Best place for Libertarian colonization?

[Napkiraly]

Kind of an icy wasteland. Also, Denmark would probably have something to say about that.

Assuming that Libertarians WERE willing to use force

Which of course would just show them to be massive hypocrites. With the punishment being forced to forever be employed in a non-profit co-op.

[New Ogunquit]

Assuming they were able to annex some sort of wilderness, would they be starting from the ground up or something? Because I think it's a little hard to focus on a political ideology when you're fending off wild animals and whatnot. Also, a one party system seems kind of authoritarian.

[AiliailiA]

Kind of an icy wasteland. Also, Denmark would probably have something to say about that.

Assuming that Libertarians WERE willing to use force, perhaps they could become modern day filibusterers and march into some sparsely populated areas of Mexico and take over. The Mexican army is ill equipped to deal with an insurgency

You're kidding, right?

The Mexican military is quite formidable, far more so than necessary to deal with homesteaders.

The reason the Mexican military is not crushing the "insurgency" of drug cartels is, in one word, idealism. Mexico's constitution is modelled on that of the United States. In fact, early last century Mexico styled itself the "United States of Mexico". The Mexican constitution forbids use of the national military to deal with internal strife, just as the US Constitution forbids the use of the national military so.

Why does the US still have a national guard? It's a waste of taxpayer money, and serves no purpose besides letting privileged little snots like George Bush avoid the sharp end of the draft, and letting state Governors style themselves "Commander in Chief" of puny little militaries which serve no military purpose.

The US still has a national guard because the immensely competent US military is constitutionally forbidden from putting down insurrections, and with the whole "right to bear arms" shit being so entrenched, an armed insurrection in the US could be quite a handful.

and if you had the right administration in office in the U.S. it is possible that America wouldn't do anything.

Trump/Netanyahu 2016! "Immigration is not our problem. Emigration is YOUR problem!"

[Hurdegaryp]

It's not as if libertarianism is known as a movement that cares about actual facts.

Or arguments questioning the movement's philosophy.

Actually thinking about what makes society function is a whole lot harder than shouting "taxation is theft" like a Randroid on autopilot.

[Oasisa]

There are many unoccupied islands, but all of them (afaik) are in sea territory claimed by some nation or else in sea like the Antarctic protected by treaty from human colonization.

Make your own island perhaps. In the Pacific and probably other oceans, there are very shallow areas where dumping a few million tons of rock and earth would make a new island. Two problems: firstly, it would cost a lot of money to do that, and secondly the shallow areas often have coral or other marine life which would be fubar'd by dumping rock and earth on them. Expect nations, with troublesome things like navies, to stop you doing that or to take it away from you after you've done it, and don't expect a groundswell of popular support for your project.

Move to some country with very weak (and/or corrupt) government, buy a lot of land, and secede. Not a "Libertarian purity" option, since by doing that you are in fact declaring a state. Also, it's quite unlikely that seceding would succeed: even a weak and corrupt government can see the benefit of letting their common criminals and their upstart secessionists fight it out between them. Two birds with one stone y'know.

Find territory between two countries which is claimed by neither. This won't be an island, be sure of that. It will only be a desolate and landlocked area, like The Kingdom of North Sudan. Nice present for a little girl, but let's not pretend it's a place the "princess" would actually chose to live.

Maybe you have relatives who have lived in the same area for thousands of years. This frankly is your best chance of "libertarian colonization". You could get land without paying for it, and you could get a degree of self-government, if you have family and community descended from the people who lived there and were dispossessed by actual colonialism.

"A degree of self government" isn't all this kind of "Libertarian" dreams of. They dream of full self-government (which if it's a private dream, is literally no government). Gaining the legal title to land (without buying it) and gaining a small degree of self-government beyond what other people have on their privately owned land, is however the very most they could reasonably achieve.

As a cynic once said to me, when I was in my anarchist phase of youthful idealism: "if you want freedom, you have to buy it."

You don't buy freedom, you bleed for it.

[Jute]

Or arguments questioning the movement's philosophy.

Actually thinking about what makes society function is a whole lot harder than shouting "taxation is theft" like a Randroid on autopilot.

At least "Property is theft" has a reasoning and arguments behind it.

[AiliailiA]

Assuming they were able to annex some sort of wilderness, would they be starting from the ground up or something?

No, they would have everything that money can buy.

If they didn't, we wouldn't call them "libertarian colonizers". We would call them "homeless people".

