Billionaire funding creation of artificial libertarian islands

[Evo]

You paint a false dichotomy. The libertarian argument is that charity at the point of a gun is immoral. (And if you refuse to pay the taxes required for centralized governmental care for the sick and injured, guess who comes knocking at your door with a gun on his holster...).

There is a third alternative to government run social welfare vs Spartan abandonment of the weak and sick to die in the gutter.

Just responding to flex's scenario. Not painting anything.

You're welcome to give your version of how this island would be run.

 

[turbo]

Good points.

Many people I know who label themselves libertarian have a belief that they are "self-made". They do not, or will not, recognize how much society has helped them become successful - subsidized education, paved roads, clean water, etc. Maybe help like that could be considered "socialist" and would thereby be a libertarian's worst nightmare .

No one I know has ever lost a child to a diarrheal disease. Infrastructure is destiny!

Paying taxes and abiding by laws are the price we pay to live in a civilized world. If these spoiled brats want to leave, I say let 'em go. Buh-bye!

A big thumbs-up to this post! Self-made men (or women) have usually been born on 3rd base and when they steal home, they act like they are special. If the libertarians want to leave, let them go, and see how they manage to maintain their life-styles without the structure of an underlying society that supports their superior status.

 

[Hurkyl]

You paint a false dichotomy.

It looked more like a prediction than a dichotomy to me.

The libertarian argument is that charity at the point of a gun is immoral.

This is a sound-bite, not an argument -- I believe it to be overly simplistic.

e.g. the libertarian would support the hospital running its own charity program to provide health care to those who can't afford it, and covering the costs by raising the rates they charge people who can afford it, right? But all that's changed is who is holding the gun.

 

[jambaugh]

Just responding to flex's scenario. Not painting anything.

You're welcome to give your version of how this island would be run.

The success or failure of the island, or any society will hinge on the character of the population. It doesn't matter if it is socialist, libertarian, or monarchistic, excepting that some forms of government will decrease the likelihood of long term success in spite of the good character of the majority of the population, e.g. a tyrannical corrupt aristocracy can do a lot of damage.

True you were "predicting" and not "painting" (my comment was a weak attempt to whack with my coup stick) but you expressed the commonly represented belief that government form can replace individual character in a society. I believe that...

If the society is of such base character that its members will allow people to live in miserable poverty as others live in proximate luxury then government social programs will not help. The same lack of character will lead to corrupted programs rampant with fraud and waste, the explosive growth of "need" and erosion of responsibility.

And if a society is of such good character that social programs implemented through government work well then that same character will manifest in the private sector social work.

I further believe that divorcing the producers of wealth from direct involvement and credit for sharing their wealth with the impoverished, by implementing social welfare through government programs, harms the character of both the contributors and the recipients. I also believe that centralized charity is far less efficient than grass roots private efforts.

As to why I believe this, I haven't time to express right now, I have class in an hour. But I'll be back with some thoughts later.

 

[rhody]

The success or failure of the island, or any society will hinge on the character of the population.

I also believe that centralized charity is far less efficient than grass roots private efforts.

As a kid, I distinctly remember taking care of an elderly neighbor, checking in on her, getting her medications, and occassionally taking her to the Dr. She was too proud to ask for any help on her own, but appreciated ours. She knitted my Mom some quilts and made home made pies for for special occassions. We took responsibility for her well being and the arrangement worked out for the benefit of both of us. You don't have to be libertarian, conservative, or liberal in your views to make something like this work, just have basic compassion and decency, that's all. Maybe that's what jambaugh meant in his post with regards to: "private efforts".

Rhody...

 

[FlexGunship]

Paying an additional "cost per service" is fine, but it won't take care of administration and oversight of all of these services. Who's going to train people, who's going to make sure certain acceptable levels are maintained who's going to buy all of the police cars, ambulances, medical equipment, fire trucks...?

Subscription fees, or membership fees, or nothing at all. How can grocery stores afford to train their employees? How can engineering firms afford to train engineers when they receive money on a per-contract basis? How does your cable company afford all of those trucks it has to maintain? The answers are fairly obvious; unless your local cable company receives a significant subsidy from the federal government (okay, mine does, but only for repair services and disaster relief) and your engineers get funding from the city when they're not working.

