Fuck income tax
Fuck the drug war
Fuck the NSA
Fuck the alphabet letter agencies
And most of all, fuck your precious roads
Give me liberty or give me death.
Here's some tunes for the thread,
I'm not shitposting, I'm defending freedom and liberty from bootlickers.
My kind of thread.
I'm just going to post pics I think are cool.
Required reading material.
You have to be a radical or your message is completely lost.
Rand deserves respect for his anti-NSA activity but at the end of the day he is a pale imitation of his father.
>People should have the right of self-determination!
Key word. People should have the right to hire a ruler for themselves, but they shouldn't have the right to hire that ruler to determine things for others.
Just so we're clear, we're all constitutionalist libertarians here, right?
Pic related is moral degeneracy in it's highest form.
>Trying this hard to be an American
I NEED MORE SNEK FLEGS
I'm an anarcho-capitalist but I also have a soft spot for Minarchism.
I'll let my man Spooner explain why I'm no longer a constitutionalist libertarian.
They both have rules, since people generally like not to be murdered or stolen from. The difference being that anclapism has no coersive government to monopolize certain services, and instead relies on a competing system of private courts and security firms on the open market.
>Having 40% of your money stolen isn't a good enough reason to be upset.
Found the bootlicker. You're fucking pathetic.
Theft is immoral, in virtually every society (even if you support moral relativism). Taxation involves the forceful appropriation of property, ostensibly in exchange for goods and services. However, unlike conventional contractual arrangements, the "purchase" of these services is not optional.
A mafioso informing you that you are living in his territory and are thereby obligated to pay for his protection services would be considered theft by virtually everyone, taxation is fundamentally no different.
Of course, you then get into the discussion of implicit vs. explicit consent, taxation vs. rent, etc. I don't feel up to it today, so I'll direct you to >>61119494 and you can see the arguments laid out clearly and methodically.
>Aaaayyy bro hows the weed doing?
To nobody's surprise, dudeweed is a complete pussy and will be unlikely to deliver anything other than more refugees and socialism. You'd love it.
You have a very poor understanding of income tax.
Nice argument sir!
You really have no understand of either history, politics, law or economics, do you brother fuckhead?
How can it be stealing, if the law says otherwise? How can a fundamental human right, like the right to private property, be upheld without a government? By arming oneself? You sir are a complete lunatic. Step out of your nightmare
>how can the right to private property be upheld without government
Seriously? With a gun.
Okay, but taxation isnt theft. That premise is missing in your argument. Im not pro-state in every aspect of it, but really bro .... Locke, Hobbes, Machiavelli - havent you guys read any of this?
>You really have no understand of either history, politics, law or economics, do you brother fuckhead?
I've taken a few full credit economic classes at uni and have an average over 90%.
>How can a fundamental human right, like the right to private property, be upheld without a government?
By hiring private protection firms, forming a local militia or using my own two God given hands.
>Step out of your nightmare
I'm trying to get away from the hellscape created by government.
You commie faggots honestly make me sick. If the government told you they're seizing your property, you'd probably just roll over and ask them to fuck your ass while they're at it.
Not a nihilist.
I just crave freedom and justice.
>why was it even your money in the first place?
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?
Yeah except for the part where commies want to tear down civil liberties and build up bigger centralized government whereas libertarians want to do just the opposite.
What's your point
Again, I direct you to Huemer's work. He (among others, of course) methodically addresses and refutes the common arguments for social contract theory. Your line of reasoning rests on the premise that this theory is valid and correct, but you have to first establish this before you can build a political philosophy on it.
You're goddamn right they do.
Who has given the private firms the right to uphold any 'rules' or 'laws'? Consent? Same shit with a government...
How about if someone hires a more militarized security firm, invents a new "right" which you dont know of, takes all your shit and fucks you on the way out, only to leave a note that says he will be back for more? You gonna hire an EVEN MORE militarized security firm? You are living in a ideological dystopia of total fucking war
>How about if someone hires a more militarized security firm, invents a new "right" which you dont know of, takes all your shit and fucks you on the way out
How would he afford this massive security firm? Who would want to be their clientele?
How? Humanity has existed for tens of thousands of years based on tribalism and strong borders. We still, in a sense, are. I see nothing wrong with having clearly marked borders separating different ways of living and defending those borders as best you can.
The alternative is what you see today, proxy wars funded by the global elite stealing money off the working man for their own greed and protected by a centralized military force.