Because I think it's a little hard to focus on a political ideology when you're fending off wild animals and whatnot. Also, a one party system seems kind of authoritarian.

This dream doesn't have other people in it (except perhaps as servants or slaves). It's not a one party system, it's "me and my country which I made myself" and doesn't have parties. To have parties, you need at least two people.

[Napkiraly]

There are many unoccupied islands, but all of them (afaik) are in sea territory claimed by some nation or else in sea like the Antarctic protected by treaty from human colonization.

Make your own island perhaps. In the Pacific and probably other oceans, there are very shallow areas where dumping a few million tons of rock and earth would make a new island. Two problems: firstly, it would cost a lot of money to do that, and secondly the shallow areas often have coral or other marine life which would be fubar'd by dumping rock and earth on them. Expect nations, with troublesome things like navies, to stop you doing that or to take it away from you after you've done it, and don't expect a groundswell of popular support for your project.

Move to some country with very weak (and/or corrupt) government, buy a lot of land, and secede. Not a "Libertarian purity" option, since by doing that you are in fact declaring a state. Also, it's quite unlikely that seceding would succeed: even a weak and corrupt government can see the benefit of letting their common criminals and their upstart secessionists fight it out between them. Two birds with one stone y'know.

Find territory between two countries which is claimed by neither. This won't be an island, be sure of that. It will only be a desolate and landlocked area, like The Kingdom of North Sudan. Nice present for a little girl, but let's not pretend it's a place the "princess" would actually chose to live.

Maybe you have relatives who have lived in the same area for thousands of years. This frankly is your best chance of "libertarian colonization". You could get land without paying for it, and you could get a degree of self-government, if you have family and community descended from the people who lived there and were dispossessed by actual colonialism.

"A degree of self government" isn't all this kind of "Libertarian" dreams of. They dream of full self-government (which if it's a private dream, is literally no government). Gaining the legal title to land (without buying it) and gaining a small degree of self-government beyond what other people have on their privately owned land, is however the very most they could reasonably achieve.

As a cynic once said to me, when I was in my anarchist phase of youthful idealism: "if you want freedom, you have to buy it."

You don't buy freedom, you bleed for it.

Unless you're a slave and buy your freedom. Then you bought it.

[AiliailiA]

There are many unoccupied islands, but all of them (afaik) are in sea territory claimed by some nation or else in sea like the Antarctic protected by treaty from human colonization.

Make your own island perhaps. In the Pacific and probably other oceans, there are very shallow areas where dumping a few million tons of rock and earth would make a new island. Two problems: firstly, it would cost a lot of money to do that, and secondly the shallow areas often have coral or other marine life which would be fubar'd by dumping rock and earth on them. Expect nations, with troublesome things like navies, to stop you doing that or to take it away from you after you've done it, and don't expect a groundswell of popular support for your project.

Move to some country with very weak (and/or corrupt) government, buy a lot of land, and secede. Not a "Libertarian purity" option, since by doing that you are in fact declaring a state. Also, it's quite unlikely that seceding would succeed: even a weak and corrupt government can see the benefit of letting their common criminals and their upstart secessionists fight it out between them. Two birds with one stone y'know.

Find territory between two countries which is claimed by neither. This won't be an island, be sure of that. It will only be a desolate and landlocked area, like The Kingdom of North Sudan. Nice present for a little girl, but let's not pretend it's a place the "princess" would actually chose to live.

Maybe you have relatives who have lived in the same area for thousands of years. This frankly is your best chance of "libertarian colonization". You could get land without paying for it, and you could get a degree of self-government, if you have family and community descended from the people who lived there and were dispossessed by actual colonialism.

"A degree of self government" isn't all this kind of "Libertarian" dreams of. They dream of full self-government (which if it's a private dream, is literally no government). Gaining the legal title to land (without buying it) and gaining a small degree of self-government beyond what other people have on their privately owned land, is however the very most they could reasonably achieve.

As a cynic once said to me, when I was in my anarchist phase of youthful idealism: "if you want freedom, you have to buy it."

You don't buy freedom, you bleed for it.

Fuck you constitution, I bled for this.

The damn wall there, holding up my roof perhaps but what do I care, I can't fly, wall stopped me when my free will was to go that way. That damn wall stopped me, but I'm a free man so I kicked the wall. I did my very best to kick that wall down.

Now my toe is bleeding. I bled for this, I earned my freedom.

[AiliailiA]

You don't buy freedom, you bleed for it.

Unless you're a slave and buy your freedom. Then you bought it.

