Free Republic of Liberland, a new libertarian micronation

[zg7666]

I am kind of wondering, why is there no discussion on this interesting event!? Are you guys familiar with it at all? Or is it not serious enough to take notice of it?

 

 

 

 Free Republic of Liberland (hereinafter “Liberland”) is a sovereign state located between Croatia and Serbia on the west bank of the Danube river. 

 

Liberland came into existence due to a border dispute between Croatia and Serbia. This area along the west bank of the Danube river is not claimed by Croatia, Serbia or any other country. It was therefore terra nullius, a no man’s land, until Vít Jedlička seized the opportunity and on 13 April 2015 formed a new state in this territory – Liberland. The boundary was defined so as not to interfere with the territory of Croatia or Serbia. Its total area of approximately 7 km² is now the third smallest sovereign state, after the Vatican and Monaco. For more information regarding the border dispute between Croatia and Serbia see an article on Wikipedia.

 

The motto of Liberland is “To live and let live” because Liberland prides itself on personal and economic freedom of its people, which is guaranteed by the Constitution, which significantly limits the power of politicians so they could not interfere too much in the freedoms of the Liberland nation.

 

https://liberland.org/en/main/

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberland

[iHuman]

Likely due to many people being so burnt out on Goobermints that they are more interested in true anarchy than any other form of government.

[john cena]

Likely due to many people being so burnt out on Goobermints that they are more interested in true anarchy than any other form of government.

All taxes are completely voluntary in this society, as well as the laws are defined around libertarian principles. A copy of the constitution of available on the website.

 

Now I realize this thread is pretty old, but I was intending to start one on the subject but I found this by a quick search and the OP pretty much summed up my basic question. Why haven't we at least heard Stefan talk about this? I mean it is in essence anarchy. It is not even a night watchman state, it is something less much less. 

 

I am contemplating putting in an application, and I am wondering how many of you here have done the same or are thinking about it? What kind of information have you provided on your resumes? I've posted on the Liberland forums but it seems there is no official capacity from the government to respond.. Which is frustrating but I guess is technically a GOOD thing!

 

It really seems to me like the largest online community of anarchist would be taking peak interest in the topic of a new minimalist state being formed out of NOTHING, currently with over 20 billion in investments lined up as soon as the land is completely secured. If this project succeeds, who is to say we couldn't start an Anarcho state similar to it somewhere else in the world, or even change the government slightly there to make it FULLY simply the first DRO in the area?

 

Also, for a size comparison, Vatican city is 109 acres, where the republic is around 1,000 acres.. Not huge, but big enough for freedom.

[AccuTron]

7 km2 isn't much land.  I don't know how many anarcho-anythings can fit in that space.  Veddy cool that the guy spotted the opportunity.  It will be of interest to monitor it's progress over years.  20 billion in investments...for what?  That much money buys a huge water filtration plant or an Olympic Campus, or the next place big companies will move to after being fed up with California regs and taxes.  Oh, maybe that's the answer.

[john cena]

7 km2 isn't much land.  I don't know how many anarcho-anythings can fit in that space.  Veddy cool that the guy spotted the opportunity.  It will be of interest to monitor it's progress over years.  20 billion in investments...for what?  That much money buys a huge water filtration plant or an Olympic Campus, or the next place big companies will move to after being fed up with California regs and taxes.  Oh, maybe that's the answer.

Cities like New York have around 27,000 people per square mile, which works out to around 10,000 people per sq km. Now if a city that has more invasive laws than Nazi Germany can sustain a population that size, surely a completely free market  (once utilities are supplies) would be able to achieve much higher densities. 

 

We can look at states like Puerto Rico where thousands of businesses setup their headquarters there just to escape SOME of the taxation on the mainland, surely many more would go to this place that has NO mandatory taxes? Once it's a country recognized by others at least, because until then it would make it next to impossible to conduct business with people there from inside a strict statist regime. 