At least if it was the other way around, there might still be some semblance of political coherence in the world instead of this clusterfuck of federal lies upon lies distorting the truth at every turn.
Locke - two treatises on government. Read "on slavery" and "on political society and the goals of governing"
I do not need to make an argument for that, Locke did. Its 0225 AM here, i will check up on your advised literature on the morrow sir
>Who has given the private firms the right to uphold any 'rules' or 'laws'? Consent? Same shit with a government.
Nope, I can cancel my payments and they can sit and spin. What are they gonna do, ding my credit?
>You gonna hire an EVEN MORE militarized security firm?
Nah but they would need to fight my PMC and that costs money and would lead to people leaving the area. That would result in no money for anyone.
Who doesn't? What you refer to as 'societal norms' have always been fleeting political discourse. Right now, in america anyway, there's a two sided battle. One side wants to extend government and the other wants to shrink it. On that spectrum are various degrees to how badly people want either side. There's virtually nobody who wants things to remain static.
Governments compete for labor, capital, citizens...etc. They are constantly trying to restructure themselves more efficiently and outdo their opponents. Like any private corporation, they make deals and contracts and negotiations with their competitors.
The only question is, where is the citizen's role in the government? Are they simply an extension of the will of the body politic? Or are they granted individual rights and liberties....etc?
Governments are "private institutions". And libertarians are essentially consumer advocates
Which in todays world we know as songun juche. Just without a central government to uphold these ideas.
Im also highly in favour of all nations closing their Borders, but i also do realize that this action need a central power (or 100% consent of all involved parties)
Nah just set up a few of these bad boys with real funs. Defense is cheap.
>$649, In Stock.
Question about American economic history.
We all know that the usual answer that idiot historians give when asked about the origins of the Great Depression is that "the free market did it" even though it's bullshit and FDR's New Deal only prolonged it but what about earlier depressions and panics? For example the one in the 1890s or during TR's presidency. This was before the Fed was established. What caused them and what ended them? Is it true that JP Morgan helped ending it?
No im implying that there would be nothing to stop them, besides local action. Thid id the state of total war. The state of total war is not an ongoing armed conflict, but a situation where no institite of power can prevent any of these. By forming central powers, this state of total war is giving a hiraki, where the souveren of a state has to fullfill the security measures, and not the individuals - thus giving the individual freedom to seek the life of ones wishes
Pmease excuse my english it is my third language
If there is no law, there is no institute of power to uphold any rights. If you sre born into a voluntarist society, which has adapted certain guidelines that ypu dobt agree with, those guidelines would force you as much as a modern law would.
Also the locals could kill you for driving on roads build by them, which you havent contributed to
Make any action excessively costly and make it clear that we just want to be left alone.
Defense is orders of magnitude cheaper than offense and I we explicitly and frequently express a desire for peaceful co-existence there is no pretext for aggression.
Justice and liberty for all.
In reality this whole "hired" courts isnt even that impossible. In fact it is already happening.
Some corporations include in their contracts that they will use certain experts as judges in the case of a disute (arbitration clauses for example).
In reality most of the time this is way faster than using regular courts. Of course lots of corps just put in their contracts that Delaware law applies where the courts are also very quick and knowledgeable about certain (corporate) laws.
In fact Delaware in itself coould already be seen as a kind of "hired" security and law service. So much money goes through that state that they can hire the best jurists for their courts and lots of top-tier law firms are attracted to this.
So in essence it really is not so impossible.
In general corporations are getting more and more flexible when it comes to this stuff. Complete law firms get hired to calculate win-loss percentages in tax related disputes with the state. Law firms are creating "dynamic" work pools (sort of freelance lawyers on which the firms can at all times outsource excessive amounts of work) to better be able to absorb huge amounts created in times of high volumes of Mergers and Acquisitions, etc.
There are lots of things possible.
If there is no government, then who can grsnt you the right to be left alone on "your" property. Sure - ypu can build a house, which is yours. But how will you claim ownership of the ground the house is build on?
>bigger guns what dont you commies understand?!
Liberty or death bootlicker.
I'd rather die a freeman than live a slave.
>You are living in a ideological dystopia of total fucking war
Dude, what you described is just the same with what happens with nations between themselves or even within a nation. Look at how for example Julius Caesar used his legions to create a new "nation" from within the nation. It's nothing new that people form armies and fight each other.
The form just changes over time, but the substance does not change.
