Daily Anarchist Forum
April 25, 2019, 09:31:51 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  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
  Print  
Author Topic: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty  (Read 38379 times)
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: March 15, 2013, 10:11:36 AM »

Here is more information on the island: http://www.islasanpedrochile.com/

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

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

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #46 on: March 15, 2013, 10:27:26 AM »

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

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


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

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



That island looks like it is simply a park that they are selling.  They are not selling the sovereignty over it. 
« Last Edit: March 15, 2013, 10:36:40 AM by Syock » Logged

Agrarian_Agorist
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: March 15, 2013, 10:48:34 AM »

Here is more information on the island: http://www.islasanpedrochile.com/

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

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

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

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

Anyway, it would be possible to expand the island, however, not sure how much that would cost; it seems it might possibly cost more to expand the island than it costs to buy the island.
Logged
Agrarian_Agorist
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: March 15, 2013, 12:03:31 PM »

Here is another island for sale it is 36k+ acres which is 56+ square miles.  It is on the coast of Brazil, but it is surrounded by other Brazilian islands. http://www.privateislandsonline.com/islands/ilha-das-pacas#  It is $10 million; it is cheaper than the Chilean island and more than twice the size, but it is more surrounded by the host country.
Logged
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: March 15, 2013, 03:19:16 PM »

Quote
Some people say that since it uses dirt and natural materials that it is not artificial and others say that since it was designed by humans that it is artificial.

As opposed to super natural materials right?

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

EDIT: I don't want to use nukes as a defence mechanism. It's just something that I thought could work, maybe, even if sub optimal. However nukes have one use that makes me want to be able to build them. Project Orion. I don't really see the Earth taking to anarchy so I would like to be able to leave the planet and settle somewhere else.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2013, 03:23:29 PM by MAM » Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
Agrarian_Agorist
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: March 15, 2013, 04:09:12 PM »

Quote
Some people say that since it uses dirt and natural materials that it is not artificial and others say that since it was designed by humans that it is artificial.

As opposed to super natural materials right? 

Hah. No.  That it was made with rock and dirt piled within a structure as opposed to a steel structure entirely designed and manufactured -bolted and welded together- by humans as the entire island. 
Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #51 on: March 15, 2013, 08:55:34 PM »

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

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

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

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

We probably won't need to even worry about such an airport for some time.  Water based aircraft and boats would do fine for a small population.  
« Last Edit: March 15, 2013, 09:02:34 PM by Syock » Logged

MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: March 15, 2013, 09:26:09 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: March 15, 2013, 10:44:59 PM »

I apologize for being an asshole earlier in the thread. I shouldn't blame Agrarian_Agorist for not understanding what I'm communicating. It's my job to explain better. I fail. I don't have the energy to explain it. Just wanted to say it was my fault.

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

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

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: March 15, 2013, 11:21:06 PM »

I apologize for being an asshole earlier in the thread. I shouldn't blame Agrarian_Agorist for not understanding what I'm communicating. It's my job to explain better. I fail. I don't have the energy to explain it. Just wanted to say it was my fault.

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

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

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

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
acft
Newbie
*
Posts: 49


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: March 15, 2013, 11:47:06 PM »

Hello Everyone, let me jump in here, since I am actively working on such a project for ancaps.

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

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

Victim77
“Somalia?”

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

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

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

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

 “Agrarian_Agorist”

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

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

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

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

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

I have to disagree here for a number of reasons:

Defense:  

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

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

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

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

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

The more remote the better:

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

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

Distance from current conflicts
Distance from existing states
Distance from resources

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

I have a relevant thought experiment here:

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

Find on Page “Case Study Pitcairn Islands”

About defense and nukes: If nothing else PLEASE READ THIS

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

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

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

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

About meddling:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are some historical examples of enclaves and new nations in this article as well http://www.ancapfreethinker.info/?p=88
« Last Edit: March 15, 2013, 11:56:09 PM by acft » Logged
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: March 16, 2013, 12:05:16 AM »

The attrition rate with today's weapons is extreme and urban combat takes alot more man power then simple country side actions...
Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: March 16, 2013, 12:18:53 AM »

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

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #58 on: March 16, 2013, 06:31:58 AM »

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

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

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
  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!