 

That's the thing about an anarcho state that's actually advertised as an anarcho state, no government would acknowledge it precisely because it would be a huge incentive for businesses to escape there as a tax haven. This may be the closest thing we get for a very long time, that will still allow residents to interact with resources from the outside world. 

 

That all being said, I would move there immediately if there were a small community of like minded people, and hundreds of thousands of others are willing to as well. This at least shows us that there are many people behind the project, and I think something will come of it unless it get's bombed to absolute shit.

[AncapFTW]

7 km2 isn't much land.  I don't know how many anarcho-anythings can fit in that space.  Veddy cool that the guy spotted the opportunity.  It will be of interest to monitor it's progress over years.  20 billion in investments...for what?  That much money buys a huge water filtration plant or an Olympic Campus, or the next place big companies will move to after being fed up with California regs and taxes.  Oh, maybe that's the answer.

It's on the the Danube River, so I don't think water will be a problem.  A well could handle a hundred or so people for a while, more if you pump from the river.  A small hydro power plant or wind turbine might be possible, with a few small businesses, like a hotel/casino, or a few shops, maybe even a gas station.  Take whatever the neighboring government's currency is or Euros for now, until you can phase in a different currency like bitcoin or gold script.  That's how I think they should start off, at least.  All of that is 20-30 million, tops, especially if the people in the area need work.

[dsayers]

This is why we need to be precise with our language. There's a lot of problems with this thread based on language alone. From the beginning:

 

"guaranteed by the Constitution" - Laws of physics are binding, which is why they're called laws. A piece of paper is not binding. History is rife with empirical evidence of a piece of paper being unable to protect property rights.

 

"limits the power of politicians" - Again, "politician" refers to somebody by their imaginary status of existing in a different, opposing moral category. It does not accurately describe the real world. You cannot limit people's imaginations.

 

"taxes are completely voluntary" - Taxation is theft, which is taking something belonging to somebody else without their consent. If something is voluntary, it is not a tax.

 

"laws are defined around libertarian principles" - Man cannot make laws. Presumably, this is referring to commands backed by threats of violence. Which obviously could not be based off of any principle.

 

The problem with the minarchist position is that it's like rewinding Titanic and thinking that THIS time it won't sink. This is like opening a hotel that patterns itself after prisons. It's like getting excited about an ad in the back of a comic book. "But it SAYS it provides x-ray vision!"

 

I don't mean to be a naysayer to those acknowledging that there's a very real problem in our world. However, pursuing a non-solution has the opportunity cost of not pursuing an actual solution. If you want to know if this is likely to be successful as the beginning of human freedom, just check the media. Obviously when cancer is comfortable, it's because cancer is not threatened.

[john cena]

This is why we need to be precise with our language. There's a lot of problems with this thread based on language alone. From the beginning:

 

"guaranteed by the Constitution" - Laws of physics are binding, which is why they're called laws. A piece of paper is not binding. History is rife with empirical evidence of a piece of paper being unable to protect property rights.

 

"limits the power of politicians" - Again, "politician" refers to somebody by their imaginary status of existing in a different, opposing moral category. It does not accurately describe the real world. You cannot limit people's imaginations.

 

"taxes are completely voluntary" - Taxation is theft, which is taking something belonging to somebody else without their consent. If something is voluntary, it is not a tax.

 

"laws are defined around libertarian principles" - Man cannot make laws. Presumably, this is referring to commands backed by threats of violence. Which obviously could not be based off of any principle.

 

The problem with the minarchist position is that it's like rewinding Titanic and thinking that THIS time it won't sink. This is like opening a hotel that patterns itself after prisons. It's like getting excited about an ad in the back of a comic book. "But it SAYS it provides x-ray vision!"

 

I don't mean to be a naysayer to those acknowledging that there's a very real problem in our world. However, pursuing a non-solution has the opportunity cost of not pursuing an actual solution. If you want to know if this is likely to be successful as the beginning of human freedom, just check the media. Obviously when cancer is comfortable, it's because cancer is not threatened.

