Libertarian Country?

[Rearden Metal]

http://libertariannation.org/a/toward.html

Originally published as an 8-page booklet in January, 1993.
This became the founding prospectus for the Free Nation Foundation

TOWARD A FREE NATION
by Richard O. Hammer

A free nation?
A thought recurs — as government encroaches more on me and as I meet with others who suffer under the encroachment of government — I think again:

We who want liberty should build our own nation.

This idea will stun some, and make others laugh. But it seems possible to me.

We have the resources. On this planet there are enough people who want liberty to populate a nation. And there is enough capital — held by investors who want the benefits of free markets, but who need to be assured of the security of their investment.

This booklet says more about pursuing the goal of a free nation, and comments upon the movement I hope will unfold.

How?
Nations come and go. World events show this. How could a libertarian nation be started? Surely there are many ways, but here, to tempt you to believe that it might be possible, I will tell one scenario.

A movement comes together and, over time, builds credibility. It gathers a long list of supporters. It collects options on assets to invest in the new country. Then it watches and waits for the right opportunity.

The government of some poor, third-world country, struggling to stay in control, indicates willingness to deal: to lease an underpopulated, but habitable, corner of itself. The lease provides for sovereignty as a separate nation, for 99 years, and includes promises of mutual non-aggression.

The new nation signs treaties with neighboring states, and with a few major powers. From its birth the new nation has a small but respectable national defense.

On start-up day an auction is held for real estate within the new nation. Shares to bid in this auction are issued in proportion to the assets contributed in payment of the lease.

If this is done properly it should be possible to gather the assets to pay the lease, because these assets are not given away, but rather invested in what should become a strong business climate.

While this scenario seems to me as likely as any, we can envision other scenarios if we take a broader view. Most governments, it seems, have lives which someday end. But the death of a government does not mean that the land has sunk into the ocean, or that the people have all died.

Some new political order always comes in on the old piece of land. During this time it often happens that boundaries change, and it often happens that the number of nations on a given piece of land changes.

We libertarians can aim to influence this process. After we have organized and done our homework, I believe, in the right moment, we can negotiate for some land on which we establish our own style of self government.

The biggest problem — credibility.
Most people will not buy these ideas. Naturally they doubt that this can be pulled off.

But take a little trip of the imagination with me:

Imagine that you have just seen, on the evening news, that a poor, third-world country has signed a lease to cede, for 99 years, land to create a tiny, autonomous country. The report tells that the new country has signed treaties with two of the world's major powers, and with neighbors.

The report describes the constitution of the new country as "more libertarian than ever before." Finally it tells that the new nation is open to people who may want to buy property there, or move there.

Imagine this has happened. Do you think there would be a shortage of people to move to the new country, or a shortage of money to buy property in it?

If you believe, as I do, that there would be an ample supply of both settlers and investors, then you may agree with my point here. This movement does not lack either people or capital. It lacks credibility, believability. If credibility can be built, people and capital will follow.

To build credibility, I propose to create and manage the Free Nation Foundation, a forum for meeting, publishing, debating.

Why so radical a proposal?
Imagine you are on a ship and there are no lifeboats. A hole breaks in the hull. Water gushes in. Many people bail. They yell to you, "bail, bail!" But you can not tell if bailing will save the ship. You look around and see materials which might be made into crude lifeboats. Do you bail, or build?

Albert Jay Nock, in Our Enemy the State, foresees unstoppable growth of the American government. This growth, he says, brings corruption, enfeeblement, and eventual collapse. I do not know if he is right, but in my view the evidence seems to support his pessimism.

 

[Rearden Metal]

(Libertarian Nation-continued)


To bail, to save our present state, one has to work within existing political institutions. Somehow one has to convince a majority of the electorate that it is in their best interest to surrender most of the powers that majority rule gives them over their neighbors. But it seems to me that people almost never surrender real power over one another.

People seem willing to surrender power only when the "power" is so feeble as to be useless: as a parent might give up trying to steer a strong-willed teenager; as Russian people gave up on centralized planning only when they finally believed that their state, in spite of its might, had no power to improve the economy.

In contrast, Americans, it seems to me, still believe that their government has power to do anything it wants. I fear that they will try harder, ever more desperately, to apply that "power" to fix an ever worsening situation. I fear they will not see the folly till they see that the "power" is empty. That will be when, I fear, the state is near collapse, and not before.

Many good people are bailing, working to turn the tide in the way Americans cast their votes. I also spend time bailing — it seems such a natural thing to do.

But whether bailing will succeed I do not know. To me there is enough doubt that it seems prudent to start designing a lifeboat.