Evo, I understand you flatly disagree, but I also know you're capable of finding much realer problems than these.

Furthermore, I was trying to illustrate a libertarian microcosm. The fact that it operates on a tiny scale is immaterial to the point I was making: that social groups can form without governments. Neil Stephenson's Snow Crash took this idea further with the idea of "burbclaves." They were small autonomous nations by all measures. They usually contracted a police and fire service to operate in their area, and depending upon your preferences, each community offered different priorities and different monthly membership fees.

Not every one of them was a haven to a happy populous or a utopia by any metric, but the idea exists.

So much to think about, because when you're on a dot in the ocean, you're pretty much SOL unless you have what you need right there.

Evo, that's a problem of any island nation, not exclusively libertarian island nations.

 

[FlexGunship]

If the society is of such base character that its members will allow people to live in miserable poverty as others live in proximate luxury then government social programs will not help. The same lack of character will lead to corrupted programs rampant with fraud and waste, the explosive growth of "need" and erosion of responsibility.

And if a society is of such good character that social programs implemented through government work well then that same character will manifest in the private sector social work.

Well said. <pat on the back>

 

[Ryan_m_b]

If the society is of such base character that its members will allow people to live in miserable poverty as others live in proximate luxury then government social programs will not help. The same lack of character will lead to corrupted programs rampant with fraud and waste, the explosive growth of "need" and erosion of responsibility.

And if a society is of such good character that social programs implemented through government work well then that same character will manifest in the private sector social work.

I'll believe that when I see it. There's a keen difference between voting for a political candidate who believes in spending a proportion of tax on welfare programs and going out and funding a welfare program yourself.

Not saying it can't happen, there are great private charities out there. I just don't think it's feasible to build the welfare and infrastructure of a nation using privatised approaches alone.

 

[FlexGunship]

I'll believe that when I see it.

Frankly, I'm shocked at how many PFers don't contribute to private charities. This might be why so many people think I'm wrong about libertarian societies. I volunteer my time and donate generously; I guess I just assumed most people do, too.

I'm starting to see why so many people think taxing is a good option; because if someone didn't hold a gun to your head you wouldn't want to give up any of your money or time.

Head down to the soup kitchen some night; you're not going to be alone. A lot of people dedicate their time and money to help people who need it. You won't feel much better than feeding a family.

Taxes, on the other hand...

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Frankly, I'm shocked at how many PFers don't contribute to private charities. This might be why so many people think I'm wrong about libertarian societies. I volunteer my time and donate generously; I guess I just assumed most people do, too.

I hope you aren't making a presumption about me based on what I said. My opinions on the realistic nature of charity as opposed to tax are observational, not moral. I think it's shocking most people don't give to charity, I also recognise that because most people don't give to charity (and the nature of many big charities being special interest companies) it isn't a viable model for welfare on it's own.

 

[FlexGunship]

I hope you aren't making a presumption about me based on what I said. My opinions on the realistic nature of charity as opposed to tax are observational, not moral. I think it's shocking most people don't give to charity, I also recognise that because most people don't give to charity (and the nature of many big charities being special interest companies) it isn't a viable model for welfare on it's own.

No, I guess it's just the tone of the forum. Whenever the idea of abolishing government mandated welfare comes up everyone says: "what about all of the disabled and poor people?" as though they would just be left to suffer.

I didn't mean to imply a personal judgement.

I guess the worst part is that the United States has the highest rate of charitable donations int the world, $29 billion annually (Source:http://www.oecd.org/document/11/0,3746,en_2649_34447_44981579_1_1_1_1,00.html). The idea that if the government stopped FORCING people to give money that they would just keep it to themselves seems appalling to me. I know that SOME would, but I also know that many wouldn't. But of all places, we're on the PhysicsForums (bastion of liberal ideology to be sure) and people would prefer not to donate to charity willingly, but rather have that money taken forcibly from them.