I don't mean to sound rude, but it seems like you haven't actually read through the constitution. It seems to me that this actually IS a DRO disguised as a government, that was the point I tried to imply in my earlier post.  No law can be conflicting with the non aggression principle. No, there are no taxes by our definition, but to a common person who thinks that this is a government and not a DRO, taxes is a buzzword. It's actually donation based. So in reality, this is not a minarchist state, it is a DRO by definition. The constitution is specifically written so that another government with NAP based laws can coincide with Liberland in the same geographical area. Note the following sections:

 

 

Logical guarentee of self defense against the state:

 

 

§17. No law shall abridge the right of self-defense against initiators of aggression, including the agents of the Public Administration where acting unlawfully, including the right, to own, manufacture, sell, and bear arms.

 

 

§10. No law shall create victimless and/or consensual crimes.

 

Further, this clause implies that another government can operate within the same boundaries:

 

 

 

§7. No law shall abridge the right of persons to the control of their own bodies, nor interfere with voluntary consensual or contractual relations among adult persons, or the right to form cooperative ventures of any kind.

 

 

 

Just because America calls itself the land of the free doesn't mean we aren't fascist. Just because they call themselves a "government" to cloak themselves from other evil world powers, doesn't mean they actually fit the bill. This is what I think people are missing!

 

 

 

 

 

It's on the the Danube River, so I don't think water will be a problem.  A well could handle a hundred or so people for a while, more if you pump from the river.  A small hydro power plant or wind turbine might be possible, with a few small businesses, like a hotel/casino, or a few shops, maybe even a gas station.  Take whatever the neighboring government's currency is or Euros for now, until you can phase in a different currency like bitcoin or gold script.  That's how I think they should start off, at least.  All of that is 20-30 million, tops, especially if the people in the area need work.

See the thing is, the river is NOT part of disputed territory. I don't see a hydro plant being possible anytime soon, albeit croatia might sell water rights for a lot of cash.. I'm sure the government wouldn't turn the chance down.. What they REALLY need is a nuclear power plant built, THEN everything else would fall nicely into place. Water distillation, electricity, electric transport. It's a tiny place, no need for a gas station really, except maybe on the river for boats and possibly for small planes. They could also make their own cryptocurrency, which would most likely highly appreciate in value, similar to bitcoin. I wouldn't be surprised if the government funded itself by this mechanism in the future. 

[dsayers]

I don't mean to sound rude, but it seems like you haven't actually read through the constitution.

2+2=4 whether I read a math book or not. Of every objective claim I've made, which ones do you find to be false and why?

 

We already have a universal and impartial arbiter: reality. In the real world, theft, assault, rape, and murder are internally inconsistent. Everything else is preference. So either the Constitution is verbose and opinion or it is superfluous.

 

Logical guarentee of self defense against the state:

Perhaps it is you that didn't read what I wrote. "A piece of paper is not binding. History is rife with empirical evidence of a piece of paper being unable to protect property rights." The US Constitution guarantees self-defense against the State, but doesn't honor it.

 

The problem with trusting a piece of paper and/or what people write down is that people can later write down that taking stuff that belongs to others is taxation and eminent domain if it's done in the name of the State. So you see, it wouldn't be defending yourself against the State, it would be you initiating the use of force against the State. That's why we need to have people representing the State, pulling you over against your will for doing things they say you can't. It's not defense if you resist because they're operating in the name of the State, it's assault and they need to escalate. "it's like rewinding Titanic and thinking that THIS time it won't sink."

 

there are no taxes by our definition, but to a common person who thinks that this is a government and not a DRO, taxes is a buzzword...they call themselves a "government" to cloak themselves from other evil world powers, doesn't mean they actually fit the bill.

"This is like opening a hotel that patterns itself after prisons." For that matter, what good is fooling a few statists if you alienate rational thinkers?

 

It seems as if what I posted addressed everything you've just said while everything you've just said does nothing to address what I said. You asked why people aren't talking about this. I'm trying to talk about this. How about instead of cutting me out, try to have a conversation with me? In history, when people get this stuff wrong, it leads to millions of humans getting killed and many more harmed. Don't those stakes make it worth trying to get right? I think I put forth some valid challenges. Can you show me where I erred?