And deserve it no more and no less than any other freed slave.

Freedom, in the sense of "not being a slave" is the birthright of everyone, everywhere. I wish I could say so with such confidence, I wish I could realistically envision a world ten or twenty years from now where nobody is enslaved. I wish I could propose some international treaty which would make it so.

But like all rights, this right to freedom from slavery is just an ideal. The best I can say for it is that it is an ideal far closer to realization than the other, more vaguely defined, forms of freedom. Freedom from want, freedom from surveillance, freedom from oppression (by government or society beyond government). Freedom from tradition, freedom from irrational thought. Freedom from whatever is bothering the individual today, freedom from whatever they blame for that horrible feeling of not being free.

My heart says yes, everyone should be free in every possible way. My brain immediately qualifies that, with dictums like "your freedom to swing your fist ends where ..." but ultimately it's my gut. My gut opinion is that the brain and the heart are not free when the body is starving. The brain and the heart are not free when the body is sick. The fundamental human right is to continue living, and all other human rights come after that.

[Filimons]

http://www.seasteading.org/

[Hurdegaryp]

http://www.seasteading.org/

The people behind that project are inspired by city-states such as Singapore and Hong Kong, which can hardly be considered libertarian.

[Knokkeheist]

The Netherland a libertarian heaven gay marriage, a free market economy and legal weed and hookers.

[Gauthier]

Alpha Centauri.

Yes, but there they have to compete with Bible Thumpers, Communists, Fascists, Ivory Tower Intellectuals, UberHippies, and the UN.

[Communes of Europe]

Alpha Centauri.

Yes, but there they have to compete with Bible Thumpers, Communists, Fascists, Ivory Tower Intellectuals, UberHippies, and the UN.

So? Don't they like competition?

[Gauthier]

Yes, but there they have to compete with Bible Thumpers, Communists, Fascists, Ivory Tower Intellectuals, UberHippies, and the UN.

So? Don't they like competition?

The competition isn't the problem. It's the native wildlife eating their brains.

[Communes of Europe]

So? Don't they like competition?

The competition isn't the problem. It's the native wildlife eating their brains.

Nothing the free market can't solve. *nods*

[Dyakovo]

There aren't many places left in the world for people to establish nation states. Where do you think would be the best place for Libertarians to go in order to establish a new nation? I'm not talking about micronations or citystates either, I mean a full blown, brand new country. I've always thought Sakhalin would be an interesting option, if things go really poorly in Russia and the whole country starts to collapse or tip into civil war it would theoretically be possible for a fairly small group of colonists to seize control of the island. Another option would be Borneo, I'm not sure how the locals there would react to Libertarianism but said colonists could probably encourage separatist sentiments in both the Malaysian part and the Indonesian part of the island, they could also retreat into the jungle on the center of island when things get tough. Now, realistically I don't think this would work because Libertarians are opposed to violence and as such guerrilla warfare wouldn't be a reasonable means of state creation for them but it's fun to speculate about.

The sun.
*nods*

[Cinnabarra]

Bir Tawil, as someone suggested, would be very appropriate.

Joke aside, you can't colonize.You'd come under international denunciations and be more likely to be treated as terrorists if you try to force natives out of their country.Sakhalin is also inhabited, and there's oil.Not many people would give it up.

However, inside the US, if all the American libertarians were to go to a sparesely-populated state, they could influence local politics their way.

[The Serbian Empire]

Bir Tawil, as someone suggested, would be very appropriate.

Joke aside, you can't colonize.You'd come under international denunciations and be more likely to be treated as terrorists if you try to force natives out of their country.Sakhalin is also inhabited, and there's oil.Not many people would give it up.

However, inside the US, if all the American libertarians were to go to a sparesely-populated state, they could influence local politics their way.

The problem is no nation will recognize a bunch of Libertarians in an unwanted trapezoid of land.

[The Serbian Empire]

There's also patches of land along the Danube that neither Serbia or Croatia will claim.

[Jute]

Alpha Centauri.

Yes, but there they have to compete with Bible Thumpers, Communists, Fascists, Ivory Tower Intellectuals, UberHippies, and the UN.

This is a bit inaccurate, but alright

[Old Tyrannia]

Someone just finished reading Atlas Shrugged.

[Immoren]

Also ask the putin if he is willing to sell the republic of karelia.

[Meridiani Planum]

At least "Property is theft" has a reasoning and arguments behind it.

Don't feed the trolls.