Atlantis must be free 2
Posted by upston 10 years, 5 months ago to Philosophy
Atlantis must be free part 2
Thanks to all who read or commented on part one. This forum separates itself from the majority in it’s thoughtful and polite responders. As I said in a response to J this concept of a Libertarian city state is real to me and not just some mind game or escapist diversion. Further the goal is not to hide from big brother or the looters in some jungle cultist enclave hoping to go unnoticed, I could do that by myself.
The goal is for a fully functional community, not to get away from it all but to take it all with us. To do that we need that most popular word in real estate form the 80s SYNERGY. A couple of hundred like minded colonists scratching out some kind of survivalist existence on a barren beach is romantic but after the first week or two just boring as hell.
To attract colonists all the basics of modern life are fundamental to success. First and foremost is security and safety, what young couple would put their children in danger by moving them to some waco cult in a distant land, a few perhaps but not the profile we need for a new beginning. We need schools and police and banks and retailers and utilities and doctors and home builders and farmers bla bla bla, the list of essential services is almost endless.
Another sticking point seems to be the “permission” factor. The concern is if given it can be take just as easily. In a thug society this is true, old Russian saying. Best form of government GOOD ZAR, worst form of government BAD ZAR. The whole point of this community is to prevent the looters from taking your stuff at the point of a gun . Permission voluntarily given by two parties or a CONTRACT is the root of all human progress.
Marriage was one of the first forms of contract, tribe A and tribe B would send an emissary to broker the girl and boy, perhaps a cow or two, in holy matrimony. Thus mixing the gene pool and promoting an alliance between the tribes, you can still behead and eat your cousin but it’s less likely. This is permission.
The world has long since divided up every inch of land and ocean so arriving on the beach and planting a flag claiming a hunk is no longer an option. Displacing a resident population by force would make us the very thugs we are complaining about. We need the permission of the current owner just as Midas Mulligan got permission via a land contract to buy the valley. Galt got permission from Mulligan in consideration for assets he provided IE the camo beam and the power generator. But he got PERMISSION from the legal owner as we must.
Perhaps a better objection is how do we enforce this contract, what remedies can protect us if the grantor wants to renege. Lets look at some history of similar agreements. Hong Kong is a small island in the South China Sea, the British needed some room to grow so leased Kowloon for 100 years from the Chinese. The colony grew into a powerhouse economy with five million citizens and one of the highest standards of living in the world. Till the commies showed up.
Like Hong Kong hundreds of duty free zones or trade zone or economic development zones have been created , usually waving all manner of taxes and regulations.. In 2003 93 countries has some kind of free trade zones with 93,000,000 workers benefiting. This is well established law and not likely to be challenged if executed properly.
Most of these trade zones are in developing countries where the promise of establishing opportunities for employment and to attract much needed capital investment is a pressing issue and that is the path of least resistance or maximum influence. Large first world governments will never give consent to a breakaway counter culture, counter to high taxes and tyrannical control. As the saying goes one bad apple spoils the whole barrel.
The competition I referred to would be among a hand picked group of well tenured sovereign democratic respected albeit small and some even unheard of nations. We would be granted our own free everything zone for a substantial one time cash prize for a suitable remote uninhabited location within the existing nation, hiding in plain sight. The permission or agreement would be voted on by the legislature and indorsed by the head of state. The first of the contestants to comply with our conditions would win the prize. Then the real fun begins.
How to finance this enterprise , set the terms and select the best five or six locations will be in part three but it’s as easy as falling of a log.
Thanks to all who read or commented on part one. This forum separates itself from the majority in it’s thoughtful and polite responders. As I said in a response to J this concept of a Libertarian city state is real to me and not just some mind game or escapist diversion. Further the goal is not to hide from big brother or the looters in some jungle cultist enclave hoping to go unnoticed, I could do that by myself.