[john cena]

The problem with trusting a piece of paper and/or what people write down is that people can later write down that taking stuff that belongs to others is taxation and eminent domain if it's done in the name of the State. So you see, it wouldn't be defending yourself against the State, it would be you initiating the use of force against the State. That's why we need to have people representing the State, pulling you over against your will for doing things they say you can't. It's not defense if you resist because they're operating in the name of the State, it's assault and they need to escalate. "it's like rewinding Titanic and thinking that THIS time it won't sink."

How do you intend to create a DRO without writing a words on paper? How is this any different than a contract with a DRO? For example the American constitution always assumed the state owned the individuals labor, hence literal taxation. This one does not.

 

 

 

 

§10. No law shall create victimless and/or consensual crimes.

How much closer to the non aggression principle can you get than the non aggression principle reworded?

 

I didn't mean to cut you out- it seemed that you did the same to me. We are just not on the same page here, no worries.

[dsayers]

"Of every objective claim I've made, which ones do you find to be false and why?" I don't feel you've addressed this even though those objective claims addressed what you said. If you won't address this, then I won't be able to have a conversation with somebody who is output only. I've also asked a few more question that largely went unanswered. Is this what you meant by same page? Or did you mean that we exist in different realities where paper might have the capability of protecting property rights in one but not the other?

 

How do you intend to create a DRO without writing a words on paper? How is this any different than a contract with a DRO?

While DRO is undefined, I think I have a pretty good idea what is meant by it. Would it be fair to say that a comparable question would be how can one agree to terms for an auto loan without writing words on paper? The difference is that in the context of an auto loan, I own myself, the person I'm borrowing money from owns the money, and the person I'm buying the car from owns the car.

 

In order for what you continue to call a "law" to be valid, the person making it would have to own every person and thing within the boundaries they're pretending they rule over. The difference is consent. See, when a person commits theft, assault, rape, or murder, they are consenting while depriving others of consent. This is how you know the actions are (in the context of what you're saying) "illegal." Any "law" that says something other than don't steal, assault, rape, or murder has disposed of consent entirely, making it's claim of binding upon people unethical.

 

How much closer to the non aggression principle can you get than the non aggression principle reworded?

In a world where property rights cannot be protected by paper as supported by empirical evidence, how do you think this question is relevant? There's a reason why you're enthusiastically avoiding this. I hope you'll do yourself the favor of exploring why that is.

[john cena]

"Of every objective claim I've made, which ones do you find to be false and why?" 

I do not dispute any claim you made in your first post, merely  your conclusion that this is a "non-solution".

 

 

 

 

While DRO is undefined,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organization

 

We can use this definition:

 

 

 a dispute resolution organization (DRO) would be a private firm that would enforce contracts and resolve disputes on behalf of their clients, replacing services previously handled by governments. The firms would be voluntarily contracted to provide, or coordinate with other firms to provide, services such as mediation, reimbursement for damages, personal protection, and credit reporting. In essence, they combine qualities borrowed from modern private defense/police, insurancecompanies, credit ratings, and alternative dispute resolution.^[2]

 

 

 

 

In order for what you continue to call a "law" to be valid, the person making it would have to own every person and thing within the boundaries they're pretending they rule over. 

I don't see how this follows. Sure law may not be the most accurate word, in the same way as the usage of the word taxation. I am merely arguing that this is not a government. 

 

 

1. "§10. No law shall create victimless and/or consensual crimes."

This rules out anything being a crime that is not theft, assault, rape, or murder.

 

2. §7. No law shall abridge the right of persons to the control of their own bodies, nor interfere with voluntary consensual or contractual relations among adult persons, or the right to form cooperative ventures of any kind.

 

Does this not imply the ability to form other DRO's on the same piece of land? The government does not claim to "own" any of the land. It does not claim a monopoly on the use of force for the land. If you go there now, they have no capacity to remove you from the land; they do not own it any more than any settler who goes there. 