No one else is slightly taken aback by this?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I didn't mean to imply a personal judgement.

In that case no offence taken

I guess the worst part is that the United States has the highest rate of charitable donations int the world, $29 billion annually (Source:http://www.oecd.org/document/11/0,3746,en_2649_34447_44981579_1_1_1_1,00.html). The idea that if the government stopped FORCING people to give money that they would just keep it to themselves seems appalling to me. I know that SOME would, but I also know that many wouldn't. But of all places, we're on the PhysicsForums (bastion of liberal ideology to be sure) and people would prefer not to donate to charity willingly, but rather have that money taken forcibly from them.

No one else is slightly taken aback by this?

There's two things here in my opinion. Firstly whilst people here may want to give to charity and do it themselves there is a recognition that not everyone does this (indeed the majority of people do not) and those who do give to very select charities. That $29billion figure sounds good but how much does welfare actually cost? Can't find a solid number with a quick google but according to wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_welfare_state#Programs" and only 4% of that is from purely private funding. Secondly welfare is not the only issue with taxes. There is also the infrastructure of a country and how to run the interactions with other countries, few people are convinced that this could be accomplished with libertarian mechanisms over central government with taxation. Again though I would be interested to see the system tried in a micro-nation experiment.

 

[FlexGunship]

There is also the infrastructure of a country and how to run the interactions with other countries, few people are convinced that this could be accomplished with libertarian mechanisms over central government with taxation.

Well, for better or for worse, most libertarian idealists tend to adopt a VERY limited stance on foreign policy and policy enforcement (whether it be foreign wars or foreign aid).

So, if you make the presumption that any successful government must play nanny to any unsuccessful government then, yes, libertarian ideals fall short. But I would say that is not a presumption made by all people. In fact, in a time of extreme economic hardship, it might seem silly (to a hypothetical person) to offer so much foreign aid to those starving in other countries when we have starving individuals at home.

As a society, the U.S. is deeply entrenched in existing foreign aid relationships. There are, literally, countries that subsist on the aid provided by the U.S. and other wealthy nations; a sort of international welfare. When it comes to choosing to spend a dollar on domestic charity or foreign charity, then there is a significant debate to be had as to whether private charities could do the work of a national government.

However, and I stand by this strongly, there is no single stance that is uniformly adopted regarding the balance of domestic and foreign aid. A rational and pragmatic individual should recognize that it costs more money to help more people. The prioitization of that assistence should be left to the individual to decide upon and not to the government. Some days I feel like helping Somalians, but other days I'd rather help the homeless guy downtown. Unfortunately, I don't really have an option; no one does. We only decide where the tip of the iceberg goes.

 

[OmCheeto]

Furthermore, I was trying to illustrate a libertarian microcosm. The fact that it operates on a tiny scale is immaterial to the point I was making: that social groups can form without governments. Neil Stephenson's Snow Crash took this idea further with the idea of "burbclaves." They were small autonomous nations by all measures. They usually contracted a police and fire service to operate in their area, and depending upon your preferences, each community offered different priorities and different monthly membership fees.

Not every one of them was a haven to a happy populous or a utopia by any metric, but the idea exists.

That's funny. Evo and Char_Limit talked me into reading Snow Crash a while back. Evo, being the computer nerd that she is, liked the idea of virtual reality. I think Char, being the mathematician ninja that he is, liked all the action. I thoroughly enjoyed the book, but my take away was that it portrayed libertarianism gone wild.

The U.S. government had devolved into an island city. The country was basically being run by the mob. Technology was rampant, and available to just about anyone who would work for it. And on every other page, someone was being murdered.

But still, it was a delightful book, and I would recommend it to everyone.

ps. I will stand behind none of the comments made above, as I am old and forget lots. Hopefully Evo and Char will be able to correct any errors.

 

[FlexGunship]

I thoroughly enjoyed the book, but my take away was that it portrayed libertarianism gone wild.

The U.S. government had devolved into an island city. The country was basically being run by the mob. Technology was rampant, and available to just about anyone who would work for it. And on every other page, someone was being murdered.

