Daily Anarchist Forum
February 21, 2019, 09:47:18 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: How many people do you think it would take to engage in a successful Ancap enclave project?
2-100 - 2 (28.6%)
100-500 - 0 (0%)
500-1,000 - 0 (0%)
1,000-5,000 - 1 (14.3%)
5,000-10,000 - 0 (0%)
10,000-50,000 - 2 (28.6%)
50k plus - 1 (14.3%)
Can't happen - 0 (0%)
The Balls are Inert - 1 (14.3%)
Total Voters: 7

Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
Author Topic: Enclave/Group preferences  (Read 16483 times)
acft
Newbie
*
Posts: 49


View Profile
« 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.
Logged
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #1 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.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2013, 12:14:21 AM 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
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #2 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.
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 #3 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.

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 #4 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.
Logged
Tear-Down-the-Wall
Mr. Edgar Friendly
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 434


Mother should I trust the government?


View Profile
« Reply #5 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.
Logged

This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back.

You take the blue pill- the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.

You take the red pill- you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 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?  
« Last Edit: March 16, 2013, 07:23:43 AM by Syock » Logged

MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #7 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...
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 #8 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.
Logged
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #9 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.
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
State-God
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 670



View Profile
« Reply #10 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.
Logged

"[In a Socialist Commonwealth] the wheels will turn, but will run to no effect." - Ludwig von Mises
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #11 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.
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 #12 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.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2013, 04:45:41 PM by acft » Logged
Agrarian_Agorist
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #13 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.
Logged
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #14 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.
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
Pages: [1] 2 3
  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!