Trump blasted a big hole in PC. In the quietude of the voting booth, half the country said ENOUGH and voted the establishment out.

well, an objectivist solution would also be one that WORKS. If a thief comes in and asks where my valuables are, I certainly would feel justified in lying to him. I am sure fat boy knows he will never actually USE his nuclear weapons, but he also knows that he can prevent invasion by having them. He appears like a madman, but in fact he isnt that at all...

Why is limiting who is invited not objective?

That is what I was thinking of when I posted it.
It's not an objectivist solution, but neither is limited immigration which was also practiced in the Gulch.

Unfortunately, the discovery was not my own:
https://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/m...

It is, however, covered in my nanotechnology class.

I can see that the NOrth Korea approach was indeed successful. Fat boy knew that if he developed nuclear weapons, he could get concessions from the biggest of the powers. He would never have to actually use any of his weapons- all he had to do is threaten to use them. He will wind up making his little shit country safe from invasion by anyone else.

Maybe the gulch could do the same.

Future societies will have to deal with this. in the meantime, pretty much for our lifetimes, we have the option of hiding in plain sight. I dont have a lot of hope for future generations, however.

Both are extremely dangerous.
Taxers are limited to a geographical region and they steal in daylight under color of law (mostly.) Banksters cross all borders and use manipulation of governments and peoples to steal (which includes bail-outs using taxes.) Banksters pretend to be honest business people and steal from their own customers. Taxers pretend to be taxing for the good of the people they steal from.

This is a very interesting scenario. My first thought is that the collectivists not only want goodies, they want to control the behavior of others. They would want to force the freedom loving people to do what they wanted, even if it didnt benefit them economically. Look at Nazi Germany. They wanted jews to be low level slaves, instead of figuring out ways to have them actually be highly productive. There is always someething to TAKE from productive people, and the collectivists would resent anything that the productive people did.

Hiding in plain sight is actually done successfully today. Keeping quiet and just fitting in without making waves will enable one to pretty much stay out of the crosshairs of collectivists. That means paying with cash, stay out of the banks, and keeping a low profile with standard looking cars, houses, clothes, etc. Another thing is to establish a network of people who you can obtain services from that accept only cash or gold or your own services in return.

Totally naive. The advantage of a gulch is that it would definitely prosper. That means that during a collectivist decline in the outside world, there would be great attraction to just take its riches and give to the 'poor'.

The gulch would have to be completely independent of the outside world, and also have 100% effective defenses to prevent an invasion. All it would take is one defector to give away secrets and blow the whole thing.

Gulch would need to be essentially completely independent of contact with the outside world. Every interaction with the collectivist world would invite detection and invasion. Going to be a bit difficult to live other than a very basic existence. I could see electricity being generated,money being developed and used, and water and food being available, but all that would have to be done without being detected by government satellites through visual observation or electronic monitoring. Plus, the selection process for residents would have to be essentially perfect, with strict rules against venturing out of the gulch

One big problem would be natural resources like iron ore, aluminum, and various chemicals needed for moderen life. They may not be available all within a suitable gulch.

All this currently would be possible with intense planning, but only on a small scale. I cant imagine a gulch of 1000+ people getting away without the collectivists wanting their cut.

A lot depends upon the severity of incursion. In competing use of force, after all negotiation is exhausted the retaliatory force should be prompt, powerful, and decisive. As history has taught, anything else means defeat, if not immediate, then eventual. The cost of invasion must be so costly as to make it not worth the trouble. It is an unfortunate mindset, but, in today's world it seems to be the only option.

First thing to do is to be invisible by being good at living in plain sight without the collectivists realizing you are there. What they dont know about, they cant attack. This means keeping quiet about your views, unfortunately, once political correctness has completely taken over and the civilization is essentially lost to the hordes. No fancy cars, big houses, expensive clothes, expensive entertainment, etc.

This only works for awhile, given the growth of government detection powers, however. After that, you just need to get as far away from collectivist civilization as you can.

You just have to have some kind of weapon which threatens MAD if an attack is launched. If you were technologically-savvy enough, you could create the ultimate computer virus which would infect and shut down any computerized equipment (good luck). As much as today's soldiering depends on their tech, this would be a pretty effective neutralizer. For the more conventional armies, you'd have to develop firearms technology to deal with the hordes.

Citizen militias were the basis for Lexington and Concorde. I don't see any reason why such couldn't be the same principle for the Gulch. I think the problem that one would run into (and which has been debated here before) is that of the free rider problem of self-defense. In order to have a functional militia, they would - like the National Guard - have to take time and specifically focus on that aspect of society - training, etc. And someone would have to pay for that training. The equipment is probably the biggest expenditure, as modern military hardware is tremendously expensive (though it could probably be argued with significant merit that the military could be run at 1/100th its current expense level).

There would also have to be some kind of ongoing reactive force always patrolling and watching for invasion, whether that be an intelligence apparatus or a formal military to watch the borders. Oh, and there would of necessity have to be borders and restricted passage.

Me dino cannot foresee any "in the real world" protection should statist progressives overwhelm our
society with enough indoctrinated snowflakes and incoming open border Jackass Party voters.
The thought police would some day obtain control of the internet and shut down such sites The Gulch.

Negative index of refraction is a tough one. It would mean that light travels faster in the hypothetical medium than it does in a vacuum, a clear violation of special relativity. If you can do that you can violate causality and even build a time machine. It would also mean a weapon of incredible power. You could alter history.

It is as if you’re much more worried about bankers then taxers. Which is more dangerous to the individual and the world?

Hiding in plain site is Google Earths draw back. Having like minded people in the same vicinity even in an already established area is viable for the group to thrive in. See Christians in China.

The two I have known about, Minerva and the boat at Saugerties-on-Hudson (both from the same bunch of folks IIRC) suffered immediate defeat through lack of foresight. They apparently thought defense would be unnecessary because they were all peace-loving libertarians.

Minerva was claimed by the King of Tonga who arrived in war canoes and evicted the settlers.

The boat was claimed by King Neptune as it sank on launch.

I put little hope in such projects.

Absolutely necessary.
Otherwise the international bankster vultures would descend and their numbers would block out the sun.

Google Earth

John Galt had a cloaking device. I can help with that. You need to make materials that have a very hard to visualize negative index of refraction.

"based on the assumption that all of the parties are rational."
It almost certainly wouldn't work for this reason. I can think of many ways it would turn to worms. Institutions that effectively protect liberty are the exception to the rule.