Well, it was portraying anarchism. Maybe this is a common confusion? Each burbclave was an island of libertarianism. I would be wary of confusing anarchism and libertarianism. I don't think many practical libertarians promote the level of discord illustrated in the book.

EDIT: And for the sake of clarity, the people being murdered were being killed by a murderer (much in the same way that a book might depict a murderer murdering someone in a democratic society). And the country was not run by the mob, the pizza delivery industry was run by the mob. Big difference. :)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

However, and I stand by this strongly, there is no single stance that is uniformly adopted regarding the balance of domestic and foreign aid. A rational and pragmatic individual should recognize that it costs more money to help more people. The prioitization of that assistence should be left to the individual to decide upon and not to the government. Some days I feel like helping Somalians, but other days I'd rather help the homeless guy downtown. Unfortunately, I don't really have an option; no one does. We only decide where the tip of the iceberg goes.

I would agree with this. Sometimes I think aid is misapplied, other times I am annoyed to hear the response of people saying things like "why do we give aid to a country which has it's own space program" to which the reply is always "because having your own space program is not a marker for a government that's willing to feed its poorest people".

Regarding the second bolded statement (emphasis mine) I would say that this is where we part ways ideologically. I believe that this phenomenon is an indication that A) people should be educated so that they have the appropriate critical skills to examine all facets of the problem and B) Better versions of democratic government should be employed that devolve power more so that the process of making decisions about your country is far easier and more potent than it is now.

EDIT: Furthermore I'd like to reiterate how beneficial I think experimental islands could be. Not just for examining different systems but so that if you wanted to live in a libertarian country you could run off and do so, likewise if you wanted to live in a socialist country you could too.

 

[FlexGunship]

I believe that this phenomenon is an indication that A) people should be educated so that they have the appropriate critical skills to examine all facets of the problem and B) Better versions of democratic government should be employed that devolve power more so that the process of making decisions about your country is far easier and more potent than it is now.

Careful; too strong of a majority will always rub the minority of their freedoms. That's one of the unsung dangers of a democracy and one of the reasons why a representative democracy is important. This is my strongest reason for advocating individual social and economic freedoms.

When you are free to spend your money and do as you please in your own home, it doesn't matter what the motives of the elected officials are.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Careful; too strong of a majority will always rub the minority of their freedoms. That's one of the unsung dangers of a democracy and one of the reasons why a representative democracy is important. This is my strongest reason for advocating individual social and economic freedoms.

I would hope that better approaches for applying democracy should be designed and implemented to stop things like this. We need a good and healthy balance between direct and representative democracy. I also think that we should have many social and economic freedoms but less so than you.

When you are free to spend your money and do as you please in your own home, it doesn't matter what the motives of the elected officials are.

I'm sure you didn't intend this to be an exhaustive statement so don't take this as a naive criticism but I strongly disagree with this. It's not so simple as freedom in your home, freedom in public is obviously desirable too but there's always a conflict between people's freedoms even if one person is in their home. Mediating that conflict is the job of the government through law and ultimately the government should be a mechanism of the people.

 

[FlexGunship]

I'm sure you didn't intend this to be an exhaustive statement so don't take this as a naive criticism but I strongly disagree with this. It's not so simple as freedom in your home, freedom in public is obviously desirable too but there's always a conflict between people's freedoms even if one person is in their home. Mediating that conflict is the job of the government through law and ultimately the government should be a mechanism of the people.

You're right; and I didn't mean it as am exhaustive statement. More as a sweeping generalization of my stance. But there are obvious examples of state and federal government interfering with private and personal matters. Same-sex marriage and private drug use are two in the States.

Furthermore, there wouldn't even be conflicts in many cases. The idea that marijuana use is "bad" stemmed from government action taken in the past. It now has a stigma attached to it. Not because it's manifestly evil, but because of past action taken by the government on behalf of the governed. The great controversy being experienced today is not some requisite; it's ancillary only because of past actions.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

You're right; and I didn't mean it as am exhaustive statement. More as a sweeping generalization of my stance. But there are obvious examples of state and federal government interfering with private and personal matters. Same-sex marriage and private drug use are two in the States.

