Daily Anarchist Forum
October 16, 2019, 05:30:10 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Poll
Question: Would you do it?
Yes, I'd be one of the first to volunteer - 7 (35%)
Yes, I'd do it if 10 to 49 others already agreed to do it - 0 (0%)
Yes, I'd do it if 50 to 99 others already agreed to do it - 1 (5%)
Yes, I'd do it if 100+ others already agreed to do it - 2 (10%)
No - 7 (35%)
Other (please specify) - 3 (15%)
Total Voters: 19

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
  Print  
Author Topic: A New Land  (Read 23369 times)
Guardian
Full Member
***
Posts: 134



View Profile
« on: July 14, 2012, 11:18:24 PM »


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

Nothing would be guaranteed. In fact, there would be a good chance you wouldn't make it, fail, and probably die. There would be a plethora of natural and man-made things all trying to ruin and kill you. You would only have what you would bring with you and what you could make for yourself, along with what the initial group of settlers could/would help you with. Your life would be completely in your hands. Would you risk it all in the attempt to establish a better world?
Logged
MAM
Guest
« Reply #1 on: July 15, 2012, 01:40:21 AM »

Need more data.
Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 15, 2012, 06:36:15 AM »

Question: Would you ever sell all of your possessions,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is one thing to risk it all, it is another to risk it all in a stupid manner.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 06:47:00 AM by Syock » Logged

Guardian
Full Member
***
Posts: 134



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: July 15, 2012, 12:14:33 PM »

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

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


Logged
Disengage
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 331


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 15, 2012, 12:53:14 PM »

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

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

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

WTF, people!
Logged



David Giessel
Full Member
***
Posts: 230


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 15, 2012, 12:58:19 PM »

Several of us have already left "home" and moved elsewhere. Perhaps a better poll would be, "Would you cut and run ... leave home and move to some place you perceived to have more freedom."

-Yes
-No
-Maybe
-I already did

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

"Acquire a peaceful spirit, and thousands around you will be saved." -Seraphim of Sarov

"There is no ideology. There is no guru. There is only us, and this, and the silence." -Mark Manson
Guardian
Full Member
***
Posts: 134



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: July 15, 2012, 01:21:57 PM »

To fulfill the desire of some to have more specific information, here you go.


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


The first possible location would be at Auckland Islands:
-The archipelago has a combined area of 625 square kilometres (240 sq mi), making it the largest uninhabited, yet habitable, island in the world.
-It has a plethora of natural harbors and inlets.
-Due to these many inlets, this would allow the inhabitants to use small watercraft as the primary method of transportation, rather than automobiles which would require roads.
-Below is a topographical map of the Auckland Island archipelago:

-Below are some images of the ecology of the archipelago:


   

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

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

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

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

I am going to stop writing for now. Please make suggestions. This idea is still in its very early stages and will need much work before it can actually be put into practice. If you are wondering what the other location was, it was Eiao and Hatutu Islands located in the French Polynesia.   
Logged
Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3211



View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: July 15, 2012, 03:17:26 PM »

I see it like this:

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

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

Would I tolerate the winters?

Would I find fun things to do?

Would I make friends?

Would I find work?

Would I be happy?

Then I thought about California.

Do I like the summers? No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
Guardian
Full Member
***
Posts: 134



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: July 15, 2012, 09:59:48 PM »

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

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

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

And lastly there is political, which would be one of the motivating factors behind this idea. What are some historical examples of immigration that were primarily politically motivated? What lessons could be learned from them?
« Last Edit: July 16, 2012, 10:30:47 AM by Guardian » Logged
MAM
Guest
« Reply #9 on: July 16, 2012, 03:47:03 AM »

It looks promising for now, however I don't want to fight a government to get it. I would rather just buy the island if possible. I don't think we could contest any governments claim to the island.
Logged
Guardian
Full Member
***
Posts: 134



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: July 16, 2012, 11:50:08 AM »

It looks promising for now, however I don't want to fight a government to get it. I would rather just buy the island if possible. I don't think we could contest any governments claim to the island.


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

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

Logged
MAM
Guest
« Reply #11 on: July 16, 2012, 02:27:34 PM »

They would either come in with guns and force us to leave, or they would just kill us. Their response will be violent. There is really no need to speculate past that.

Supposing for the sake of argument that this State doesn't decide to shoot first, I think it's safer to assume they will be violent than not and die.
Logged
Guardian
Full Member
***
Posts: 134



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: July 17, 2012, 12:06:33 AM »

To continue writing, now I will discuss the pros and cons of one of the other choices for settlement: Eiao and Hatutu islands.

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

Below is a map of the region and some pictures of the islands themselves:




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

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



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

Also, if you think you found a great location, please feel free to share with the rest of us.
Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 17, 2012, 06:44:52 AM »

They would either come in with guns and force us to leave, or they would just kill us. Their response will be violent. There is really no need to speculate past that.

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

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

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

MAM
Guest
« Reply #14 on: July 17, 2012, 07:42:00 AM »

They would either come in with guns and force us to leave, or they would just kill us. Their response will be violent. There is really no need to speculate past that.

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

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

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

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

However supposing that you are right and they would start taxing us and behaving like any other govt etc... Why should we bother to leave?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!