Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
clarus

Free State Initiative

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Rather than looking at Africa, there is a lot more opportunity for development in the New World. On the same hemisphere as America, it would be easier to integrate into its economic sphere. Another significant reason I would discourage you from looking at Africa is that sub-Saharan Africa has yet to prove to the world that it has gotten past tribalism. The conflicts in that continent, of course, don't make every country guilty, but it would not be rational for any investor to ignore that risk either. One mercy of Catholicism was that it unified the culture of South America, and there have not been recent tribal genocides. My suggestion is for you to try to work with Romer on his project and see if you can try to influence it from within. From the TED lecture I saw, he seemed un-ideological, so it might be good for someone to provide his idea with a rational basis.

These are good and prudent comments that I appreciate. We will certainly look at South-America when the time comes, and possibly even collaborate with Romer and Honduras. If you look on the our map you will see several outlined potential locations in South-America. Of the countries in South-America I have most confidence in will be interested in such a concept and is most civilized and open to these ideas is Chile.

locations.jpg

Chile has a region, quite close to the equator that due to a combination of westerly winds and the Andes-mountains blocking rain from the Amazon basically is the driest place on Earth. It has ZERO rainfall (less than 1 millimeter per year). But due to its proximity to the ocean it has still got fairly humid air and moderate climate (about 20-25 C all year round. That's about 70-80 F) The area has got extremely low population density (it's virtually empty) and as such is highly suited for a Free State.

As I said, we're definitely looking into South-America, but right now we're pursuing our most concrete lead, namely a country in Africa. According to plans we are scheduled to meet with the government in June. Notice that a Free State in Africa by no means excludes other Free States. In fact, I strongly believe that a Free State in Africa will be a door opener for the FSI in other parts of the world such as in South-America. Therefore there is no reason NOT to pursue a Free State in Africa, quite the contrary, if for no other reason than to be a door opener for other countries.

However, when that is said there is a lot of really good things happening in Africa right now that is completely off the radar in the West. Some have taken notice how the Chinese have "invaded" Africa in the last decade or so, but no-one seems to analyze what this means in terms of the mood and cultural changes in Africa. China and Chinese companies didn't just come to Africa and "magically" get a lot of deals there. They brought something that Africans have very rarely received from the West: respect and a treatment as equals. Not as colonialists, aid workers or IMF watch dogs, but as business partners. This seems to have been a "magic" formula for the Chinese because it has brought out very good and rational behavior in a lot of African countries. Economic freedom is now on the rise culturally and politically in Africa while it is waning in Europe and the US.

So I don't think that a Free State in Africa is doomed to failure or even that there is a very high probability of something going wrong. Yeah, sure there's tribalism, but so what? There was tribalism in Europe and America too. That didn't stop the industrial revolution. Also we're taking precautions. We're not placing the Free State smack in the middle of a war zone or in a place buzzing with people. All the people who will be living in the Free State will be immigrants, and as such everyone starts on equal footing. Those who travel to a Free State don't go there to be tribalistic. That they can do at home in their village. No, they go to the Free State because they are independent and individualistic and want to escape tribalism. A Free State that has zero welfare state perks will attract mostly those who want to work for a better life, and even though there's a lot of tribalism in Africa, don't you think that there are millions of Africans who despise this sort of thinking and are looking to get away? I think so. Use your reasoning and knowledge of economics. Who are attracted to liberty and laissez-faire?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a little bit like saying "look what happened to the Soviet Union." Apart from the fact that Rhodesia was in Africa, that most of the population was black and the people in government were mostly white/foreigners there are very little similarities. I really do hope you have something more to go on in your evaluation than the color of the skin of the people involved.

Rhodesia was fighting a communist guerrilla insurgy. Your implication that I am somehow a racist is ridiculous. I made no mention of race, but commented on the impossibility, from a military standpoint, of your ability to defend yourself from invasion and destruction, using the example of a well trained military force in the region that failed.

You have to plan and prepare for the worst case scenario. You are operating on the idea that everything will simply fall into place because you have good intentions. The old saying is that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

You do what you want, it's your choice, your funeral.

Edited by Maximus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rhodesia was fighting a communist guerrilla insurgy.

