Hello Everyone, let me jump in here, since I am actively working on such a project for ancaps.
MAM
“My question is simply is it even possible to purchase sovereignty?”
Maybe, but it would have to be upheld through force of arms. I would STRONGLY suggest anywhere but US and Europe as far as a sovereign movement. An enclave movement can be set up anywhere.
Victim77
“Somalia?”
I would jump at the chance to start a private charter city in Somalia. Not only do they need investment and commerce, but it would be a great opportunity for developing private defense industries. They have tons of wide open uninhabited land. Somalia has good grazing lands for cattle, fertile land for growing produce (when out of drought seasons). Very mountainous terrain in some parts making true invasion very difficult.
No real air force or navy to speak of, SUPER IDEAL. Competing “governments”, clans, and warlords means no unified opposition.
For example, google map “xaafun” A private charter city on that peninsula would be ideal IMO. We go in as a private corporation with development in mind. Even if technically we are under their gov., over time we develop power and eventually the would be unable to tax us. Slowly our businesses gain market share and slowly we build up arms and soldiers. If we gain enough influence, we might even be able to bribe our way into sovereignty.
Ally with a local tribe and chieftan to get permission, provide jobs for the locals and meanwhile, Build up as much military power as you can.
Business opportunities:
Water purification/ irrigation
Power generation
Beekeeping/Khat production
Garbage disposal, Gun manufacture, ammo manufacture, gold/silver currency production, contract binding and enforcement.
“Agrarian_Agorist”
“I believe it would require organizing the likes of which Anarcho-Capitalists/Voluntaryists have never seen before; and it would require centralized authority to oversee it -both of these items are anathema to the entire concept of Anarcho-Capitalism and Voluntaryism, making it an even greater reason as to why Ancapistan would never go anywhere.”
I agree it would take a great deal of organizing. However, central authority is not anathema to Anarcho-capitalism, COERCIVE/INVOLUNTARY central authority is. There is nothing wrong with joining an organization and playing a role with a common interest or goal in mind. There is also nothing wrong with large scale voluntary organizing.
“I do have a plan for everything, but the most important thing, which is how to prevent other governments from interfering with Ancapistan like they had done with Somalia. “
Preventing all outside interference not possible. Even the US has Israeli spies. You cannot prevent it, you have to manage it.
“I also, think that as far as land goes it would be better to have at least one port -so some water access would be preferable. I would advise against an island, because it could easily be surrounded.”
I have to disagree here for a number of reasons:
Defense:
360 degree radar for air and sea without worrying normal traffic from other countries.
An island with finite coordinates can be easily gridded out for zone defense in case of invasion and/or artillery fire .
With an island, you see your enemy (unless a sub) coming from a long way away and you have no air space restriction etc. which means you can stalk, observe and engage them on your terms without worrying about airspace violations.
Islands are ideal for long range stand-off weapons, ranging up to and over 100 miles. With no terrain, unless the enemy has significant ecm capability (some western nation) they are going to be susceptible to ground to sea anti-ship missiles.
Ability to create port city where wealthy can come with yatchs, etc and not be bothered by other countries. More ports opens possibility up for more trade and tourism.
The more remote the better:
Only a handful of nations have aircraft carriers, furthermore, if we had even a dozen anti-ship missiles, risking a carrier to fuck with some anarchists on an island makes no sense.
Out of sight out of mind, if we are remote we are less likely to register on peoples radar screen.
Distance from current conflicts
Distance from existing states
Distance from resources
The more remote, the harder it is to be meddled with. Few nations have the ability to refuel mid-air, so even air strikes become problematic without a carrier or mid-air refueling. Furthermore, even with ships, say a destroyer, if you are remote enough even they would need a place to refuel and resupply.
Again, very few states have the capability to send an army across the sea.
I have a relevant thought experiment here:
http://www.ancapfreethinker.info/?p=181Find on Page “Case Study Pitcairn Islands”
About defense and nukes: If nothing else PLEASE READ THIS
http://www.ancapfreethinker.info/?p=79Seriously, please read this.
WMDs like Nukes are not necessary. One has to worry about defensive parity of surrounding countries and/or credible and reasonable threats more than anything. No one can defend against a US led cruise missile assault and invasion. This is not reason to not do the project.
More than anything, the project will be dependent on 1. Having people willing to kill,fight, die for the project and 2. Defense contracts for the arms we need. 3. Planning and funding
Stop thinking of defense as : how can I defend against the US. NO ONE CAN DEFEND AGAINST THE US. Please stop thinking you or any nation will be able to stop a large western nation from invading. If Libya and Iraq could not do it you won’t be able to. You need to be able to stop 3rd world nations and large 3rd world militias and DETER western nations. If they really want to, they will get you and no nukes will be necessary. Risk is part of the game.
About meddling:
It is part of the game.
Most of the objections can be overcome with planning, and yes planning, training, and funding would have to be extensive for such an undertaking.
I prefer having freedom and dealing with meddling States vs. living under current slavery and dealing with TOTAL meddling, down to what I can and cannot put in my body or do with my sex organs.
Many may prefer to remain a slave because it is comfortable or safe. For those the solution is simple, don’t join one of these projects. I would not mind a reduction in quality of life for true sovereignty.
About Paranoia:
Some say we would be instantly attacked as soon as we went sovereign. We would deserve to be wiped out if we did not have a formidable defensive strategy in place beforehand. Still, I do not think it would be that much of a danger depending on how we go about getting the land and declaring sovereignty.
I agree, states are vicious and ruthless murdering organizations, but even they are limited in power and somewhat rational. Again, unless we had a very well-oiled military machine with MODERN military arms on contract (say, from Saab
http://www.saabgroup.com/) I wouldn’t bother. We wouldn’t even have to be big, 100 men well-armed and supported by light armored infantry can conquer most cities in the US.
On the one hand, we have the example of Israel declaring independence and then immediately being attacked by all surrounding countries at once.
At the same time, there have been many countries that have been peacefully created without such bloodshed. Keep in mind, states have limited resources, limited capability, and limited interests. I mean, there have been genocides that states have virtually ignored. If they would ignore the murder of millions in Rwanda, why would they bother with a small peasant territory ? Unless we are dumb enough to meddle with their resources I doubt they would even blink. Still, even if they did, only a handful of states have striking capability outside their own borders. This is yet another reason why I prefer a remote location. Think Gough island or Prince Edwards islands (google map these)
There are some historical examples of enclaves and new nations in this article as well
http://www.ancapfreethinker.info/?p=88