 

Help me understand if you will, how would this constitution fundamentally need to be altered in order for it to become a DRO according to your definition?

 

[dsayers]

1. "§10. No law shall create victimless and/or consensual crimes."

This rules out anything being a crime that is not theft, assault, rape, or murder.

It doesn't and for every reason I've already mentioned (longer, surrounded by more text, unnecessarily vague, pretends paper can prevent property violations, calls itself a law, predicts more laws will come...). I'm not sure why you keep posting it as if the problem isn't that I don't think it accurately describes the real world for valid reasons I have articulated, but that I just haven't seen it yet.

 

Help me understand if you will, how would this constitution fundamentally need to be altered in order for it to become a DRO according to your definition?

I never used DRO. I did use an auto loan as an example. I pointed out that the involved parties owned and/or consented to that which was being negotiated. Do you feel this differentiation for some reason would not apply to a DRO?

 

The government does not claim to "own" any of the land.

Anthropomorphism aside, yes it does. Picture any scenario that you can where somebody decreeing "No law shall create victimless and/or consensual crimes" make sense. Does it make sense for me as a stranger to come up to you and say this? If you were already a tenant in an abode I owned, would it make sense for me to say this? Of course not because while I own the abode, I don't own you. It only "makes sense" in the context of owning all things within the boundaries it's describing.

 

Besides, it doesn't even matter if the government claims to own all of the land. Earlier, I had pointed out, "In the real world, theft, assault, rape, and murder are internally inconsistent. Everything else is preference. So either the Constitution is verbose and opinion or it is superfluous." Do you accept this? It appears as if you don't, so could you kindly point out where I erred?

[RCali]

Seems like a fantasy, after a short read on wikipedia. No nation recognizes this "Liberland", including Serbia or Croatia, and that guy keeps getting arrested.

[AncapFTW]

See the thing is, the river is NOT part of disputed territory. I don't see a hydro plant being possible anytime soon, albeit croatia might sell water rights for a lot of cash.. I'm sure the government wouldn't turn the chance down.. What they REALLY need is a nuclear power plant built, THEN everything else would fall nicely into place. Water distillation, electricity, electric transport. It's a tiny place, no need for a gas station really, except maybe on the river for boats and possibly for small planes. They could also make their own cryptocurrency, which would most likely highly appreciate in value, similar to bitcoin. I wouldn't be surprised if the government funded itself by this mechanism in the future. 

One of the first things I think they should do is offer to pay both nations to give up their claim on the land, or sell it to "Liberland".  I would make the deal contingent on both countries agreeing to it, and maybe even add in some other land in the area, like some land across the river.  This would get those countries to accept them as a country.  After that, I'd join the UN, at least for a little while, so that no one could argue that you weren't a nation.

 

A nuclear plant requires huge amounts of water, and I'm not so sure that the other nations in the area would like them having nuclear fuel.  Even something as small as a coal plant could work, but they might complain about the pollution.  That's one reason I suggested wind and hydro.  Few people will complain about them.

 

I would also suggest creating a neutral area there if they are still at war, possibly getting them to turn it over to you for this purpose, or a tourist trap if they aren't.

[AncapFTW]

It doesn't and for every reason I've already mentioned (longer, surrounded by more text, unnecessarily vague, pretends paper can prevent property violations, calls itself a law, predicts more laws will come...). I'm not sure why you keep posting it as if the problem isn't that I don't think it accurately describes the real world for valid reasons I have articulated, but that I just haven't seen it yet.

 

I never used DRO. I did use an auto loan as an example. I pointed out that the involved parties owned and/or consented to that which was being negotiated. Do you feel this differentiation for some reason would not apply to a DRO?

 

Anthropomorphism aside, yes it does. Picture any scenario that you can where somebody decreeing "No law shall create victimless and/or consensual crimes" make sense. Does it make sense for me as a stranger to come up to you and say this? If you were already a tenant in an abode I owned, would it make sense for me to say this? Of course not because while I own the abode, I don't own you. It only "makes sense" in the context of owning all things within the boundaries it's describing.