The goal is for a fully functional community, not to get away from it all but to take it all with us. To do that we need that most popular word in real estate form the 80s SYNERGY. A couple of hundred like minded colonists scratching out some kind of survivalist existence on a barren beach is romantic but after the first week or two just boring as hell.
To attract colonists all the basics of modern life are fundamental to success. First and foremost is security and safety, what young couple would put their children in danger by moving them to some waco cult in a distant land, a few perhaps but not the profile we need for a new beginning. We need schools and police and banks and retailers and utilities and doctors and home builders and farmers bla bla bla, the list of essential services is almost endless.
Another sticking point seems to be the “permission” factor. The concern is if given it can be take just as easily. In a thug society this is true, old Russian saying. Best form of government GOOD ZAR, worst form of government BAD ZAR. The whole point of this community is to prevent the looters from taking your stuff at the point of a gun . Permission voluntarily given by two parties or a CONTRACT is the root of all human progress.
Marriage was one of the first forms of contract, tribe A and tribe B would send an emissary to broker the girl and boy, perhaps a cow or two, in holy matrimony. Thus mixing the gene pool and promoting an alliance between the tribes, you can still behead and eat your cousin but it’s less likely. This is permission.
The world has long since divided up every inch of land and ocean so arriving on the beach and planting a flag claiming a hunk is no longer an option. Displacing a resident population by force would make us the very thugs we are complaining about. We need the permission of the current owner just as Midas Mulligan got permission via a land contract to buy the valley. Galt got permission from Mulligan in consideration for assets he provided IE the camo beam and the power generator. But he got PERMISSION from the legal owner as we must.
Perhaps a better objection is how do we enforce this contract, what remedies can protect us if the grantor wants to renege. Lets look at some history of similar agreements. Hong Kong is a small island in the South China Sea, the British needed some room to grow so leased Kowloon for 100 years from the Chinese. The colony grew into a powerhouse economy with five million citizens and one of the highest standards of living in the world. Till the commies showed up.
Like Hong Kong hundreds of duty free zones or trade zone or economic development zones have been created , usually waving all manner of taxes and regulations.. In 2003 93 countries has some kind of free trade zones with 93,000,000 workers benefiting. This is well established law and not likely to be challenged if executed properly.
Most of these trade zones are in developing countries where the promise of establishing opportunities for employment and to attract much needed capital investment is a pressing issue and that is the path of least resistance or maximum influence. Large first world governments will never give consent to a breakaway counter culture, counter to high taxes and tyrannical control. As the saying goes one bad apple spoils the whole barrel.
The competition I referred to would be among a hand picked group of well tenured sovereign democratic respected albeit small and some even unheard of nations. We would be granted our own free everything zone for a substantial one time cash prize for a suitable remote uninhabited location within the existing nation, hiding in plain sight. The permission or agreement would be voted on by the legislature and indorsed by the head of state. The first of the contestants to comply with our conditions would win the prize. Then the real fun begins.
How to finance this enterprise , set the terms and select the best five or six locations will be in part three but it’s as easy as falling of a log.
They won't do it. We have to make them. I am concerned that the office of the presidency gets more powerful and the gov't gets more intrusive. My staying home or supporting some other candidate who would do the same thing is not the answer.
I'm not giving up on liberty in the US ever, so I would keep working with people such as President Obama who I think can help.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Here we have a president who has done more (and is doing more) to erode our rights, freedoms, and has publicly stated he will do whatever it takes on these issues, and yet somehow you say he will help support liberty? That is 180 degrees, not just from reality, but from both his actions (with pen and cellphone to proclaim by fiat) and his own statements.
I remember when I was younger and easily swayed, I would ignore the facts before my face and support them, much as you say you are doing, but since I have gotten older, I can discern fact from fabrication. I'm NOT saying there aren't Dems who love our country and liberty as much as we do, but (and yes, I remember well the "W" era) with the candidates they keep putting up for office, well, they're doing more to destroy the fabric of our country than build it. And I'm not talking about the diversity issue - but maybe they ought to think about putting someone up for election that would support our constitution and our American values (going back to my immigrant forefathers) rather than people who publicly vow to tear it asunder.