Furthermore, there wouldn't even be conflicts in many cases. The idea that marijuana use is "bad" stemmed from government action taken in the past. It now has a stigma attached to it. Not because it's manifestly evil, but because of past action taken by the government on behalf of the governed. The great controversy being experienced today is not some requisite; it's ancillary only because of past actions.

I wouldn't say those issues could be solved without government interference though. Considering marriage is something that has to be recognised legally there has to be a law regarding it. Therefore you need a government to come up with the laws.

Simplistically my view on a government is:
It should be a democratic institution that decrees the laws of the nation, manages its public finances to maintain infrastructure and deals as a mouthpiece to other nations. Essentially it is a concierge for a society. The mechanism by which it makes its decisions must be democratic with a good balance of direct and representative democracy, ultimately it must be the talking shop of the nation.

So on issues like smoking weed or same sex marriage the discussion is mainly in the public sphere. It becomes such an important issue socially that it becomes a political issue, there the opinions of the public are outlined with the important details filled in. On the basis of this laws are made. In conclusion: what you do in your own home and private and personal matters are issues of state in so much as if they are important socially they are important politically.

 

[FlexGunship]

I wouldn't say those issues could be solved without government interference though. Considering marriage is something that has to be recognised legally there has to be a law regarding it. Therefore you need a government to come up with the laws.

See! That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. Why take a stance? It was a mistake made in the past. We give benefits to those who are married in the U.S. for some reason. Why?! Let it be a private decision with private ramifications. Instead, it has been deeply forged in our minds that government must decide who can get married, and when, and if there is a reward or penalty for it.

It's nonsense, frankly.

Simplistically my view on a government is:
It should be a democratic institution that decrees the laws of the nation, manages its public finances to maintain infrastructure and deals as a mouthpiece to other nations. Essentially it is a concierge for a society. The mechanism by which it makes its decisions must be democratic with a good balance of direct and representative democracy, ultimately it must be the talking shop of the nation.

So on issues like smoking weed or same sex marriage the discussion is mainly in the public sphere. It becomes such an important issue socially that it becomes a political issue, there the opinions of the public are outlined with the important details filled in. On the basis of this laws are made. In conclusion: what you do in your own home and private and personal matters are issues of state in so much as if they are important socially they are important politically.

Okay, I disagree, but in a very specific way. Please stay with me as a struggle to differentiate.

If you allow any socially popular topic to become a political issue (simply because the public believe it impacts them in some form) then there are no limits on what can be considered open for debate. As a result, you must either allow anything for debate, or decide upon rules to use to decide what is debatable and what is not. And who will create those rules but those who have a political interest in their outcome ALREADY!?

At one time homosexuality (in many cultures, not just the U.S.) was considered to be within the purview of the state. Who you chose to share a bed with was a matter of public interest. As a result, it became a political concern (exactly as you've outlined above). If the only metric is "enough people care" then you will have to write laws, and rewrite laws constantly (exactly as we see now).

In contrast, a society which values the freedoms of the individual would be writing laws solely to protect individuals from public involvement where matters of public safety, health, and well-being are not concerned. I'm not gay, but I'd be damned angry if my neighbor could vote my partner out of bed.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

See! That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. Why take a stance? It was a mistake made in the past. We give benefits to those who are married in the U.S. for some reason. Why?! Let it be a private decision with private ramifications. Instead, it has been deeply forged in our minds that government must decide who can get married, and when, and if there is a reward or penalty for it.

It's nonsense, frankly.

Marriage is one example. I too think that there should be many freedoms but there has to be a government to protect those freedoms and to validate them. It is societies fault that there are laws regarding marriage, not the governments.

Okay, I disagree, but in a very specific way. Please stay with me as a struggle to differentiate.

If you allow any socially popular topic to become a political issue (simply because the public believe it impacts them in some form) then there are no limits on what can be considered open for debate. As a result, you must either allow anything for debate, or decide upon rules to use to decide what is debatable and what is not. And who will create those rules but those who have a political interest in their outcome ALREADY!?

