brian_in_idaho

Sherry, you are absolutely correct in your comment about the FSP being a Libertarian effort, I need to read my own posts before hitting the submit button! Call me embarassed. I think the FSP is an interesting tactic and experiment into how to employ libertarian ideas. However, I agree with you that moving into an existing community and recreating the "society" in your own image is wrong. As a comparison, a bunch of hard core environmental extremest liberals moving to my neck of the woods and attempting to change things wouldn't sit well either. I believe though that the FS Project settled upon NH due to the belief that NH already has the most "pro libertarian" culture in the country. Bri [removed quote of entirety of immeditely-preceding post. Conserving electrons - sN]

Vladimir, you happened to respond right when I was composing my last post. I'd like to respond to some of your comments and see what kind of thoughts they bring up. "It is just a bad idea overall, for several reasons. 1.) Natural resources. A new country needs them if it is going to be a viable alternative to current ones. The problem is that current countries aren't going to give up land with precious resources to people trying to form a Gulch." I agree that natural resources are an important asset to a new country, but perhaps not essential. I believe Singapore and Hong Cong have very little in terms of natural resources, but have generated a very rich economy by embracing trade and business. With respect to current countries giving up land and resources, I'm not sure that they are that much different than individuals. If I happened to own a piece of land with say a significant mineral deposit, I could certainly sell that property to another individual, perhaps one with the resources to utilize said deposit. Optionally I could try to develop them myself or work out a agreement with some company to extract them in exchange for a percentage of the take. IMO, same with a country, if a significantly large sum of cash is put in front of a countries leaders, the potential for them to agree to sell some portion of their land is viable. "2.) Inertia. It is hard to get people to move, even to please with more personal freedom. Note the numbers of Objectivists who live in places like New York City. It is hard to convince people to move somewhere with more personal freedom but with no symphony orchestra, Whole Foods or Mercedes-Benz dealership. " On a personal basis, I have to disagree here. I made a conscious decision to leave New York State (an unfortunate birth defect) and move to Northern Idaho. All of this revolves around "quality of life", both in terms of natural features, as well as a "polictical consensus" (to make up a new term here) much more in line with my way of thinking than the socialist sespool that NY has turned into. The same is happening with a large number of Californians moving here. In short, I believe we live in a very mobile society, and the opportunity to create a better life in a society with more personal freedom and acceptance of property rights and minimal governmental interference might be very successful in drawing people. As Ian mentions, the Free State Project has drawn a number of Objectivists to NH, I don't happen to know the number. I think there is a considerable "wait and see" attitude on the part of a lot of people on this, prior to making the move. "3.) Defense. Making a new country in a third-world region like Afrika is just asking for trouble. Even the most powerful African nations are relatively weak, but would still be incredibly powerful relative to a new Objectivist nation. The Charles Taylors of the world would think nothing of invading the Gulch if they can get away with it, and they can." I agree that much of Africa is based on tribalism, with little respect for borders or property rights. On the other hand, the fortune of a Buffet alone could hire a very significant "security force" by the standards of most African contries. With the exception of South Africa, most of the continent has armies consisting of local militias armed with small arms. Bri

thanks all, for taking the time to respond. I have been thinking some more about this, and of course coming up with more questions and different scenarios, than answers. I believe that Olex is correct, that there is probably no place on earth unclaimed by some country. Is there a mechanism by which a country can sell and give up all claim to a piece of property? I'm asking this as opposed to selling land to an individual or company and still claiming "control" as part of that country. I'm assuming that this isn't all that difficult, given that in US history we have bought land from France (Louisiana purchase) and from Russia (Alaska), I'm not sure why a willing seller couldn't deal with an individual or corporation, rather than another nation. One scenario is that "Midas" purchases an area of unpopulated land from a willing country, with the understanding that said country truely gives up all claim on the property. I would anticipate that as the owner, he could set whatever terms he chose with respect to following the laws of this new, free country. Purchase of property within this country could be tied to acceptance of the conditions of governance. Things get more complicated in the case of an occupied piece of property. Aequalsa, thanks for the info on the Limon REAL project, I have only had time to peruse that site. It appears that they have attempted to address that issue, by the existing government turning over ownership to the state-owned properties to the corporation, of which the existing residents are shareholders. I need to spend more time reading up on this, sounds interesting. Ian, I agree that the best thing is to spread objectivism within this country...this is more of a dream or mental exercise than perhaps practice. Just wondering what an Objectivist with say the assets of a Warren Buffet could accomplish. Bri

*** Mod's note: Merged with a similar topic. sN *** This is my first post, I have enjoyed reading the site, and the Warren Buffet thread got me wondering about something. Could an individual, or group of individuals, purchase a piece of land somewhere and "legally" establish a new country, founded and incorporating a political system based upon Objectivism? The current "owner" of said parcel being of course willing to sell the land and any "national" ownership involved, that is allowing the purchaser to set up his own system of government and relinquishing any control. (I need to come back and edit the language here, I'm doing this during my lunch break). My questions are, what would it take for this to happen, how would one with appropriate resources go about purchasing land and establishing a country, by Objectivist means, ie by consent between the buyer and seller? If there were a Midas Mulligan in the world today, how would he go about this? Hiding in the mountains of Colorado isn't practical and still leaves one subjected to the laws of the US and the state. On a related note, a political system would need to be established along Objectivist ideals, what are your thoughts as to what a "bill of rights" for such a country might include? What powers would be vested in the government and what in the hands of the people? At the least, I would expect that a government needs to maintain a police force, a court system and a means of national defense. How would the legitimate functions of government be funded. Thanks for any thoughts. Brian