"Progressive" and "Conservative" in gov't threaten liberty. Unfortunately, liberty is not the natural state for human institutions, Liberty is like any ordered system, constantly requiring energy input to undo entropy.
The whole idea of building something that lives up to our American ideals of liberty is a progressive idea. It would be progressive by its nature.
I would go there for vacation, conferences, and investing.
As I said in another post, I think it's not a pipe dream. Done right, it could be a model that would force nations to question the idea of gov't being intrusive and a big chunk of GDP.
I'm not giving up on liberty in the US ever, so I would keep working with people such as President Obama who I think can help. I would like to see liberty issues become a question for debates. I would like the candidates to have answer "do we want to maintain the drug war, yes/no? Do we want to maintain an expensive standing army? Do we want to keep paying for people's retirement, medical care, disability insurance, etc? Do we want to keep sending a huge chunk of our earnings to the govt?" I would be happy just to see the questions asked, even if the answers were not my desired answers in favor of less intrusive/expensive gov't.
I want the Gulch / incubator / zona franca to be model raising these questions. "Consider the island community of Open Cay, which is technically part of the Bahamas but has almost no taxes. If it were a country, it would have the highest per capita GDP of any nation except for Qatar. Could Open Cay's policies help the US?" I want politicians to have to answer that!
Just one example of how a private business could provide "infrastructure."
All locations sound pretty good, except maybe Chile. A lot of Chile is further south, so depending on the islands location could be rough winters..
One city I lived in had an opportunity to build a solar plant on some indeveloped property that happened to be rated as one of the 10 most potentially productive hillsides in the nation for power - they could have formed a local utility, and the residents would have gotten cheap (and for the envirowhackos, green) power for the residents... not to mention it would have just looked *pretty*, like a glittering obsidian amphitheater, and would have brought the city fame for decades to come, and potentially spurred business development... OR... They could sell to a real estate developer, put ramshackle and substandard housing and McMansions on the property, and get not just all the permit and tax revenue from property sales, but the kickbacks as well *right now*... while the current city council was still in office.
Do you have to guess which way they went...
When a developer gets permits to build a subdivision,, permission, the scope of the work includes all the roads , flood controls and water reticulation parks, fire prevention ect within the development and then in addition a substantial fee paid to the city or county for expansion or upgrades to treatment plants , water wells , trash services and all the rest. Impact fee they are called, ransom is another way to look at them. I have paid fees for a city hortulacuist and a greenhouse to grow annuals to be planted in road medians. $600k for that one.
The city usually totally misuses these funds or spends many times more than a private sector builder would for the exact same thing, don’t even get me going on the DOT local state and fed, a black hole of waste and stupidity. Houston TX has a law that allows Municipal Utility Districts to be formed by the developer to provide all these systems and then charge the homeowners and business a small monthly fee to repay the costs and pay for continued maintenance and expenses. These feel are incredibly low as compared to a normal city. Trash pick up is just a few dollars a month compared to LA where I live now where it’s over $50 a month.
As Ronald Reagan told us over and over again Government can’t solve the problem, government is the problem. Please believe me the infrastructure costs are the easy part if the legal issues are resolved.
The only alternative, I suppose, is to write this kind of contract with those who own and operate "truck stops." So, fine. You get the long-haul truckers and tour bus drivers to pay that fee. The little four-wheelers pulling trailers then "skate."
Better to make that the responsibility of high-volume shippers, and those who operate restaurants, hotels/motels, theme and other parks, campgrounds, etc. that are closer than a specified distance. Even then, how do you make it worth their while?
Maybe I'm just "spit-balling," as Jack Nicholson said. We have a problem. But the government creates a worse problem.
Load more comments...