At one time homosexuality (in many cultures, not just the U.S.) was considered to be within the purview of the state. Who you chose to share a bed with was a matter of public interest. As a result, it became a political concern (exactly as you've outlined above). If the only metric is "enough people care" then you will have to write laws, and rewrite laws constantly (exactly as we see now).

In contrast, a society which values the freedoms of the individual would be writing laws solely to protect individuals from public involvement where matters of public safety, health, and well-being are not concerned. I'm not gay, but I'd be damned angry if my neighbor could vote my partner out of bed.

This is the tricky part. I would say that everything has to be on the table because it's impractical to have anything else. Having said that there should still be very strict ways of determining an issue i.e. rather than simple referendum of opinion both sides of the issue must be properly presented. For example; all issues must have full formal logic analysis.

Problem is I don't know of any practical way of making a good and inclusive democratic system though recently I have been quite interested in reading about how better software could allow a proper workable E-democracy model.

Regarding laws governing private lives unfortunately there is no defined line between public and private. Ultimately the debate has to be social, trying to restrict what can be said at a political level is a recipe for disaster in my opinion.

 

[FlexGunship]

Problem is I don't know of any practical way of making a good and inclusive democratic system though recently I have been quite interested in reading about how better software could allow a proper workable E-democracy model.

Regarding laws governing private lives unfortunately there is no defined line between public and private. Ultimately the debate has to be social, trying to restrict what can be said at a political level is a recipe for disaster in my opinion.

Well, try this: "Where matters of the social interaction, societal operation, and the freedom of expression by individuals within a society are concerned, the need for a law must be shown by demonstrating that a lack thereof would cause manifest harm to the health or safety of other individuals within the society. Personal opinion, personal or religious revelation, personal distaste, and speculation are not sufficient evidence for this demonstration."

Then the definition of "harm to health and safety" could be open for debate, of course. It's a rough first cut, obviously, but outlines a simple guideline for even considering a law and it has a very libertarian flare.

Lastly, as far as creating a line between public and private: "that which is not observable by the body public under normal circumstances is to be considered private." That is to say: "sex in the bedroom" is private, and "sex on a park bench" is public.

EDIT: I don't want to be cornered into defending the ideas above. I'm just illustrating that it's not IMPOSSIBLE to protect against infringement on personal freedoms while still retaining the ability to legislate.

DOUBLE EDIT: To keep this thread on-topic, I'll add the following: if these islands actually come to fruition, I think the most interesting piece of information will be the "libertarian constitution" that they start with.

 

[Galteeth]

Question: Why does this bother you guys? The people who would theoretically live on these islands would go there of their own free will. They're on islands, not connected to your country. They will have no effect on you whatsoever.

 

[FlexGunship]

Question: Why does this bother you guys? The people who would theoretically live on these islands would go there of their own free will. They're on islands, not connected to your country. They will have no effect on you whatsoever.

Doesn't bother me in the slightest. Originally the thread had a "mocking" tone; as though to say "look at these knuckleheads." Which gave way to a core misunderstanding: some people associate libertarianism with anarchism. Most of the conversation has been about these discrepancies.

I think, in general, most people are okay with the idea.

Perhaps there is an underlying fear that the movers-and-shakers of wealthy nations will leave those nations for the freedoms of a libertarian island nation and in turn ruin the nations they leave.

 

[DoggerDan]

Does the condo have police, fire, sanitation, roads, schools, health department? hospitals, boards to oversee health (hospitals doctors, medical/pharamceutical, ambulance etc...? This is just scratching the tip of the iceberg of what needs to be decided. What color to paint, and picking out flowers doesn't require a group of people.

I've lurked this thread, but I'll take a stab at it: If it's a truly libertarian society, the members would be largely self-sufficient in these areas and would pitch in as a community. In other words, those who wanted would be formally trained and would volunteer time, the same as I'll soon be volunteering time at our local fire department.

