The World's Newest Libertarian Country: Liberland

[MachineGhost]

[quote=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/a ... st-country]Accessible only by car via miles of winding, dusty Croatian roads, Gornja Siga – current population zero – is an unlikely testing ground for a plan to shape the world’s political future. It is a secluded area where verdant forest meets white sand on a western bank of the river Danube. The only signs of life are a single dilapidated building with a curious flag flying outside, pheasants, deer, the occasional wild boar, and eagles and falcons overhead.

Yet last Monday the Eurosceptic Czech politician Vit Jedlicka and two other libertarians declared this 7 sq km (2.7 sq miles) of Serbo-Croat no-man’s-land the world’s newest sovereign state, naming it Liberland. Despite abstaining in Liberland’s first presidential election, Jedlicka emerged victorious, thanks to votes from his fellow founding father and Liberland’s founding mother (also his girlfriend, and now the nation’s first lady). Then things began to get weird.

In the week since Liberland announced its creation and invited prospective residents to join the project, they have received about 200,000 citizenship applications – one every three seconds – from almost every country in the world.[/quote]

[moda0306]

Accessible only by car via miles of winding, dusty Croatian roads, Gornja Siga – current population zero – is an unlikely testing ground for a plan to shape the world’s political future. It is a secluded area where verdant forest meets white sand on a western bank of the river Danube. The only signs of life are a single dilapidated building with a curious flag flying outside, pheasants, deer, the occasional wild boar, and eagles and falcons overhead.

Yet last Monday the Eurosceptic Czech politician Vit Jedlicka and two other libertarians declared this 7 sq km (2.7 sq miles) of Serbo-Croat no-man’s-land the world’s newest sovereign state, naming it Liberland. Despite abstaining in Liberland’s first presidential election, Jedlicka emerged victorious, thanks to votes from his fellow founding father and Liberland’s founding mother (also his girlfriend, and now the nation’s first lady). Then things began to get weird.

In the week since Liberland announced its creation and invited prospective residents to join the project, they have received about 200,000 citizenship applications – one every three seconds – from almost every country in the world.

I would apply too... except that I expect an unfortunate "accident" to occur to these people if this gets any traction.

One of three things will happen... with some obvious potential middle-ground...

1) It's a huge success!  Everything works great, no corruption, no invasion, no material problems ensue.  You have a more successful and peaceful society than anywhere else:

Lesson: Perhaps anarcho-capitalist libertarian societies should be far-more embraced.

2) It's a disaster due to the oft-mentioned problems of a stateless society.  Economic confidence is low, nobody wants to come there, and those who live there live their in either fear or distrust of their neighbors or the systems around them.

Lesson: Anarcho-capitalism/libertarianism doesn't really work all that well on a macro level due to internal problems of incentives on a systemic level.

3) Countries around them use their superior power to upset the libertarian experiment.  It fails not because of inherent, internal flaws, but because of outside nefarious forces.

Lesson: Anarcho-capitalism/libertarianism doesn't really work at the macro level... not because of internal economic problems, but because it is so weak in comparison to the larger economic governmental forces around the world, that it's functionally impotent as a workable economic system unless we can be assured that larger countries won't attempt to exert their negative influences.


Obviously, as mentioned, it doesn't have to be a complete domination of either trait.  Perhaps it sorta works, with some internal problems, and some external problems.

Either way, should be fun to see!  I'm all for stuff like this.

[Libertarian666]

I would apply too... except that I expect an unfortunate "accident" to occur to these people if this gets any traction.

One of three things will happen... with some obvious potential middle-ground...

1) It's a huge success!  Everything works great, no corruption, no invasion, no material problems ensue.  You have a more successful and peaceful society than anywhere else:

Lesson: Perhaps anarcho-capitalist libertarian societies should be far-more embraced.

2) It's a disaster due to the oft-mentioned problems of a stateless society.  Economic confidence is low, nobody wants to come there, and those who live there live their in either fear or distrust of their neighbors or the systems around them.

Lesson: Anarcho-capitalism/libertarianism doesn't really work all that well on a macro level due to internal problems of incentives on a systemic level.