Again your comparison is completely arbitrary. Rhodesia was nearly 400,000 sq km of land, whereas the Free State will be around 1000 sq km, essentially a city state. Don't you think it will be easier to manage security in a smaller region like this than in 400,000 sq km of land? Furthermore, those who come into the country and are allowed permanent residence there must pledge that they have peaceful intentions. In Rhodesia one could not simply throw out citizens, whereas in the Free State where in the crucial 20 first years its inhabitants will be immigrants and can be thrown out. So let's compare the situation:

- Rhodesia, BIIIG country with a large indigunous population which were COLONIZED by foreigners (and therefore naturally hostile).

- The Free State, created VOLUNTARILY by the LOCAL government, small state with no indigenous population, only immigrants who have come to the Free State VOLUNTARILY and that pledges to be peaceful at entry.

Another major difference: the 1960s and 1970s (which is when Rhodesia existed) were an era of Marxist regimes. You had Cuba, Chile, Somalia, Ethiopia, Vietnam, Cambodia, China which had succumbed to communism. And yes, Robert Mugabe was one of those men who rode that wave. At the same time colonialism was coming to an end. A wave of independence was flushing over the colonies, and Rhodesia was a prime target.

Today the world looks completely different. While capitalism is under attack in the West, the rest of the world is racing towards it. Also the age of colonialism is over. All the former colonies have gained their independence and a lot of them have discovered that "the white man" wasn't so bad after all. After essentially 3 decades of Marxism, welfare states and foreign aid, these former colonies are to a much greater extent ready to learn from their mistakes.

In short, apart from being in Africa there are no similarities between Rhodesia and the Free State whatsoever. The context is completely and utterly different, both geographically, demographically and economically, as well as politically and culturally.

Your implication that I am somehow a racist is ridiculous.

I don't think you are a racist, but you are probably "ethnically challenged." That is, to you it appears that "all blacks look alike," not because you are ha horrible person, but simply because you seem to lack knowledge about Africa. It is perfectly understandable that an America-centric person lumps all of Africa together, but it is not correct to do so. There is more to Africa than tribalism and communist rebellions.

I made no mention of race, but commented on the impossibility, from a military standpoint, of your ability to defend yourself from invasion and destruction, using the example of a well trained military force in the region that failed.

But your example was useless. You were talking about an army that had the responsibility over 400,000 sq km of land, and that had no means of stopping the rise of communism at its roots. I could easily have countered your example with for instance Singapore which is much closer in size (700 sq km) to the Free State and is in a very similar situation (mostly immigrants who come to work in a booming economy).

You have to plan and prepare for the worst case scenario. You are operating on the idea that everything will simply fall into place because you have good intentions. The old saying is that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

The worst case scenario is that the earth is struck by a comet in the future or that world war III breaks out. Should we plan for that? Or should we perhaps use our limited resources on what we *can* influence and what is likely? The fact of the matter is that ANY such project entails risks. Does even the tiniest fraction of a risk mean that we shouldn't do it? If that is your attitude then I can assure you that you will NEVER move the world.

I believe that the strategy that we have chosen is the best one, one that best serves two opposing goals: 1) the goal of creating a Free State (which stable, rich governments tend to be extremely opposed to) and 2) the goal of security of person, property and contracts, i.e. minimizing risk.

Now, obviously we MUST turn to the very poorest (and therefore least stable) countries in the world if there is to be a Free State. So given this limitation, what can be done to maximize their willingness to create a Free State and at the same time minimize the risks of riots and expropriation? We believe that the strategy of the Free State Initiative accomplishes this:

To maximize their willingness to create an autonomous Free State within their borders:

- place it in a wasteland with no natural resources

- place it in an area with little or no indigenous population

Such an area has the least amount of value to the country, and therefore maximizes its willingness to consider the plan.

To minimize the risk of expropriation and invasion from other countries:

- demand as an absolute premise that the Free State is allowed to have its own security forces, sufficiently strong to protect its borders.

- make sure that there is little of value to expropriate, i.e. that most of the value lies in the stability and peace of the Free State.