Hasn't this been tried before?
There have been several attempts to start small, libertarian countries. All have failed. A book, How to Start your own Country, by Erwin S. Strauss, tells about these attempts.

It seems to me that none of these attempts had a significant chance. Not enough groundwork had been done before the flags were hoisted.

The approach of the Free Nation Foundation differs. It proposes, for the time, to do nothing but groundwork. It would not suggest trying to obtain real estate till the force of a nation — people, assets, treaties — were in place.

This is a "Front Door" approach. We would seek what we want openly, through negotiations in good faith, from a position of practical and financial strength.

How does the Free Nation Foundation fit in the libertarian movement?
The market of the Free Nation Foundation will be people who are already libertarian. It will be people who would agree that they would like to live or invest in a libertarian country, if such could be created. Thus, unlike most other libertarian organizations, the Free Nation Foundation will not try to persuade people to adopt the libertarian way of thinking.

Why focus only on people who are already libertarian? First, because the effort to persuade other people is already undertaken by many good individuals and organizations. Second, because we can move directly toward our goal if we avoid the tangle of trying to persuade others.

Most of what we libertarians express, it seems to me, aims to build bridges. As such, this expression does not say clearly what we would build, if we could, at the other end of the bridge. Other expression, produced by theorists within our movement, leads us to new horizons of thought. But this expression usually cannot be translated to a plan which we might expect to work with the people and politics in this day.

As such the libertarian movement, to my knowledge, presently has no forum within which we state clearly what kind of nation we think we could build if we had the opportunity. The Free Nation Foundation proposes to move into this niche.

As a side effect, our definition of what we want to build, might win converts. Some of our adversaries have resisted our efforts at building bridges because they have mistrusted our motives. But if we develop a clear description of what we want to build, some, who care to study our goal, may stop resisting our effort to get there.

Of course we must recognize that libertarians do not all agree. Some will object, saying that it is wrong to talk about establishing a libertarian government — that there can be no such thing as a government which is libertarian. This may be true. But I want to work now to put together a plan that I am confident can be carried out in the foreseeable future. I am willing to compromise within the range of libertarian ideas.

And other libertarians will object, saying a free nation is doomed to fail because governments always grow, and this one will be no different. I have the same concern. But history shows that nations come and go. The free nation movement can work within this trend, striving not for perfection, but for the best we can build now.

It is said that the United States had a fairly libertarian government during its first century or so. Most Americans (except the slaves) enjoyed many freedoms. I would be satisfied if we, now, could do as well — if we could establish a nation which keeps most of its freedoms for a century.

For libertarians who are not satisfied with the compromises made to create a free nation, that nation could at least offer a place to live — and within which to plan the next, better society.

How will the Free Nation Foundation relate to others, outside the libertarian movement?
While the Free Nation Foundation will serve libertarians, others will ask about us. We must respond appropriately.

We will be permitted to pursue our goal if we can be accepted. We should aim to be accepted. We probably cannot expect, in the present, to be understood. With luck we will be respected. But respect, to the extent that we gain it, will come because we have acted respectably.

As a model for how we might hope to be viewed, I think of some of the religious communities in early America. I believe that some of these communities did a good job with their public relations because of the way they handled their differences. They respected the rights of their neighbors and asked only to be left free to order their own lives. They did not attempt to press their views on others, though they were willing to explain, and glad to welcome converts. They helped their neighbors through mutually beneficial trade.

The free nation movement offers benefits not only to libertarians — but also to those who have historically been our adversaries. By seeking separation, we are offering to stop resisting their programs. We are bringing nearer the day when they will be able to direct as they choose in their own realm.

We will be saying to them:

Let us respect the choices we would each make for ourselves. We will endorse your right to establish the order under which you would feel comfortable — if you will endorse our right to establish a separate realm, with our own style of self government.

We can all benefit from the movement to allow small new nations. Let us test various schemes of government. This way all can have more choices about the political environment in which to live, and all can learn from the experiences of each.

 

[TGregg]

Been tried, tried and tried again. Here's just one attempt (possibly the most well known):

http://libertariannation.org/a/f63k1.html

The ad in the June 1995 Economist:

<IMG SRC=http://seasteading.org/files/lfc_economist_ad.jpg>

Another attempt that might actually be still underway:

http://seasteading.org/mission/intro

Another link:

http://libertariannation.org/

Some facts about a new Libertarian Utopia:

There've been countless numbers pitched to wealthy individuals. Every stinkin' one has been a scam.

Others have fallen apart apparently due to eye popping incompetence. LFC for instance, had a number of completely clueless people running it. (Yes, I talked to some of them)

Experience suggests that building a group of capable and intelligent people for this purpose is almost impossible. Wealthy, capable, hard working, sane, intelligent people already have a pretty good gig going somewhere. Sure, they might move to Galt's Gulch once it's well established. But (so far) they are not ready to jump on the ground floor with both feet.