3) Countries around them use their superior power to upset the libertarian experiment.  It fails not because of inherent, internal flaws, but because of outside nefarious forces.

Lesson: Anarcho-capitalism/libertarianism doesn't really work at the macro level... not because of internal economic problems, but because it is so weak in comparison to the larger economic governmental forces around the world, that it's functionally impotent as a workable economic system unless we can be assured that larger countries won't attempt to exert their negative influences.


Obviously, as mentioned, it doesn't have to be a complete domination of either trait.  Perhaps it sorta works, with some internal problems, and some external problems.

Either way, should be fun to see!  I'm all for stuff like this.

Your "option 3" is what will happen, as in every previous experiment of this kind, because governmental systems CANNOT allow people to see the benefits of a free society. If they did, then all the propaganda about the necessity of government would be nullified.

There are only two possible ways such an experiment can succeed:
1. After a total collapse of the governmental paradigm, probably due to fiscal disaster, or
2. If the entrepreneours find a way to deter invasion by making it too risky, e.g., a credible nuclear deterrent.

[Benko]

Your "option 3" is what will happen, as in every previous experiment of this kind, because governmental systems CANNOT allow people to see the benefits of a free society. If they did, then all the propaganda about the necessity of government would be nullified.

What has happened in the past?

[Pointedstick]

Well, the most recent serious attempt (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/09/15 ... mediately/) seems to have wound up in camp #2 so far. Perhaps they'll recover. But poor Wendy McElroy, one of the nicest Libertarians out there, fell prey to the scammers.

[Libertarian666]

Well, the most recent serious attempt (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/09/15 ... mediately/) seems to have wound up in camp #2 so far. Perhaps they'll recover. But poor Wendy McElroy, one of the nicest Libertarians out there, fell prey to the scammers.

That is not camp 2; that is just scamming, which can happen in any situation. It has nothing to do with the value of a libertarian society.

[Libertarian666]

Your "option 3" is what will happen, as in every previous experiment of this kind, because governmental systems CANNOT allow people to see the benefits of a free society. If they did, then all the propaganda about the necessity of government would be nullified.

What has happened in the past?

Here is an article with some information on that and related topics:
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/seastead ... is-project

But all you really need to know is the record of the US government, including "FATCA", in which they have forced other existing governments around the world to enforce its tax laws, not to mention all the invasions of existing countries that had policies the US government didn't approve of.

[gizmo_rat]

The Diggers in 1649, perhaps more anarcho-socialists.

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

Definitely option 3 with slander, swords and fire.

[Pointedstick]

Very interesting article. This part jumped out at me:

What do you think about the idea of starting a country by having individual families or small groups of people start seasteads, and then having them clump together over time?
It’s difficult, because people don’t work well together.

Especially libertarians don’t work well together.
Yes, I’m well aware of that. But the whole point is you have to start somewhere. If your organisation is well-structured and inclusive, it could work. The smaller your group is, the easier it is to evaporate. You somehow have to have an organisation that’s cohesive enough that it will expand very rapidly to like, 100 families, so it won’t evaporate on you.

It's good to see him acknowledging what I see as the biggest problem: that libertarians are too solitary and individualistic to succeed at creating what is a quintessentially communal enterprise: a society. It's telling that he says "people don’t work well together." Well, some people don't, and some people do! The world's best societies--the ones that are actually envied by libertarians, like Singapore, Switzerland, and New Zealand--are marked by strong shared communal social mores and a low level of diversity of all flavors--diversity of culture, background, viewpoint, outlook, and social mores. There is social harmony borne of commonality and shared culture. The USA, with its relentless focus on individuality and diversity, is if anything a better example of what happens when people are encouraged to seek their own happiness and pleasure but continue to live near to people who feel differently about things: social harmony vanishes, they don't like each other, don't work together, and things start to suck.