To minimize the risk of riots:

- make sure that most of the population is immigrants who go there voluntarily in search of a better life and job opportunities

- make all immigrants pledge their peaceful intentions and throw them out if they plot to do otherwise. (planning a communist takeover would clearly violate the pledge)

- make sure that there is a lot of economic growth and opportunities for leveling up

As you can see, placing the Free State in an area with no population and with no natural resources serves many purposes which all taken together maximizes the overall likelihood of success. Now, as far as I can tell your argument against supporting such an initiative basically boils down to one thing: there is a risk that it can fail. Well, DUH! If you're not going to support anything unless the outcome is certain then you'll end up not supporting very much, which BTW is a pattern that I have seen with a lot of Objectivists, unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I find the attitude of many liberty oriented people to be quite perplexing. I could understand if there was a reluctance to participate, but at the very minimum I would expect something along the lines of "looks like cool project. Good luck! Hope you succeed." But no, that's not good enough. It seems that a lot of people aren't content unless they have actually shot down the attempt at creating liberty. At least that is what it seems like, given the immense hostility some people meet this project with.

So why is this? Why do so many of the people who actually strongly desire liberty not even want to give as much as a hat tip to an effort for creating liberty? Indifference I could understand, but why the malevolence?

You are assuming that everyone here took your claim that this project is a realistic effort to create liberty for granted, to the point that you are using "create liberty" and "this project" interchangeably, and accusing everyone who is disagreeing with your claims with being anti-liberty.

That's a fundamental mistake that is making any further communication in this thread impossible. The question at hand isn't whether creating liberty is a good thing, and whether people who are doing that should be supported or shouted down. That is not what so many people are "malevolent" about, that is not what you need to prove to us. The question is whether your project will, realistically, create liberty.

The only reason why anyone not affiliated with your project would believe that it will is your word. There is absolutely no other reason whatsoever that I have seen. Refusing to take your word for granted doesn't make people "malevolent" towards liberty, it makes them malevolent towards taking strangers' word for granted. Sorry, but I just can't do that. You'll have to give me some actual, verifiable information that you have done more than just start a website and a few threads on various forums, before I start believing in your project.

And, after that initial step of establishing that you're actually in business, you will, like aquelsalsa said, still have to respond to huge amounts of criticism. If your only rebuttal to people pointing out that the continent you're trying to do this on is an uncivilized, war torn, tribal mess is "You're racist", no one will take you seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ethnically challenged? Really? Could you have possibly come up with a more PC code-word?

Your equating my realistic assessment of the need for preparedness with outlandish scenarios involving cometary strikes and WWIII are a bit outlandish, don't you think? Reductio Ad Absurdum, anyone? Look, there are groups out there who will see your very existence as a treat, real or perceived. The fact that you are a "city-state" will not protect you. People can infiltrate by lying - Muslims practicing Taqiya, for instance (the Islamic doctrine of lying to the infidel to further the cause of Islam). Things such as this must be taken into consideration. I make my living in the area of security, and have a military background. Your plan sounds good on paper, in an ideal world, but I can see that it would be a security and logistical nightmare. You would have to be able to procure massive funding to get it off the ground, and setting up in a wilderness area, barren of natural resources, would require the logistical capability of the US Military to accomplish, or a large multi-national like Haliburton.

Again, you do what you want, I wish you good luck, I just hope you get the advice and experience of professionals in all areas that will be critical to the safety and security of the participants.

Edited by Maximus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ethnically challenged? Really? Could you have possibly come up with a more PC code-word?

Well, I have to admit that I was playing making a little bit fun of PC speak. For instance, as a joke I like to say that God is not non-existent but metaphysically challenged. That has so many layers of to it that most people pick up on some of the humor involved. Apparently not so with a term like ethnically challenged (which, in case you wondered, could be read as someone who is challenged for their ethnicity, i.e.the victim of racism). However, joke aside, you do seem to show little knowledge of Africa. There's nothing wrong with that. I am just pointing it out that you then end up with making broad generalizations for which there is no basis in reality.

Your equating my realistic assessment of the need for preparedness with outlandish scenarios involving cometary strikes and WWIII are a bit outlandish, don't you think? Reductio Ad Absurdum, anyone?

Actually I think I did a pretty good job of showing that your Rhodesia comparison was outlandish. Perhaps not quite as outlandish as WWIII, but not that much less.

Look, there are groups out there who will see your very existence as a treat, real or perceived.