1) Acquire land peacefully with money
2) Pay everyone to leave
3) Politically separate
4) Enjoy cocaine and brandy while I shoot my rpg at junk cars
Anyone care to explain how your free paradise would defend itself realistically? I doubt that any form of higher organization, which would be necessary against any and all state actors of size, could be achieved without strong institutions.
It would be just like how Julius Caesar maintained his legions on his own account. It really is not that hard. In fact what you do is just make a kind of corporation out of it in which everyone gets booty (part of the shares and thus profit).
This is nothing new.
In fact I do not even think the most efficient way is for someone to "hire" security firms to gain power. No, it's to become the CEO of the firm and use the power of the firm to get power and maintain it in such a way that all the members remain happy (taxing others aka exortion).
Btw, this is how most governments were created too. Nothing new.
Liberty is the lack of external hindrance.
The most loberty one can ever hope to experience, if being born in Canada (or Denmark)
Lemme make a guess. You have no siblings, mommy and daddy always told you thst you sre a special boy, and gave you all you wanted. But one day you had to go to school, where some meeny teacher told you to sit down, when you really rather would be kicking a ball around. Consider talking to a shrink and fix your childhood trauma of not being the sole interest in the world - it wpuld make your stay in a civilized world much more enjoyable
For one, this happens already, and whether or not you are able to defend against such attacks is ultimately a practical matter, not an ideological one. The fact that we are not living in a world plagued with constant wars, despite the international stage being literally anarchic, shows that anarchism != chaos. Certainly, there are less developed governments that love to fight over stupid shit, but nobody is saying that anarchism must work perfectly everywhere for everyone.
Secondly, many wars over resources happen as a result of diplomatic action. Governments invade other countries and secure their resources by securing their leadership. In an anarchist society, there is no "country" to invade, no "government" to topple. There are simply a multitude of private parcels of land. This is much, much harder to control, just as we've seen in a decentralized nation like Afghanistan.
Thirdly, anarchists are more sensitive to the threat of coersion than any other political ideologues, so you'd better believe that they would be on guard against these kinds of shenanigans.
And lastly, a private security firm is no different from any other business. In order to generate the largest revenue, it has to appeal to the widest customer base. That is why WalMart and Toyota have revenues far larger than Gucci and Ferarri. Most people do not like the idea of invading someone else for resources. They'd pay good money to protect against this. As such, no offensive security firm could ever raise the necessary capital to go against a defensive one, because the customer base simply wouldn't be there.
Fractional reserve banking was in play since the founding of the Union, which contributed to excessive credit expansion (as did the series of central banks when they popped up and disappeared, before the Fed became a thing).
Rothbard explores the history of banking in the US, it's a good read.
>having 40% of your money taken every year and being thrown in jail if you stop paying isn't serfdom
>have a soft spot for Minarchism.
Fucking why? Minarchists ruin the libertarian message by watering the good shit down and turning it into severe cuckery. Nobody is libertarian unless they are anarchists. Fuck anyone who says otherwise.
>no offensive security firm could ever raise the necessary capital to go against a defensive one
Who says that the defensive firms as you call them would not be willing to go on the offensive lol
Volkswagen creates both Porsches and Volkswagens. You can do both. Diversifying is better than sepcialization as long as the risk averted is greater than the loss of profits.
Isn't agorism and ancap essentially the same thing?
I call myself anarchist, but I can't speak for everyone else. Anarcho-capitalist was Rothbard's whack at it, but you have all sorts of hypenated anarchists out there. Agorism is a more extreme form of market anarchy, to which I subscribe. Yet your anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-commies will bitch that we aren't anarchists.
>muh private propertah
>muh free market
Agorism is more extreme than ancap. Agorists also don't like the term "capitalism." It's conflationist and means less than nothing at the end of the day, kind of like "socialism."
Why has nobody invaded Liechtenstein? It's tiny, but land in Europe is at a premium, and they have no standing army or any means of defense against foreign aggression.
>make a kind of corporation out of it in which everyone gets booty
Few people would work for a private firm that engages in violent invasion in order to seize others' property. Would you join a company that was going to throw you into the meat grinder in a week from now? This would require the firm to instil in a significant number of people a deep-rooted cultural belief that the firm's actions are legitimate. The only reason states can do it is because they have vast amounts of resources to sustain and legitimize their existence.
>Who says that the defensive firms as you call them would not be willing to go on the offensive lol
The people that hire them. Would you hire a firefighting company if they had a history of arson? Would you use an ambulance company that was known to run people over?
And as was mentioned by some anon, defense is always cheaper than offense. A security firm that wanted offensive capability would need to charge exorbitant rates, which would result in a loss of clientele and a subsequent loss of offensive capability.