This business with needing a powerful military is sort of the same thing: they're focused on building one up from scratch when the obvious solution to this problem is to engage the protective services of an existing government until they can get their own defense force. But this would require diplomacy, tact, engagement with outsiders, and an honest assessment of their weaknesses. The very drive to self-sufficiency that gives libertarians their tremendous power within an existing society is the very thing that makes them weak when trying to make one of their own: everyone seeking their personal happiness does not create a society. That requires teamwork, cooperation, shared values, and a certain amount of sublimation of the self to the collective. You know, social harmony. All societies started this way.

[moda0306]

Very interesting article. This part jumped out at me:

What do you think about the idea of starting a country by having individual families or small groups of people start seasteads, and then having them clump together over time?
It’s difficult, because people don’t work well together.

Especially libertarians don’t work well together.
Yes, I’m well aware of that. But the whole point is you have to start somewhere. If your organisation is well-structured and inclusive, it could work. The smaller your group is, the easier it is to evaporate. You somehow have to have an organisation that’s cohesive enough that it will expand very rapidly to like, 100 families, so it won’t evaporate on you.

It's good to see him acknowledging what I see as the biggest problem: that libertarians are too solitary and individualistic to succeed at creating what is a quintessentially communal enterprise: a society. It's telling that he says "people don’t work well together." Well, some people don't, and some people do! The world's best societies--the ones that are actually envied by libertarians, like Singapore, Switzerland, and New Zealand--are marked by strong shared communal social mores and a low level of diversity of all flavors--diversity of culture, background, viewpoint, outlook, and social mores. There is social harmony borne of commonality and shared culture. The USA, with its relentless focus on individuality and diversity, is if anything a better example of what happens when people are encouraged to seek their own happiness and pleasure but continue to live near to people who feel differently about things: social harmony vanishes, they don't like each other, don't work together, and things start to suck.

This business with needing a powerful military is sort of the same thing: they're focused on building one up from scratch when the obvious solution to this problem is to engage the protective services of an existing government until they can get their own defense force. But this would require diplomacy, tact, engagement with outsiders, and an honest assessment if their weaknesses. The very drive to self-sufficiency that gives libertarians their tremendous power within an existing society is the very thing that makes them weak when trying to make one of their own: everyone seeking their personal happiness does not create a society. That requires teamwork, cooperation, shared values, and a certain amount of sublimation of the self to the collective. You know, social harmony. All societies started this way.

This is a pretty sound analysis.  You obviously have given this all a lot of thought.  Fun to hear the result.

[Libertarian666]

Very interesting article. This part jumped out at me:

What do you think about the idea of starting a country by having individual families or small groups of people start seasteads, and then having them clump together over time?
It’s difficult, because people don’t work well together.

Especially libertarians don’t work well together.
Yes, I’m well aware of that. But the whole point is you have to start somewhere. If your organisation is well-structured and inclusive, it could work. The smaller your group is, the easier it is to evaporate. You somehow have to have an organisation that’s cohesive enough that it will expand very rapidly to like, 100 families, so it won’t evaporate on you.

It's good to see him acknowledging what I see as the biggest problem: that libertarians are too solitary and individualistic to succeed at creating what is a quintessentially communal enterprise: a society. It's telling that he says "people don’t work well together." Well, some people don't, and some people do! The world's best societies--the ones that are actually envied by libertarians, like Singapore, Switzerland, and New Zealand--are marked by strong shared communal social mores and a low level of diversity of all flavors--diversity of culture, background, viewpoint, outlook, and social mores. There is social harmony borne of commonality and shared culture. The USA, with its relentless focus on individuality and diversity, is if anything a better example of what happens when people are encouraged to seek their own happiness and pleasure but continue to live near to people who feel differently about things: social harmony vanishes, they don't like each other, don't work together, and things start to suck.

This business with needing a powerful military is sort of the same thing: they're focused on building one up from scratch when the obvious solution to this problem is to engage the protective services of an existing government until they can get their own defense force. But this would require diplomacy, tact, engagement with outsiders, and an honest assessment of their weaknesses. The very drive to self-sufficiency that gives libertarians their tremendous power within an existing society is the very thing that makes them weak when trying to make one of their own: everyone seeking their personal happiness does not create a society. That requires teamwork, cooperation, shared values, and a certain amount of sublimation of the self to the collective. You know, social harmony. All societies started this way.

