rankings like that.  They overlook the most major benefits to a free market, such as a free currency. 


Instead maybe we should see about making a fleet of sailfarms.

Me and you acft that's two, to surprise me all you have to do is find three more people. Can it be done? Good luck man.

I am curious what benefit there is to a mere 5 person group.  You know I would meet up though.


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: MAM on April 06, 2013, 01:26:37 PM
Quote
I am curious what benefit there is to a mere 5 person group.  You know I would meet up though.

The point isn't that there would be a huge benefit to a five person group. The point is that I seriously doubt that five people can be found to get this done, and you're going to need alot more than that to accomplish anything.


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: janos on April 07, 2013, 08:26:25 PM

Welcome! 

The closest to that currently is the Free State Project.  It is inside the federal turf of the USA, for better or worse. 


Thanks. The concept of a "Free State" is an oxymoron to me, you can't have a state and be free at the same time, but I applaud the effort of those guys. Also, the climate sucks there. :)


Unfortunately I wouldn't put much stock in rankings like that.  They overlook the most major benefits to a free market, such as a free currency. 


Well, you can find useful facts on that site too, not just rankings. Tax rates and such. Every country has a monopoly on money, so I don't know why you mentioned that.


I am curious what benefit there is to a mere 5 person group.  You know I would meet up though.


I can't see the benefit either, or to the island concept in general. Yeah it would be nice to make it work, but you also give up a lot of "practical" freedom that way, and you don't prove anything anyway with a small group, even with a couple of hundred ppl. We already have Hong Kong, Singapore and other countries as examples for what happens when you have more economic freedom, but ppl just don't give a shit or they want their goodies.


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: Syock on April 08, 2013, 06:07:56 PM

Welcome!  

The closest to that currently is the Free State Project.  It is inside the federal turf of the USA, for better or worse.  


Thanks. The concept of a "Free State" is an oxymoron to me, you can't have a state and be free at the same time, but I applaud the effort of those guys. Also, the climate sucks there. :)

Name and climate prerequisites were not part of your initial post.  :P


Unfortunately I wouldn't put much stock in rankings like that.  They overlook the most major benefits to a free market, such as a free currency.  


Well, you can find useful facts on that site too, not just rankings. Tax rates and such. Every country has a monopoly on money, so I don't know why you mentioned that.

Some places have a variety of currencies in common use, some even use gold as a common currency, or currencies tied to something else.  The US gov does not have a monopoly on its own currency.  It is created by a semi-third party that can and does inflate the currency without the governments knowledge.  


I am curious what benefit there is to a mere 5 person group.  You know I would meet up though.


I can't see the benefit either, or to the island concept in general. Yeah it would be nice to make it work, but you also give up a lot of "practical" freedom that way, and you don't prove anything anyway with a small group, even with a couple of hundred ppl. We already have Hong Kong, Singapore and other countries as examples for what happens when you have more economic freedom, but ppl just don't give a shit or they want their goodies.

When you reach a critical mass you can move an entire economy from subsistence to independently highly productive.  The more people involved, the stronger the economy can potentially become.  A few people will not achieve anything, as their time would be spent just trying to get by.  When you get thousands of people together, big things can be achieved.  The FSP is aiming for 10,000.   They could potentially run an independent economy.  They won't want to as there is more to profit from exchanging with others.  Some people will likely go fully off the USD though.  
  


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: MAM on April 08, 2013, 06:14:37 PM
Quote
When you reach a critical mass you can move an entire economy from subsistence to independently highly productive.  The more people involved, the stronger the economy can potentially become.  A few people will not achieve anything, as their time would be spent just trying to get by.  When you get thousands of people together, big things can be achieved.  The FSP is aiming for 10,000.   They could potentially run an independent economy.  They won't want to as there is more to profit from exchanging with others.  Some people will likely go fully off the USD though. 
 

The efficiency of the division of labour. And the animosity towards the fiat note that Ron Paul has generated among his followers are really the only reason why the FSP and New Hampshire are in my consideration box, as far as my relocation goes.

I've heard that Acopulco has a large segment of anarchists there. I might move there if that is the case. I don't know. There is so much to learn and too little time.


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: janos on April 08, 2013, 07:29:19 PM
Quote
When you reach a critical mass you can move an entire economy from subsistence to independently highly productive.  The more people involved, the stronger the economy can potentially become.  A few people will not achieve anything, as their time would be spent just trying to get by.  When you get thousands of people together, big things can be achieved.  The FSP is aiming for 10,000.   They could potentially run an independent economy.  They won't want to as there is more to profit from exchanging with others.  Some people will likely go fully off the USD though. 
 

The efficiency of the division of labour. And the animosity towards the fiat note that Ron Paul has generated among his followers are really the only reason why the FSP and New Hampshire are in my consideration box, as far as my relocation goes.

I've heard that Acopulco has a large segment of anarchists there. I might move there if that is the case. I don't know. There is so much to learn and too little time.

Acapulco seems like a decent choice indeed. We should go there for a few weeks and check it out - I know I will.


Title: Re: Enclave/Group preferences
Post by: MAM on April 08, 2013, 07:51:41 PM
Janos this much I know for certain about Alcopulco. It suffers under the oppression of the Federales and is a stronghold for the Drug Cartels, the city is itself a stopping point for Columbian Cocaine on it's way north. Education in Guerero province isn't really good as the academia at the Alcopulco university left with the surge violence caused by the cartels.