>more extreme than ancap
So they ignore the capitalist part as focus exclusively on the voluntary interaction part?
>Anyone care to explain how your free paradise would defend itself realistically?
Why let one monopoly get the job done when you can have an endless number of suppliers instead? The state is a monopoly. Monopolies are bad, m'kay.
>So they ignore the capitalist part as focus exclusively on the voluntary interaction part?
"capitalism" is a misnomer. They don't neglect the market part. The voluntary interaction part is the market part. It's just stupid to call it capitalism.
>Why has nobody invaded Liechtenstein? It's tiny, but land in Europe is at a premium, and they have no standing army or any means of defense against foreign aggression.
A South American example is Costa Rica, they have no army and they are surrounded by third world states and narco-terrorists.
This is a very concise post, thanks.
Inflation technically exists with gold too, you know. It's just much less severe, and eventually stops once all the gold has been mined. Not to mention that fractional reserve banking is a powerful inflation generator, and was causing inflation back when there was still a gold standard. As well as governments/monarchs devaluing gold and silver currency back in the day to achieve the same effect.
Gold is not the be-all solution, there also needs to be banking reform and a removal of government from monetary affairs.
I don't care that much about what you call it but unfortunately the word anarchist has been co opted by collectivist faggots dreaming about Trotsky while trying to look either like Iroquois or the overweight version of 70s computer devs.
This is the only reason why I can't make the full jump to ancap, but am a perfectly happy minarchist. States start absurdly expensive, inefficient programs/wars/etc all the time, why would they decide to leave AnCapLand alone just because defense is cheap?
Because what would they do with ancapland? Refer to the examples of Liechtenstein or Costa Rica, both with no standing armies or any way to defend themselves from invasion from their neighbors. Why do you think they still exist as sovereign nations?
What would be the incentive of initiating hostility against an an-cap society?
Also without any restrictions on personal weaponry the average anarchist would be extremely well armed.
They would have a worst case insurgency.
A state is not a state until it achieves the monopoly. Otherwise, it's just another gang. The notion of having no limit on the amount of organizations that can provide protection is seemingly lost on everyone that isn't anarchist. More providers competing on the free market results in more product at a higher quality and a lower cost. With a solid functioning market anarchy, no gang would be able to monopolize in the first place, and no state would be able to form as it would be in the interest of the rest of them to shut those criminals down. Think zerg rush.
What an inelegantly-composed treatise. Of course the Constitution has no power of authority - no document does, as they are only words on paper. But as long as the people of the nation called The United States of America agree that their Constitution is a legally-binding foundation-stone of their law and policy, then it will continue to be so, particularly so long as they are willing to try against their opposition the truest form of authority: physical power (which they immediately are). So it is with all legal and political documents, from the beginning of time to the end.
What a fucking pointless thing, to tell us what we all know, but without the willingness to acknowledge that treason is WHAT WE SAY IT IS.
You're missing Spooner's point. In order for the document to have *legitimate* legal binding (in accordance with the Natural Law), you need the consent of every person who will be party to it, not just those who put the alleged contract into effect. Each person must give informed consent for a contract to be valid. Likewise, the parties to the contract had no legal means to transfer the obligations onto those who weren't born yet. Therefore if the constitution had any validity, it died along with those who were parties to the original alleged contract and it bound nobody but them. Therefore there was no treason because there was no legitimate government to commit it against, just like now!
The reasoning of anti-libertarian people, be it fault or not, is that the competition for force is detrimental and that the world is better off being under the rule of a single entity. I think the crux of the argument is that a state would be tame and mild without competition while competing enforcement would be very aggressive in order to stay relevant.
It's a pretty horrible argument against competition in force but all I've ever read about the state in modern political writings - with few exceptions like based Carl Schmitt - revolves around this idea.
I can't be completely sure, but a guess is because they have almost no natural resources as well as other factors that limit their economic potential (horrible infrastructure in Costa Rica, minimal actual land for Lichtenstein). Additionally, they've been lucky enough to live next to states that haven't shown a historical propensity for conquest.
Now granted, this does mean that if ancapland were lucky enough to be next to a benign neighbor, then it could work, but history is littered with conquering tyrants. What if they live next to one of those?
Natural resources, or a desire to control a population.
Panama, Central America
USD: $ 38,000,000
As nice as that would be, some nation is going to attack and take it over. We need to think small. The free state project is too big. We need the right people. Too many "lolbertarians" are just statist faggots repeating quotes they read from slave-holding founding fathers.