That's true everywhere in the world. You can't go hide in a cave because there might be a threat out there that may strike you. Psychologically the liberals have a point with regards to terrorism: 9/11 killed about the same amount of people that dies in a couple of weeks in traffic accidents in the US. Now, I am by no means comparing a terrorist threat to a traffic accident, but from an individual perspective you have far greater reason to be concerned for being killed in car accident than being the victim of a terrorist attack. Therefore on an everyday basis you should not really be concerned with terrorist threats. You shouldn't as an individual let that threat influence your decision any more than you let the risk of dying in a car accident affect your decisions. (That the GOVERNMENT should be far more concerned with terrorism than with traffic accidents is a different matter)

The fact that you are a "city-state" will not protect you. People can infiltrate by lying - Muslims practicing Taqiya, for instance (the Islamic doctrine of lying to the infidel to further the cause of Islam). Things such as this must be taken into consideration.

I agree that it has to be taken into consideration, but I think it is not that hard to counteract terrorism of the kind you here are pointing towards. Read this article about terrorist threats in Dubai:

http://www.securitymanagement.com/article/dubai-terrorist-target

Particularly read the following part:

Politically, Fayad says Dubai does not incite the fury of extremists because it is not viewed as a 'pro-Western Muppet' like nearby Saudi Arabia. "The ruling family is not known to say yes all the time" to Western wishes, he says. Case in point, Dubai refused to allow Western coalition troops to use its facilities during Desert Storm.

And whereas the heavy Western presence in Dubai would seem to make it a juicy target for terrorists, security analysts say the opposite is true based on a lack of indigenous dissent and the high standard of living enjoyed by all.

Dubai is unusual in that its population of 1.3 million people consists mainly of expatriates. The majority hails from South Asia and Southeast Asia, while the bars, restaurants, and offices teem with more than 100,000 Britons and other Westerners.

The relative minority of nationals enjoy a per capita income among the highest in the world. "There is no large section of disenfranchised indigenous people here," says James Le Mesurier, an advisor for Olive Group, a global security risk and management company headquartered locally.

The Free State will not be a country and will not have a foreign policy, not even a domestic policy really. It will have no indigenous people, only immigrants and the immigrants will be coming from all over the world, but mostly from Africa, South-East Asia and South-America. Dubai has not been on the radar for extremists due to a combination of good security, prosperity and not participating in Western wars or making foreign political support to Western countries, and I think the same will be the case for the Free State.

I make my living in the area of security, and have a military background. Your plan sounds good on paper, in an ideal world, but I can see that it would be a security and logistical nightmare.

What would you say about Singapore then? Is this a security nightmare? How do you then explain that there are no terrorist attacks in Singapore and virtually no crime, despite a significant muslim population?

You would have to be able to procure massive funding to get it off the ground, and setting up in a wilderness area, barren of natural resources, would require the logistical capability of the US Military to accomplish, or a large multi-national like Haliburton.

Possibly, but not necessarily. Remember, with organic growth you can start small and grow. When you are small you don't need a lot of infrastructure and if you grow you do so due to continuous investment and profit. It's quite possible that you don't need to start that big. Suppose you for instance start with only ONE factory for, say, treating fish. Then you will need to build a fairly small port (which must be possible to expand later) for handling medium size boats, and then you need to import workers from poor countries. Since they are not used to luxury you don't need to build a full-fledged infrastructure. In the beginning the investments COULD be less than 100 million dollars, which is not a far-fetched number. Remember that Chinese companies are investing 5 billion dollars in the Lekki Free Zone. Once the initial 100 million investment has proven to be a good investment and the investors are making money then it is merely a question of expanding organically. There is no logistic hell here if you stop thinking like a superrich Westerner for a moment and consider that 95% of the population will be workers from poor parts of the world. Catering to their needs will be much less expensive and require much less investment than a full-fledged Western standard city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would you say about Singapore then? Is this a security nightmare? How do you then explain that there are no terrorist attacks in Singapore and virtually no crime, despite a significant muslim population?

Singapore is odd mixture of economic freedom and authoritarianism. Singapore has conscription. As a free state it is not an example of succeeding with no natural resources because its location athwart the world's most highly used sea based trade route is a huge asset. Singapore has an active counter terrorism program and is a target of the jihadist group Jemaah Islamiah. Singapore is peaceful mainly because of its mostly chinese population and English common-law based legal system, its location on a peninsula creating a water barrier a narrow defensible land corridor to Asia which controls immigration and "security through obscurity".

How many of Singapore's advantages can be duplicated in a new free state?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would you say about Singapore then? Is this a security nightmare? How do you then explain that there are no terrorist attacks in Singapore and virtually no crime, despite a significant muslim population?