You can argue about whether it's possible. Fact is, it has been repeatedly tried and every effort either was a scam to begin with and/or it failed. And not just failed, but failed so miserably as to not even be a joke. Absolute pathetic failures, almost as if they were all run by kids living in their mom's basements.

 

[TGregg]

Here's a fine example of one reason why these things never get off the ground. Check the end of this page:

http://libertariannation.org/a/toward.html#8.0

They outline their steps, their plan to set up a libertarian country.

Phase One:
Step One: Set up forums
Step Two: Publish a newsletter

Phase Two:
Step One: Continue forums
Step Two: Draft various national documents (constitution, laws, etc)
Step Three: Publish a journal

Phase Three:
Step One: Move in?

OK, so I made up Phase Three . But the first two phases are intellectual masturbation. I don't have a master plan to build a free country any more than I have a master plan to get a super model to move in with me. But if somebody presented this plan below, I'd have the same reaction - it's #@*&ing stoopid:

Phase One:
Step One: Read a book on opening lines
Step Two: Grow a beard

Phase Two:
Step One: Read a book on wine
Step Two: Get hair cut

Phase Three:
GET LAID!!!! BANG A SUPER MODEL!!! OH YEAH!!!!

 

[Ghost of Cutten]

Quote from TGregg:


Experience suggests that building a group of capable and intelligent people for this purpose is almost impossible. Wealthy, capable, hard working, sane, intelligent people already have a pretty good gig going somewhere. Sure, they might move to Galt's Gulch once it's well established. But (so far) they are not ready to jump on the ground floor with both feet.

You can argue about whether it's possible. Fact is, it has been repeatedly tried and every effort either was a scam to begin with and/or it failed. And not just failed, but failed so miserably as to not even be a joke. Absolute pathetic failures, almost as if they were all run by kids living in their mom's basements.

That's true of almost all worthwhile innovations - medicine killed more patients than it cured all the way from the dawn of science up to around the 18th century; for 1000s of years, all attempts at flight had a 100% failure rate, most of them fatal failures. Ditto for democracy - it was tried in flawed form (where a minority had the vote in 1 or 2 countries), lasted for a bit, then died out for a long time. It's only in the last 100 years that democracies have existed. Or for the slavery abolition movement - that was useless for millenia. Up until the 19th century, there had never been a successful slave revolt. Europe had major wars all the way to 1945, since then there has not been a single continent-wide war.

It's the nature of difficult tasks that most attempts fail. Most people are not good at performing difficult tasks. That in no way implies that they are impossible. Defeatism is one of the main reasons human progress is so slow.

 

[Ghost of Cutten]

I think one of the big problems would be that many supporters would be ideological, theory-based worshippers of dogma - a bit like the marxists, or the Iranian theocrats. A bunch of dogmatic libertarian ideologues in power could be pretty dangerous. It is not hard to envisage some libertarian ideas that would create a true hellhole of a society.

For example, imagine a corporation pushing a more addictive drug than crack cocaine to 16 year olds, or casino companies using google data to target known gambling addicts with pop up and email adds allowing them to empty their life savings in half an hour. Addiction overrides free will, it is definitely less free to be an addict than a non-addict, yet a certain strand of libertarian thought ignores this distinction and would promote widespread behaviour that would reduce the liberty of a lot of society.

Another example is open borders. With true open borders and democracy, China or Iran could easily send 5 million people in, vote themselves into power, and end your freedom overnight. And without any standing army or wartime draft, you are a sitting duck for any well-armed state that wants to take you over. Without the ability to raise taxes, there would be no state, which would leave the country vulnerable to capture by a dictator or foreign power.

Total freedom of contract would lead to some nasty outcomes. Teenage drug addict street hookers selling kidneys. Broke people letting reality tv shows amputate their limbs on live tv in return for money. People in desperate situations being given the choice of die or sign horrific terms such as lifelong slavery. Complex contracts which trick people into signing away their life savings etc.

Total freedom of speech would mean there'd be economic incentive to film and photograph everyone in private situations, then release the stuff in public. You could use small hidden cameras to spy on people then broadcast their sex lives, toilet habits, nose-picking, bank account details, income etc. There would be no privacy.

A 100% libertarian society would be as bad as 1984.

 

[TheStudent]

I am a self-identified libertarian, but I am wary about the limits of implementing a libertarian state.

I haven't thought through this entirely, but I guess one reason why a libertarian state won't be coming to us in the near future is because of defence.