 

Besides, it doesn't even matter if the government claims to own all of the land. Earlier, I had pointed out, "In the real world, theft, assault, rape, and murder are internally inconsistent. Everything else is preference. So either the Constitution is verbose and opinion or it is superfluous." Do you accept this? It appears as if you don't, so could you kindly point out where I erred?

The Constitution is meant to limit the "government", not the people in the territory.  That's what constitutions do, as do the bylaws of a company.  So, yes, it makes sense that they can say "no law can do X" without them claiming ownership over everything in the area.  Does the auto loan company have to own every car in the area to say "No loan can be for a rate of more than 10% interest"?  How about "No employee may racially discriminate against any customer?"

[dsayers]

The Constitution is meant to limit the "government", not the people in the territory.  That's what constitutions do, as do the bylaws of a company.

Already covered: "A piece of paper is not binding. History is rife with empirical evidence of a piece of paper being unable to protect property rights." "It's like getting excited about an ad in the back of a comic book. 'But it SAYS it provides x-ray vision!'"

 

As for slipping in "as do bylaws of a company" at the end, you're comparing apples to oranges, which is misleading. A company is a collection of people voluntarily trading and working together. In the event of a violation, there is consequences, recourse, and the ability to appeal to arbitration.

 

Does the auto loan company have to own every car in the area to say "No loan can be for a rate of more than 10% interest"?  How about "No employee may racially discriminate against any customer?"

Are you saying that rape is justifiable because it's mechanically identical to love making? Or can we agree that consent is a requisite for moral behaviors?

 

"No loan can be for a rate of more than 10% interest" is just a promise. If they later offered somebody a loan for 11%, the person could just not buy the car and/or their reputation would suffer. And yes, their claim refers to all cars in "the area" since "the area" is the land of the company they finance, which would in fact own every single car.

 

"No employee may racially discriminate against any customer" would be a stipulation of employment. It would be information that was presented before employment commenced and the potential employee could choose to not work there. You cannot use voluntary exchanges to derive characteristics of involuntary ones.

[bugzysegal]

Already covered: "A piece of paper is not binding. History is rife with empirical evidence of a piece of paper being unable to protect property rights." "It's like getting excited about an ad in the back of a comic book. 'But it SAYS it provides x-ray vision!'"

 

As for slipping in "as do bylaws of a company" at the end, you're comparing apples to oranges, which is misleading. A company is a collection of people voluntarily trading and working together. In the event of a violation, there is consequences, recourse, and the ability to appeal to arbitration.

 

Are you saying that rape is justifiable because it's mechanically identical to love making? Or can we agree that consent is a requisite for moral behaviors?

 

"No loan can be for a rate of more than 10% interest" is just a promise. If they later offered somebody a loan for 11%, the person could just not buy the car and/or their reputation would suffer. And yes, their claim refers to all cars in "the area" since "the area" is the land of the company they finance, which would in fact own every single car.

 

"No employee may racially discriminate against any customer" would be a stipulation of employment. It would be information that was presented before employment commenced and the potential employee could choose to not work there. You cannot use voluntary exchanges to derive characteristics of involuntary ones.

Would a certain geographical region that was completely autonomous with no governing body, who unanimously chose someone (including that someone) to speak to the ruling states so that they would be left as "sovereign", and had no law other than the private arbitration of contracts, fit your definition of anarchy? In other words, how would you strip down a state to anarchy? No constitution? fine. No monopoly of force (tricky because theoretically this could arise in a market, even though no monopoly has occurred without the state)? you got it. No politicians, (domestically because one might call the spokesperson a politician of foreign affairs), sure. What else?

[AncapFTW]

Already covered: "A piece of paper is not binding. History is rife with empirical evidence of a piece of paper being unable to protect property rights." "It's like getting excited about an ad in the back of a comic book. 'But it SAYS it provides x-ray vision!'"