Well, it is a dictatorship that executes drug traffickers, so there is that.

Criticism aside, it's obvious you've given this a lot of thought, and I wish you luck with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Singapore is odd mixture of economic freedom and authoritarianism. Singapore has conscription.

I don't think it is due to its conscription that Singapore is a safe place. Singapore is somewhat authoritarian, but in most areas it is fairly free. The Free State will not be a carbon copy of Singapore, but they do have many things in common: approximately the same size, high degree of economic freedom, a lot of immigrants, no natural resources.

As a free state it is not an example of succeeding with no natural resources because its location athwart the world's most highly used sea based trade route is a huge asset.

I would say that it is just as strategic to be located in Africa because from Africa one is not far from either Asia, North-America, South-America or Europe. I could again bring up Lekki Free Zone as an example where the Chinese are putting 5 billion dollars into the project, and their argument? To get a more strategic position with respect to European, South-American, North-American and African markets. Obviously they consider this to be worth at least 5 billions in investments, otherwise they wouldn't do it.

How many of Singapore's advantages can be duplicated in a new free state?

Many, possibly all, depending on the location. We will also have a significant advantage in the first 10-20 years: anonymity. Most will never have heard of the Free State. There is no reason to announce it on the news and invite journalists (if they would care). The only people who need to be informed about it are investors and the people who are recruited to move their from poor countries. For the first 10-20 years, it will be just another place in Africa which no-one will write about or hear about anywhere. Only after about 10-20 years, when there are perhaps living 100,000 people or more there will be som attention. Remember, no-one really cared about Singapore in the West until quite recently. Not until, about 20 years ago, so for 30 years it was allowed to grow in peace. Sure, their neighbors knew about them, but they actually HAD neighbors. The whole point of the Free State is that no-one will be living there and in its surroundings. It is desolate and unpopulated. I think it is perfectly possible to stay off the radar on a need-to-know basis. That is, it is possible to control the information flow to some extent. Publicity about the Free State will be sought only when there is a need for publicity, which may be a very long time. I love this stealth approach and the reason it works is because the growth of the Free State will be 100% financed by production, and producers have never needed to have a lot of publicity for producing things.

Sure there will be some fuzz about this in so-called "right wing media." The Heritage Foundation may include it in its world economic freedom index, Fox News and John Stossel may have a segment on it, The Economist may write about it, but who pays attention to the right wing media? Virtually no-one. Certainly not terrorists and socialists. At some point the success (if it succeeds) and size of the Free State will attract attention, and that's especially the case if country after country in the developing world is starting to duplicate it. Then at some point its success cannot go unnoticed at large, but by then the Free State or Free States will be so large that it/they are ready to face the challenge of the attention of the world.

My hope is that when the world does discover the Free State(s) some 20-30 years down the line people will ask themselves what train hit them: all of a sudden there is a lot of prosperity fostered by true laissez-faire around the world. Now that would be something to write about. The only question is if you want to be a part of that vision or not. The reason I am here on Objectivism Online is to appeal to rational people to be bold and act in their long term interest, to take a chance on supporting with some pocket change what COULD be a major win for the ideas of liberty. It has always annoyed me that socialists say that I can't prove that laissez-faire works because it hasn't been tested out. Wouldn't it be awfully nice and liberating to be able to say "look to the Free State(s)"?

So I want to challenge all of you on a couple of questions:

1) what do you deem the chance of success to be in percentage? (and by success I mean that 30 years down the line there is at least one thriving Free State in the world)

2) what do you deem the value of such a Free State to be if it succeeds and you're able to say "look to the Free State" for proof of how laissez-faire works in practice? I.e. if you knew for certain that this would be the outcome, how much money would you be willing to put on the table to make that come true?

Now, according to simple statistics the correct way of calculating the risk adjusted value of this project is:

success% * value

So if you deem there to 5% chance of winning in this laissez-faire lottery, and the value of winning to you is, say $10,000 dollars, then you should rationally be willing to put up to 5% * $10,000 = $500 on the table to make this come true. That's how you would bet in a lottery where you knew the odds. If you had 1% chance of winning 1 million dollars in a lottery, statistically you will win $10,000 and you would therefore be statistically willing to pay up to $10,000 dollars for such a ticket.

Now, personally I consider the chance of success at present, when all risks and uncertainties are included, to be in the vicinity of 10%. IF we get a deal with the current potential host country to implement a Free State and we are able to get investors to build factories and infrastructure the chance of success in my opinion rises to more than 80%.