What you propose here can never happen under the current system, but not because libertarians can't work together. It can't happen because no government will agree to those terms, as doing so would make it obvious how much better such a society would be.

And for people who doubt this, ask yourselves this: "If a libertarian society would be inferior to a governmental one, WHY won't some government let the experiment occur, as that would bolster their propaganda?" The answer is obvious on its face.

[MachineGhost]

Well, the most recent serious attempt (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/09/15 ... mediately/) seems to have wound up in camp #2 so far. Perhaps they'll recover. But poor Wendy McElroy, one of the nicest Libertarians out there, fell prey to the scammers.

Scams are very common in libertarian circles.  Victims never find an anti-government message they can't drink completely: hook, line and sinker.  I've had many expensive foibles.

[MachineGhost]

And for people who doubt this, ask yourselves this: "If a libertarian society would be inferior to a governmental one, WHY won't some government let the experiment occur, as that would bolster their propaganda?" The answer is obvious on its face.

Fallacy of composition.  You might as well be talking about religion.

The core problem is libertarians lack real world experience in dealing with the public interest.  They don't know what they don't know so they can continue to engage in their adolescent wet dream fantasies.

[Libertarian666]

And for people who doubt this, ask yourselves this: "If a libertarian society would be inferior to a governmental one, WHY won't some government let the experiment occur, as that would bolster their propaganda?" The answer is obvious on its face.

Fallacy of composition.  You might as well be talking about religion.

The core problem is libertarians lack real world experience in dealing with the public interest.  They don't know what they don't know so they can continue to engage in their adolescent wet dream fantasies.

I'm sure you have a point, but it is not obvious what that point is. What does this have to do with "fallacy of composition" or religion?

As for your insults about "adolescent wet dream fantasies", referring to the possibility of living in peace with others rather than using force, I'm afraid that says much more about you than about libertarians.

[MachineGhost]

I'm sure you have a point, but it is not obvious what that point is. What does this have to do with "fallacy of composition" or religion?

As for your insults about "adolescent wet dream fantasies", referring to the possibility of living in peace with others rather than using force, I'm afraid that says much more about you than about libertarians.

Because you're engaging in conspiracy theory, which is favorite tactic of libertarians when they can't or won't acknowledge that reality is far more complex than their adolescent wet dream fantasies.

Living with peace is certainly possible with others, but it doesn't require libertarianism to do it.  It just requires a benevolent monopoly on violence.

[Pointedstick]

As for your insults about "adolescent wet dream fantasies", referring to the possibility of living in peace with others rather than using force, I'm afraid that says much more about you than about libertarians.

"Living in peace with others" is a wonderful ideal. But unfortunately, the majority of humans--including most Libertarians IMHO--are wired to be able to live in peace primarily with people who are similar to them. The greater the difference, and the greater the distance, the more people simply don't care about others and are willing to sacrifice others in harmless-seeming ways, like polluting where nobody will notice, driving aggressively, or returning a product to the store after you accidentally broke it and concealed the damage.

Again, the societies where people do seem to live in peace most with each other are not notably culturally libertarian societies. Instead, they are relatively conservative, high-homogeneity societies that work to protect and preserve a certain amount of shared sameness (otherwise known as "culture"). If these cultures suddenly changed such that the majority of people had little in common with one another except for wanting to left alone in peace, social strife would quickly result.

[Libertarian666]

As for your insults about "adolescent wet dream fantasies", referring to the possibility of living in peace with others rather than using force, I'm afraid that says much more about you than about libertarians.

"Living in peace with others" is a wonderful ideal. But unfortunately, the majority of humans--including most Libertarians IMHO--are wired to be able to live in peace primarily with people who are similar to them. The greater the difference, and the greater the distance, the more people simply don't care about others and are willing to sacrifice others in harmless-seeming ways, like polluting where nobody will notice, driving aggressively, or returning a product to the store after you accidentally broke it and concealed the damage.

Again, the societies where people do seem to live in peace most with each other are not notably culturally libertarian societies. Instead, they are relatively conservative, high-homogeneity societies that work to protect and preserve a certain amount of shared sameness (otherwise known as "culture"). If these cultures suddenly changes such that he majority of people had little in common with one another except for wanting to left alone in peace, social strife would quickly result.