Assume you get the land, forget about how for a moment. And you get competent people to move in. Assume then economically productive things come out of this land.

Eventually some nation will muscle in and want to conquer the land. Will libertarians come together and form an army to defend their land? And assuming they are able to do so, will the necessary command structures you need for an army be voluntarily dismantled after the victorious war of defence? Will the concentration of power be tossed aside? Or will selfish interest prevail, causing the leaders to perpetrate propaganda to stoke fears that will allow them to maintain their privileged position?

I don't think you can count on ideological zeal to trump the corruption of power and the ability of smarter individuals to manipulate and control lesser individuals for their own short sighted benefit.

In some sense Africa is a truly free market ...

 

[Ghost of Cutten]

I think the main argument against this is it's just another crusade. Starting a new country is a monumental effort and very difficult to do successfully, and involves enormous self-sacrifice. Unless there is no nation on earth with any liberty at all, it probably isn't worth doing, at least not for self-interested reasons.

The more pragmatic option is simply to find the current country with the laws and de facto enforcement most in line with one's personal views on liberty. It doesn't matter much if something is illegal so long as the penalties and enforcement are minimal. And it doesn't matter much if some of your liberties are restricted if you have no desire to exercise them. For example, I don't think it should be illegal to play tiddlywinks, but if an otherwise libertarian country made it a crime to play tiddlywinks in public, it would not affect my quality of life too much. In an imperfect world, you have to settle for "least bad" rather than any kind of ideal.

I think it's worth revisiting this thread to decide which countries at the moment offer the environment most suited to those who desire liberty.

 

[phenomena]

I don't think that the concept of a "libertarian state" lacks provision for national defense. In fact, to reference the laissez faire theory, that's one of the few things which the state is actually responsible for. I think that during the most libertarian periods of American and European history, the record is clear that rather stout national defense forces did exist.

It seems like your assertion is that if there is to be a "libertarian state" that it will lack a national defense force. However, I disagree with that assertion and feel like historical examples support my view.

Quote from TheStudent:

I am a self-identified libertarian, but I am wary about the limits of implementing a libertarian state.

I haven't thought through this entirely, but I guess one reason why a libertarian state won't be coming to us in the near future is because of defence.

Assume you get the land, forget about how for a moment. And you get competent people to move in. Assume then economically productive things come out of this land.

Eventually some nation will muscle in and want to conquer the land. Will libertarians come together and form an army to defend their land? And assuming they are able to do so, will the necessary command structures you need for an army be voluntarily dismantled after the victorious war of defence? Will the concentration of power be tossed aside? Or will selfish interest prevail, causing the leaders to perpetrate propaganda to stoke fears that will allow them to maintain their privileged position?

I don't think you can count on ideological zeal to trump the corruption of power and the ability of smarter individuals to manipulate and control lesser individuals for their own short sighted benefit.

In some sense Africa is a truly free market ...

 

[Ghost of Cutten]

"I don't think you can count on ideological zeal to trump the corruption of power and the ability of smarter individuals to manipulate and control lesser individuals for their own short sighted benefit."

Historically, in fairly free countries like 19th century USA or UK, the military was strong, but preserved rather than threatening liberty (at least at home). The main threat to liberty came from democratically elected politicians and the popular vote, or foreign invasion (which the military stopped). The welfare state was a grass roots movement for example, slavery was imposed by democracy not by military coup (the military actually is what stopped slavery e.g. Civil War, or the Royal Navy confiscating slave ships on the high seas), prohibition was voted in etc.

So in democracies, normal people and their petty fears & lack of respect for the rights of others are the biggest threat to liberty. That is why things like slavery, serfdom, and racism exist or existed, and why unfettered democracy is always anti-freedom.

And as demonstrated, yes, you can count on culture to prevent threats to liberty. The military in the UK or USA or any first world country could easily topple the government in a few days and take power. The ONLY thing stopping them is their own self-restraint. And where does that self-restraint come from? From the military's adherence to principles of liberty and democracy. And that comes from the general culture of the people.

Democracy is very good at one thing - stopping smart, powerful and corrupt individuals from keeping power for too long, or doing too much damage. You can fool the people for some of the time, but not indefinitely. As long as there is widespread cultural commitment to democracy, and it is maintained, then abuse of power is kept in check. Africa's problem is not corrupt individuals (there are plenty in the west, and many are FAR more rich and powerful than any African tycoon or politician), but rather a lack of commitment to enforce democratic checks on power and its abuse. Parts of Africa are, or used to be, a relatively anarchistic political system, and that is why libertarian political theory supports a strong (but small) state, to prevent thugs taking power in a state of anarchy. None of the African dictators would have been a problem if they had been voted out of office, and then arrested once they refused to comply.