There is also the need for legitimacy. We need something that the rest of the world would accept while not compromising on our principles. This is a good start.
Yet we could figure out ways to organize like leftists so that we're not always fighting against fascism by ourselves. It's no wonder we keep getting raeped. I'm literally the only person I know in my home state that is an agorist. I've joined the libertarian party, but again, they're full of statist fucktard autists that are too busy wasting time and money on electoral politics to get anything done. Usually they have fetishes about incorporating areas of land and becoming mayor... buncha douches....
>as long as the people of the nation called The United States of America agree that their Constitution is a legally-binding foundation-stone
Did you bother to No Treason? He specifically argues that "the people" didn't agree to any such thing.
>What if they live next to one of those?
Nobody is proposing that anclapism is the best option for everyone everywhere, just that it can work, if the conditions are suitable, better than a statist society.
>USD: $ 38,000,000
believe it or not, this libertarian is a poorfag. Hold on while I whip out my 4chan millions and pay for that in internets. That and cultivating the land is a nightmare. You need a lot of resources to get something like that off the ground.
We need to be thinking in terms of creating an organization that we libtards think should be in the marketplace. What can we provide that the market currently lacks and has demand for?
I think we could hire some /k/omrades to defend it.
Just promise them full auto funs, weed, vodka and dragon dildos (with cum lube).
For some reason I doubt that would end well, even if I had the $38 mil to spend on the island. We're not going to get to where we want to be with one giant leap. We have to take small steps to get where we want to go. We don't have the numbers for that yet. We need little safe havens for freedom. We need to build a counter-economy where we can liberate folks from their plight and have them join our ranks. We need to be the entrepreneurs. We need to have the resources to get the people to follow us. They are not going to be won over with a message of hard work. Everybody wants the easy way out.
Star Citizen raised $105,000,000 on kickstarter.
>We need little safe havens for freedom
1,492 acres is pretty small
>We don't have the numbers for that yet.
But we done.
>We need to be the entrepreneurs.
You bet your ass we'll be
>They are not going to be won over with a message of hard work. Everybody wants the easy way out.
No taxes, no laws. It sells itself.
Well, intentions must be honest, so what (legal) product(s) do you have in mind that we could make happen with kickstarter?
What can we offer that everyone else can't or at least offer better than they ever could?
What would stop the Panamanian government from declaring this lawless group a criminal enterprise, using their military to arrest everyone, and then sezing the island for resale?
IMO, peaceful secession is the only way to achieve anarchism such that the government doesn't bring the hammer down. Foreigners bying a parcel of land from a government and then declaring it sovereign would likely end poorly.
>1,492 acres is pretty small
you dream big, anon. That's small for a town, but for a couple of libtards, that's a big chunk of earth.
>No taxes, no laws
How so? If you make something of that land, the sovereign government that rules the island will soon come knocking on your door.
>Well, intentions must be honest, so what (legal) product(s) do you have in mind that we could make happen with kickstarter?
We could make millions selling nootropics and other pharmaceuticals.
We could ignore patents and copy anything we want.
We could host server farms beyond the reach of everyone.
We could operate rental science facilities for discrete research.
We could do whatever the fuck we want.
>How so? If you make something of that land, the sovereign government that rules the island will soon come knocking on your door.
Oh no the krak special forces of Panama are coming!
We throw enough money at them they won't care (just look at how Alaska was bought).The largest issues would be fishing rights in their waters.
>their national laws.
No we just buy the land with the explicit purpose of political experimentation. As long as we do not represent a security threat to them they wont care.
The biggest issue would likely be fishing rights (most likely we would have to waive them).
>We throw enough money at them
It sounds like we should just start growing money trees, because we're obviously going to need them!
Why not just do something that won't eventually have the government right up in our asses? Can you think of anything? Rentals seem nice... it sort of goes against the whole "fuck landlord" commie stuff, but if the price were low enough, I'm sure they wouldn't be so butthurt about it. What about selling soylent alternatives or something that will otherwise keep us off the radar?
>No we just buy the land with the explicit purpose of political experimentation.
sovereignty is a bitch, man. You are going to have trouble with such a treaty if you aren't a legitimate sovereignty in the eyes of international law. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea, but there is no practical means to achieve what you want. If it were that easy, people would be doing it already.
>no practical means to achieve what you want.
Where there's a will there's a way.
>If it were that easy, people would be doing it already.
