Kluss, and everybody for that matter:
I am not calling for Libertarian UTopians or even plausible projects. America became a free country as a side effect, a secondary consequence of a very different intention: The -selfish- desire, necessity and will to conquer a new continent spiritually (Massachusetts Bay Colony) and materially (Jamestown).
Likewise Singapore is now one of the freest or at least more legally strong countries in the region not out of a desire to do just that and become an international convention center for businessmen; but out of a racist selfish chauvinist, self-preservatory, feeling that Chinese living in South Asia should have at least one country where they are majority and rule (look at the constant post-colonial anti-chinese pogromos of Malay and Indonesia).
That intention was not Capitalist (in fact for the firs years it was pretty Statist, and up to now the ruling party is an offshoot of the British Fascist PArty, just look at the logo or the admissions of his supreme excellency) but the result was.
The same could be said about the Gulf States and the proposed Al-Noor (Cities of Light). These are all fascist (along with Singapore) in origin, but the end product is a place where expats can chose to live for a while taking advantage of what this new countries and areas have to offer, but most importantly chosing to be there.
When a person choses to become a citizen or a guest resident of a place, the situation is purely contractual and coercion gets out of the equation.
The more countries there are to chose, the bigger the floating population. This floating population, the opposite of a refugee although both are migrants, by executing their choice to live or reside for X time in one country or region or another, is entering into a voluntary contract.
The issue of coercion under government only applies to those who live in the place where they were born - or to those who moved to a nation which later turned into a dictatorship or otherwise changed its terms of the deal (like Ayn Rand moving to a pre-Roosevelt America, and that’s a light example)
What I mean by this very serious topic which I began with I didn’t began quiet well, is that a free way of living (detached from Geography) is at the snap of my, and your fingers.
I don’t need any new utopia, nor do you, nor any altruistic Libertarian who wants to create a free zone of peace. That’s nice for a fiction novel but rather stupid as humans, specially powerful ones, usually do act in their own interest.
The expats Chinese in Malaysia created Singapore. 1/3 of the World Jews created Israel. The Arabs created Dubai, Bahrein, and maybe in the future Al-Noor Cities. China allows Hong Kong to exist; Panama offers free health-care or/and pension for mature expats; Bahamas and Berudas have very private isolationist laws that provide protection from extradition and legal and economic extortion from other countries.
This is evidence enough that one individual can enjoy different kind of liberties and entitlements(a bank account in Bahamas, a slave in Yemen (!), a free pension in Panama, or a Hotel-Convention Center in Singapore, or legal use of recreational drugs in the Netherlands) just by entering into a mutual non coercive agreement between the resident to become citizen and the host state.
When there are not too many states to chose from this looks like vassalage or serfdom with the liberty of the serf to chose whom to enslave himself to. However this liberty didn’t exist back in the day of serfdom (or at least it existed one day a year as an exception, Saint George’s day was the only instance serfs were allowed to move); while now with some money and will one can take a plane to about any country in the world.
While it’s not as simple as I will put it: the more countries there are (each imperfect and created not to provide refuge or Libertarians but having their own selfish corrupt reasons) the more choices there are and more competition will (and IS) arise (arising).
When already existing countries compete to attract qualified or otherwise desirable people, the relationship between the newcomer and the host state becomes more respectful, businesslike, and devoid of coercion.
This happens both ways: First World countries such as Canada, invite Third World refugees to use them for social engineering purposes.
Third World countries such as Panama or Bahrein invite First World foreigners, as well for social engineering purposes (only they want to make their countries better not worse), just as Canada, but the result is that the newcomers have more leverage allowing the relationship to be actually contractual and non coercive.
An expat can chose when to leave. A refugee can’t.
Hope you understand my point. It is very far from Libertarian Utopias and Pirate Islands, despite the beautiful and rather corny themes they allow for stories. It is closer to the unintended consequence (freedom) of a development strategy of many diverse recently decolonized countries.
This is a very optimistic outlook because it’s realistic. I’m counting on greedy pious muslim millionaires creating overpriced hotels with some benefits (Al Noor) and racist outright fascist and rightfully paranoid Chinese (PAP’s Singapore) to inadvertidly create a World with more options where non natives - but migrants can taylor my, and their lives from country to country as they see fit. No patriotism, no fealty, just business and rule of law.