So based on what you know, what are YOUR numbers? Both chance of success and the value to you in case of success.

Edited by Onar Åm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't state that it was.

It certainly does look like you tried to use the term incorrectly.

It would appear to me that you were accusing Onar of being absurd. Maybe I just didn't understand what you were trying to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It certainly does look like you tried to use the term incorrectly.

It would appear to me that you were accusing Onar of being absurd. Maybe I just didn't understand what you were trying to say.

Just pointing out that he was using it to attempt to make my example, and my point, ridiculous, which it was not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Silicon Valley billionaire funding creation of artificial libertarian islands

"There are quite a lot of people who think it's not possible," Thiel said at a Seasteading Institute Conference in 2009, according to Details. (His first donation was in 2008, for $500,000.) "That's a good thing. We don't need to really worry about those people very much, because since they don't think it's possible they won't take us very seriously. And they will not actually try to stop us until it's too late."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will write about the Seasteading approach in a separate essay. Needless to say I greatly approve of their efforts, and aside from the Free State Initiative it is the most realistic endeavor towards a free society anywhere in the world, as far as I know. In the mean time you may read FSI's two new essays:

Gurgaon - The Singapore of India

http://freestateinitiative.org/gurgaon-the-singapore-of-india

and

P2P Governance

http://freestateinitiative.org/p2p-governance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this still running?

If so what name would the free state have?

 

Clive, the project is still running although it has been going in low power for a while. We have been to Africa and talked to two governments, both of which are very eager. The name of the Free State is of course open for discussion, but my preference is that it will have a name that has the advantage of being 1) locally rooted, 2) easy to pronounce and remember for an international audience. Apart from that "anything goes."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mastermind method.  :ninja:

 

Go to some remote unpopulated island with costumes and a made up language declare yourself the overlooked indigenous population.

Why didn't anyone find you? Tunnels you were underground every time someone showed up, for "religious reasons".

Why make contact now? A peaceful reformation happened after "insert fake history here".

Lace the whole thing with appeals to self determination to the UN and make lots of fuzz about your peaceful culture and other bull.

Then when you're acknowledged keep giving lip service until they figure out and you've already got protection agreements from several forces.

 

The most important thing would be to functionally already have a working state apparatus and several local charities, the latter being misguidedly implied to be public institutions.

After a while you'll drop the culture bomb that the idea of "public ownership" is completely foreign and there was just a misunderstanding.

At that point they've already shown people that those institutions actually do work and they'd look like total asshats if they'd denounced it at this point.

 

If pulled off right whoever goes around pointing out what's actually is happening will look like a conspiracy nut.  :fool:

I could even just leave this here cause a plan on some obscure forum describing what's happening would only make the whole thing less believable.

 

George Lucas kept the sale to disney secret and even bigger cover ups have been revealed.

 

You wouldn't even need all that many people, you'd just need to look as if there are a lot of people, or at least "enough" to realistically be granted self rule.

Masks as a part of the religion so one person could make multiple cameos.

Caves off limits to non believers, lots of torches visible, small conference rooms, professionally shopped pictures of large underground rooms.

 

The underground jig would also be a great reason why there's seemingly so many pale people.

 

 

 

 

The Luck method.  :pimp:

Win the jackpot and use funds to make the prophecies of a cargo cult come true, give out lots of intellectual ammo too and use support to win local elections then start nagging about secession.

Edited by FrolicsomeQuipster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The successes – and failures – of the Free State Project

Found the above story while doing a google search on "free state project" delineated to the news sub-setting.

As with most 'movements', the more that they are dug into, more types of anomalies arise. Upper case Libertarian ideas versus lower case libertarian ideas have been around for most of my life, and in the lower case usage, it was individuals that espoused liberal ideas in an honorable sense in the tradition of Locke, Jefferson, Paine, Spooner, Jackson, Rand, Fuller.

Libertarian parties exist in many states, and are on many electoral ballots for various positions. People move across state lines for many reasons. Offering that specialized of a political motive as an incentive within America, the beacon of life, liberty, happiness,  portends that the fuel that has kept that flame lit is not meet or exceed the implicit specifications. There is a growing sense of something being amiss without a concrete identification of the underground, interlocking tributaries that are establishing the currents influencing the world's events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...