As far as what color to paint, that'll be left up to individuals to paint whatever portion of the island they bought, unless those who're getting this idea off the ground, er, out of port implement covenants. So far as I know, covenants aren't anti-libertarian. It's usually in the best interests of a group of people to have some restrictions on design to prevent a lone individual who departs from desired features from dragging down the property values.

Libertarianism isn't "everything goes" and "everone for themselves." The concept of mutual social interaction and reliance still exists, a it's healthy.

 

[turbo]

That's funny. Evo and Char_Limit talked me into reading Snow Crash a while back. Evo, being the computer nerd that she is, liked the idea of virtual reality. I think Char, being the mathematician ninja that he is, liked all the action. I thoroughly enjoyed the book, but my take away was that it portrayed libertarianism gone wild.

I'll have to see if I can borrow a copy of that book again. I liked it, and probably for the same reasons that you did, though I was following a trend that started with William Gibson back when Science Fiction sections in bookstores were turning into dragon-fests with wizards everywhere. Sick!

 

[FlexGunship]

Libertarianism isn't "everything goes" and "everone for themselves." The concept of mutual social interaction and reliance still exists, a it's healthy.

It seems that it's become synonymous with anarchism in some circles. In a libertarian society there are still laws; in most models the system includes a judicial branch, legislative branch, and executive branch very similarly to the model in most democratic world powers. Power of election and expulsion still lie with the people. The fundamental difference is prioritization of individuals over their government. It's literally a government for the people; not a parent-state for the people.

I'll have to see if I can borrow a copy of that book again. I liked it, and probably for the same reasons that you did, though I was following a trend that started with William Gibson back when Science Fiction sections in bookstores were turning into dragon-fests with wizards everywhere. Sick!

I hope to be L. Bob Rife some day. He's kind of a personal hero. Someday I hope to own an aircraft carrier.

Oh, and who doesn't love the name Hiro Protagonist? At first I wasn't sure if he was a good guy or a bad guy.

 

[mheslep]

Doesn't Hong Kong already qualify as a libertarian island?

 

[FlexGunship]

Doesn't Hong Kong already qualify as a libertarian island?

It is autonomous from mainland China (even has it's own leader), but certainly not libertarian. The fact that it's elections are "closed door" really seals the deal; even when citizens vote, they are unaware of the voting outcome and an electoral panel secretly votes to fill elective roles. Furthermore, it is only now being democratized. I don't think you can have libertarianism without flourishing democracy.

Although, now that I'm reading more about it, it certainly sounds much better than mainland China. The freedoms afforded by their "Basic Law" far exceeds those afforded to other Chinese citizens.

 

[mheslep]

It is autonomous from mainland China (even has it's own leader), but certainly not libertarian. The fact that it's elections are "closed door" really seals the deal; even when citizens vote, they are unaware of the voting outcome and an electoral panel secretly votes to fill elective roles. Furthermore, it is only now being democratized. I don't think you can have libertarianism without flourishing democracy.

Although, now that I'm reading more about it, it certainly sounds much better than mainland China. The freedoms afforded by their "Basic Law" far exceeds those afforded to other Chinese citizens.

I'm referring of course to the economics and business practices of Hong Kong, and to the degree that the government stays out of people lives with respect to both economics and social issues, regardless of what input citizens have or don't have into the govt. process. Even the OP artificial island won't be perfectly libertarian if it is realized, just as one won't find any system of economics and govt perfectly socialistic, perfectly conservative, etc.

 

[FlexGunship]

I'm referring of course to the economics and business practices of Hong Kong, and to the degree that the government stays out of people lives with respect to both economics and social issues, regardless of what input citizens have or don't have into the govt. process. Even the OP artificial island won't be perfectly libertarian if it is realized, just as one won't find any system of economics and govt perfectly socialistic, perfectly conservative, etc.

I concede the point and agree. By your metrics, your argument is sound.

 

[Evo]

Off topic posts deleted. This thread is about building artificial libertarian islands in the ocean.

If you want to discuss New Hampshire, there is now a thread in P&WA.

 

[Proton Soup]

would it be OK to discuss guns on libertarian islands per the OP?

 

[Chi Meson]

Utopias have always worked out well, haven't they?