Your right it isn't going to be easy. But if we throw enough ideas out there we can find one that sticks. The most important thing is to be crazy enough to try.
Liberty and freedom always find a way.
>No we just buy the land with the explicit purpose of political experimentation
Why in the hell would you think any country would give up sovereignty over its territory? No government on Earth would agree to this.
The most important thing to do is to keep spreading the ideology, because without support, a private anarchist island is nothing more than Waco 2.0.
>No government on Earth would agree to this.
They would if it's a little nothing island with no inhabitants, especially if it's a poor third world country.
It's the most ethical and practical way to achieve a micro-nation.
>ut if we throw enough ideas out there we can find one that sticks. The most important thing is to be crazy enough to try.
Then let's keep throwing (other) ideas out there and see if we can get anything to stick!
Consider that we are countries apart. In what ways can we make use of our labor in fashions that will achieve results? What do we have at our disposal? What can we provide that will yield benefits that contribute to our cause?
I'm thinking that we need to find low cost ways to achieve our ends. We need to be able to provide at a lower cost what the fascist markets cannot. We could become strippers maybe? Although I'd need a few months to get into decent shape to pull that off... What about opensimulator? People fall all over themselves for that second life stuff and shell out big bucks.
And as soon as it becomes a little something island, they will demand income or business tax revenue (in addition to the property tax they will demand immediately regardless of development) and impose their economic regulations.
It is entirely impractical to form a micronation by buying land and seceding from a larger nation, because neither than nation nor the international community will recognize the secession as legitimate, and that legitimacy is critical for a micronation's survival.
Well we could get a digital residency of sort going. Something like Estonia has.
After we get a list of e-Residents we could start to move forward with the next stage of our master plan to take over the world and leave everyone alone.
All we need is for the country in question to sign on the dotted line and we're golden.
The international community won't give a shit.
They never give a shit.
>Well we could get a digital residency of sort going. Something like Estonia has.
>After we get a list of e-Residents we could start to move forward with the next stage of our master plan to take over the world and leave everyone alone.
Well, that's not such a bad idea, if we had something like that to offer people. That is sort of where I was going with the whole opensimulator gimmick. Yet we can't expect them to want to reside somewhere if there are no benefits to it. I'm thinking in terms of education. Perhaps we can offer tutoring and our own virtual currency? Plenty of people have demands that aren't being satisfactorily met. Education is likely a big one. Who wants to pay through the nose for an education if you can't get the gummit to pay for it?
>All we need is for the country in question to sign on the dotted line and we're golden.
It's not always so simple. This is coming from someone who has literally purchased land from government. A deed is one thing, you get the estate, but to get the land itself is a much bigger challenge.
>Who wants to pay through the nose for an education if you can't get the gummit to pay for it?
The reason people pay for education is they can (hopefully) demand higher wages. Without a recognized brand name we would be a mail order diploma school.
>Without a recognized brand name we would be a mail order diploma school.
Just test out and take it to one of the Big 3... Help others study for clep, dsst and ece, etc. Stuff that counts for credit, of course...
>All we need is for the country in question to sign on the dotted line and we're golden.
And I say again, this will never happen. No government sells away its sovereignty to individuals. It will sell you the deed to the land, but the sale will be subject to the laws of the nation, laws which recognize the authority of the government to tax and regulate anyone living there.
If you were to buy a Canadian island (they are considerably cheaper than tropical ones), or just a few acres wherever you live, do you seriously think you could declare it a micronation and that our government would let it fly? Fuck no, the second you didn't pay your property tax or abide by regulations, they'd sic the RCMP on you, and if you resisted, they'd call in more and more backup until you were overwhelmed. This result would be the same in every country, not just Canada.
That realization of just how badly we're fucked... Perhaps you should find ways that are within your own means! Waiting for them to build a floating city (wtf srsly) is just intellectual laziness. That is why you fail! They're going to have similar problems, as was previously stated, except it will be a matter of international maritime law as well.
NEW STEFAN MOLYNEUX VIDEO
>Are Libertarians Wrong on Immigration?
>So basically its easier these days to start a dictatorship than give people liberty and justice.
>These are dark days for freedom, but there is always hope.
Nobody said it was gonna be easy, senpai. People are fucking stupid. They can't see the forest for the trees and will sell their souls to the highest bidder every single time. The few of us who don't must be nothing short of master race in order to gain any traction whatsoever. So, improve yourself to the point that people will respect you and use your influence in a righteous fashion. Do the best you can.