 

As for slipping in "as do bylaws of a company" at the end, you're comparing apples to oranges, which is misleading. A company is a collection of people voluntarily trading and working together. In the event of a violation, there is consequences, recourse, and the ability to appeal to arbitration.

 

Are you saying that rape is justifiable because it's mechanically identical to love making? Or can we agree that consent is a requisite for moral behaviors?

 

"No loan can be for a rate of more than 10% interest" is just a promise. If they later offered somebody a loan for 11%, the person could just not buy the car and/or their reputation would suffer. And yes, their claim refers to all cars in "the area" since "the area" is the land of the company they finance, which would in fact own every single car.

 

"No employee may racially discriminate against any customer" would be a stipulation of employment. It would be information that was presented before employment commenced and the potential employee could choose to not work there. You cannot use voluntary exchanges to derive characteristics of involuntary ones.

So, you're saying that they are going to force you to do things their way, despite the fact that all of their funding is donated, they can't create laws which violate NAP, and the fact that they don't even have the power to create a rule without the majority of people accepting it?

 

What are you even talking about? 

 

Except they don't have a monopoly on anything, as their rules specifically state.  If they violate them, people will instantly know.

 

So, you didn't choose to move into the area?  You didn't chose to follow their rules when you moved there and became a member of their society?

 

So tell me, how is this NOT a DRO?  I don't see anything in the rules which specifically prevents it form being one.

[dsayers]

how would you strip down a state to anarchy?

How would you strip rape down to love making?

 

Hint: You cannot secure consent of every individual when you collectivize them. Crowd is a concept, humans actually exist.

[bugzysegal]

How would you strip rape down to love making?

 

Hint: You cannot secure consent of every individual when you collectivize them. Crowd is a concept, humans actually exist.

yes, yes arguments would render each of the problematic things non-problematic if everyone accepted them. Hell even if a lot of people just accepted them.  But would my example of anarchy satisfy your demands? Presumably everyone there who elected the spokesperseon, as well as the spokesperson would accept the arguments for anarchy, no? I mean what would you have instead of all those things I mentioned wouldn't be there?

[dsayers]

would my example of anarchy satisfy your demands?

My demands? When I became active again, I noticed that I didn't recognize your name, but your accumulated votes suggested you didn't approach problems rationally. I've hit show post every time anyways, and tried to speak with you. As time goes on, I find myself less willing to do so because you don't appear to approach problems rationally. I try not to use the word because it's largely useless anyways, but I'd even go so far as to say I've begun to suspect you are trolling.

 

So let me let you in on something that I don't think should be any secret to you: I view human interactions as voluntary or not. Even if you don't agree with this approach, you will from this point forward understand that I do. This should save you from a LOT of things you post towards me and vice versa. If it's voluntary, I don't care. If it's not voluntary, I care to the point that human aggression has been a scourge on humanity for millenia, we have all the technology and capability to not require it, it is accepted when it shouldn't be, and it's not a valid way to resolve conflicts. And because I'm pretty good at discussing it and finding contradictions in claims that it is not a valid approach.

 

You haven't put forth any way in which I've erred in the arrival of the conclusions I've put forth or any pointed out any error in objective claims I've made. All you're doing is asking me how I would do things. If it's voluntary, I don't care. You can hire somebody to speak for you all you like. I don't care. It's not until you pretend, or they pretend in your stead that it's legitimate to engage in behaviors that are binding upon others without their consent that I care. Got it?

[bugzysegal]

My demands? When I became active again, I noticed that I didn't recognize your name, but your accumulated votes suggested you didn't approach problems rationally. I've hit show post every time anyways, and tried to speak with you. As time goes on, I find myself less willing to do so because you don't appear to approach problems rationally. I try not to use the word because it's largely useless anyways, but I'd even go so far as to say I've begun to suspect you are trolling.