Ok, but how does giving a monopoly of violence to one group of people, selected mostly for their ability to spout meaningless generalities, improve that situation? I don't see why it would, and the record of governments bears me out.

[MachineGhost]

"Living in peace with others" is a wonderful ideal. But unfortunately, the majority of humans--including most Libertarians IMHO--are wired to be able to live in peace primarily with people who are similar to them. The greater the difference, and the greater the distance, the more people simply don't care about others and are willing to sacrifice others in harmless-seeming ways, like polluting where nobody will notice, driving aggressively, or returning a product to the store after you accidentally broke it and concealed the damage.

Excellent observation and I just realized this applies to government bureaucrats vs the civilians they are supposed to be protecting (i.e. deadly vaccines).  It's not just horizontal!

[Pointedstick]

Ok, but how does giving a monopoly of violence to one group of people, selected mostly for their ability to spout meaningless generalities, improve that situation? I don't see why it would, and the record of governments bears me out.

I'm not saying it improves the situation. I'm saying it's inevitable. Or at least, it's inevitable if there is even a remote amount of diversity within the community and if the needs for defense are anything more than rudimentary. When you get a bunch of personal happiness-seeking individuals in the same place, they don't create a society. They bicker and quarrel because each other person represents a potential infringement on personal freedom and is user of potentially-available resources. A society needs a strongly-shared culture to be a society in the first place, and that culture has to have social norms that act as social lubricants. The desires to be left alone in peace and transact with others only minimally and on a purely voluntary basis do not make up a culture; in fact, if anything, they are the opposite of social lubricants: such prickly attitudes are off-putting to others.

[Pointedstick]

"Living in peace with others" is a wonderful ideal. But unfortunately, the majority of humans--including most Libertarians IMHO--are wired to be able to live in peace primarily with people who are similar to them. The greater the difference, and the greater the distance, the more people simply don't care about others and are willing to sacrifice others in harmless-seeming ways, like polluting where nobody will notice, driving aggressively, or returning a product to the store after you accidentally broke it and concealed the damage.

Excellent observation and I just realized this applies to government bureaucrats vs the civilians they are supposed to be protecting (i.e. deadly vaccines).  It's not just horizontal!

Exactly. Politicians and government bureaucrats are so far away and culturally removed from the people who they rule over that it's really easy and seemingly harmless to hurt them for "the greater good." This applies in all realms. It's why small societies with less diversity are more cohesive than large diverse ones. Observe how the largest and most diverse countries in the world (China, India, USA, Indonesia) have large and overwhelming central governments that desperately try to keep order among the disparate groups that have little in common. It's not a coincidence, IMHO. You need to be small and homogenous for anything approximating a libertarian society to work. Unfortunately, that leads to problems of defenselessness.

[Libertarian666]

Ok, but how does giving a monopoly of violence to one group of people, selected mostly for their ability to spout meaningless generalities, improve that situation? I don't see why it would, and the record of governments bears me out.

I'm not saying it improves the situation. I'm saying it's inevitable. Or at least, it's inevitable if there is even a remote amount of diversity within the community and if the needs for defense are anything more than rudimentary. When you get a bunch of personal happiness-seeking individuals in the same place, they don't create a society. They bicker and quarrel because each other person represents a potential infringement on personal freedom and user of resources. A society needs a strongly-shared culture to be a society in the first place, and that culture has to have social norms that act as social lubricants. The desire to be left alone in peace and only transact with others only minimally and voluntarily do not make up a culture; in fact, if anything, they are the opposite of social lubricants: such prickly attitudes are off-putting to others.

I don't agree. I have no trouble living and letting live with people I don't agree with, such as my neighbors. The government is of absolutely no assistance in that situation.

I guess the problem is that most people won't live by the Golden Rule because they think they get an advantage by disobeying it, even though that is not correct, at least in most cases.

[MachineGhost]

I guess the problem is that most people won't live by the Golden Rule because they think they get an advantage by disobeying it, even though that is not correct, at least in most cases.

Yep, and that's why an ultimate authority or government is "necessary", though it can certainly be structured a lot better than at present.

[moda0306]

Ok, but how does giving a monopoly of violence to one group of people, selected mostly for their ability to spout meaningless generalities, improve that situation? I don't see why it would, and the record of governments bears me out.

I'm not saying it improves the situation. I'm saying it's inevitable. Or at least, it's inevitable if there is even a remote amount of diversity within the community and if the needs for defense are anything more than rudimentary. When you get a bunch of personal happiness-seeking individuals in the same place, they don't create a society. They bicker and quarrel because each other person represents a potential infringement on personal freedom and user of resources. A society needs a strongly-shared culture to be a society in the first place, and that culture has to have social norms that act as social lubricants. The desire to be left alone in peace and only transact with others only minimally and voluntarily do not make up a culture; in fact, if anything, they are the opposite of social lubricants: such prickly attitudes are off-putting to others.

I don't agree. I have no trouble living and letting live with people I don't agree with, such as my neighbors. The government is of absolutely no assistance in that situation.

I guess the problem is that most people won't live by the Golden Rule because they think they get an advantage by disobeying it, even though that is not correct, at least in most cases.

Except all these people WANT government.  They get along with you, but then actively advocate for something you see as a threat to your life and freedom.  So the government IS an assistance to their situation... just not yours... or at least not the way you see it.

[Pointedstick]

I don't agree. I have no trouble living and letting live with people I don't agree with, such as my neighbors. The government is of absolutely no assistance in that situation.

I guess the problem is that most people won't live by the Golden Rule because they think they get an advantage by disobeying it, even though that is not correct, at least in most cases.

Exactly. It won't work because everyone would have to share your moral and political beliefs. But even if that happened, it would be an un-cohesive society because the only people who are attracted to libertarianism are the highly intelligent and independent-minded. Such folks are bad at making a society; they are poor at sublimating their own preferences and beliefs to the need for social cohesion. They hate social cohesion; to them it's stifling. Without that social cohesion, there is a baseline low level of distrust and animosity that may get very high in times of turmoil. Instead of banding together, people drift apart and the social fabric frays. Consider how common the fantasy of lone survivalism is among libertarian-minded people. And yet this is probably the least effective approach in a disaster. Lone survivalists would be easily picked off by bands of raiders. Groups are stronger than individuals. Libertarians hate that. But the acknowledgement of that fact is step 1 of creating a society.

[Libertarian666]

I don't agree. I have no trouble living and letting live with people I don't agree with, such as my neighbors. The government is of absolutely no assistance in that situation.

I guess the problem is that most people won't live by the Golden Rule because they think they get an advantage by disobeying it, even though that is not correct, at least in most cases.

Exactly. It won't work because everyone would have to share your moral and political beliefs. But even if that happened, it would be an un-cohesive society because the only people who are attracted to libertarianism are the highly intelligent and independent-minded. Such folks are bad at making a society; they are poor at sublimating their own preferences and beliefs to the need for social cohesion. They hate social cohesion; to them it's stifling. Without that social cohesion, there is a baseline low level of distrust and animosity that may get very high in times of turmoil. Instead of banding together, people drift apart and the social fabric frays. Consider how common the fantasy of lone survivalism is among libertarian-minded people. And yet this is probably the least effective approach in a disaster. Lone survivalists would be easily picked off by bands of raiders. Groups are stronger than individuals. Libertarians hate that. But the acknowledgement of that fact is step 1 of creating a society.

I disagree that the "highly intelligent and independent-minded.... are bad at making a society". What is your evidence for this assertion, aside from citing the "common...fantasy of lone survivalism"? You might as well claim that all women want to be tied up and whipped because of the popularity of "Fifty Shades of Grey"!

Maybe such people are bad at submitting to those who want to rule them, but that is hardly the same thing, and may not even be true, given that IQ and the possession of a criminal record are inversely rather than directly correlated.

Again, I don't have any trouble getting along with people so long as they don't try to make me do things against my will, and I don't do that to them, as that would violate the Golden Rule.