 

So let me let you in on something that I don't think should be any secret to you: I view human interactions as voluntary or not. Even if you don't agree with this approach, you will from this point forward understand that I do. This should save you from a LOT of things you post towards me and vice versa. If it's voluntary, I don't care. If it's not voluntary, I care to the point that human aggression has been a scourge on humanity for millenia, we have all the technology and capability to not require it, it is accepted when it shouldn't be, and it's not a valid way to resolve conflicts. And because I'm pretty good at discussing it and finding contradictions in claims that it is not a valid approach.

 

You haven't put forth any way in which I've erred in the arrival of the conclusions I've put forth or any pointed out any error in objective claims I've made. All you're doing is asking me how I would do things. If it's voluntary, I don't care. You can hire somebody to speak for you all you like. I don't care. It's not until you pretend, or they pretend in your stead that it's legitimate to engage in behaviors that are binding upon others without their consent that I care. Got it?

Ok. So voluntary is your only requirement. I was just trying to parse out what remaining problems you had with this quasi-country. I agree that a peice of paper is meaningless...that in order for there to be voluntarism people must address the arguments, and of corse only engage in consensual and voluntry behaviors. Sure, the constitution counts for nothing. Yes the whole point is meaningless unless people in the territory adopt the NAP. My question really was about seeing how you think a stateless society might function while the rest of the world endorses the state.

Also, not one post Ive made has been disengenuous or in bad faith. I merely come from an etirely different backgroud. Sometimes I do misunderstand the point of contention or underlying issue. I am not a troll however.

Also, not one post Ive made has been disengenuous or in bad faith. I merely come from an etirely different backgroud. Sometimes I do misunderstand the point of contention or underlying issue. I am not a troll however.

[john cena]

I never used DRO. I did use an auto loan as an example. I pointed out that the involved parties owned and/or consented to that which was being negotiated. Do you feel this differentiation for some reason would not apply to a DRO?

You are saying that the constitution is not voluntary? What would have to be done to this document to make it voluntary? Since the constitution only allows laws to be created that combat the initiation of force, you seem to be saying that if a murderer does not consent to being killed by the person he is attacking in self defense, then the rights of the murderer superseded the rights of the man defending himself.  I see nowhere in the constitution where it claims to be a monopoly, that is the difference here. Would not all DRO's protect against the initiation of force? Assuming they do, you seem to be implying that whenever someone forms the FIRST DRO, it is automatically a government. How do you propose that we achieve anarchy then?

 

 

Anthropomorphism aside, yes it does. Picture any scenario that you can where somebody decreeing "No law shall create victimless and/or consensual crimes" make sense. Does it make sense for me as a stranger to come up to you and say this? 

If I see someone initiating force on a peaceful person in a hypothetical free society, YES I would go up to the strange aggressor and say this, preferable with a weapon in hand, and prevent the violence from occurring. 

 

 

 I'm not so sure that the other nations in the area would like them having nuclear fuel. 

Isn't the point of this project to break FREE from statism? What is the point if we are BOWING to outside statism? The first thing they really need is a massive wall with 10,000 .50 cals all the way around the border.. THEN build a nuclear plant, in SECRET! Fool the customers into thinking they're buying geothermal energy or some bullshit! This is the free market we're talking about! Billions go a long way in traditional defense, which works as long as you don't have a major air force coming for you..

[dsayers]

What would have to be done to this document to make it voluntary?

Are you saying that you are unable to differentiate between rape and love making?

 

you seem to be saying that if a murderer does not consent to being killed by the person he is attacking

Saying the opposite of what I've said and prefacing it with "it seems" is neither honest, nor an argument. When person A attacks person B, person A is consenting to being attacked.

 

How do you propose that we achieve anarchy then?

You typed a question without the initiation of the use of force to ask how we can not initiate the use of force.

 

If I see someone initiating force on a peaceful person in a hypothetical free society, YES I would go up to the strange aggressor and say this, preferable with a weapon in hand, and prevent the violence from occurring. 

You would not run up to somebody and say, "No law shall create victimless and/or consensual crimes" because the act of communicating also demonstrates that you wish for your communication to be received, and there is no circumstance where "No law shall create victimless and/or consensual crimes" could be expected to be received.