Alex Libman
4th December 2008, 02:09 AM
(I'm going to spin this off so as to not take the original gun control thread off-topic.)
And how is Singapore different from any other state that has gun laws? How are they more 'voluntary' than those of the UK or France?
Like all libertarians / anarcho-capitalists who use those terms correctly, I believe in voluntary governance, not senseless anarchy. There is only one universal rule: human self-ownership, and based on that principle are rights to life, liberty, property, enforcement of contracts, etc. People will naturally choose to follow other rules: "By coming to my house, you agree to wipe your feet and be polite." "By entering this movie theater, you agree not to yell 'Fire'." "By buying property in this neighborhood, you agree not to bring any firearms on it." "By joining this church (as an adult), you agree not to have abortion." "If you smuggle half a kilo of pot onto this island, we will kill you." Etc.
I've been doing a lot of research on seaseading (http://seasteading.org/) possibilities lately (you know, Galt's Gulch), and Singapore is the closest analogy that exists so far, though of course on a far larger scale than the first seasteading attempts are likely to be. Hong Kong is a better analogy in some ways, but it was never a sovereign nation capable of defending itself, and now it's under Commie China's thumb for good.
Singapore is more like a corporation than a country: it owns that tiny island (some parts of which were reclaimed from the sea), and people do business with it voluntarily by living and working there. Very few people lived there before, and they were free to leave at any time. Millions of people came to Singapore by choice: it is a melting pot of Chinese, Malays, Indonesians, Indians, Europeans, etc, with 42% still being first-generation immigrants. It doesn't cost an arm and a leg to enter or leave.
It is far from perfect, but it's what I imagine futuristic societies to be like: space stations, artificial island communities, etc. Some will cater to libertarians, and through competition good rules of governance will thrive over bad. If the whole earth was divided into thousands of competing Singapore-like corporations, the world would be a much better place.
UK and France, on the other hand, were feudal kingdoms that grew into nation-states and then empires. No comparison. And USA is becoming even worse: it was supposed to be an alliance of several constitutional republics (i.e. States), but now it's one huge empire centrally-managed out of Washington. :mad:
OK, so the purpose of this thread is to discuss libertarian micro-nations, presumably from a mostly socialist point of view: would you send your navies to destroy them if your best and bright were visiting / moving there, not following silly prohibition laws, and not paying you their "fair share" of taxes? :rolleyes:
And how is Singapore different from any other state that has gun laws? How are they more 'voluntary' than those of the UK or France?
Like all libertarians / anarcho-capitalists who use those terms correctly, I believe in voluntary governance, not senseless anarchy. There is only one universal rule: human self-ownership, and based on that principle are rights to life, liberty, property, enforcement of contracts, etc. People will naturally choose to follow other rules: "By coming to my house, you agree to wipe your feet and be polite." "By entering this movie theater, you agree not to yell 'Fire'." "By buying property in this neighborhood, you agree not to bring any firearms on it." "By joining this church (as an adult), you agree not to have abortion." "If you smuggle half a kilo of pot onto this island, we will kill you." Etc.
I've been doing a lot of research on seaseading (http://seasteading.org/) possibilities lately (you know, Galt's Gulch), and Singapore is the closest analogy that exists so far, though of course on a far larger scale than the first seasteading attempts are likely to be. Hong Kong is a better analogy in some ways, but it was never a sovereign nation capable of defending itself, and now it's under Commie China's thumb for good.
Singapore is more like a corporation than a country: it owns that tiny island (some parts of which were reclaimed from the sea), and people do business with it voluntarily by living and working there. Very few people lived there before, and they were free to leave at any time. Millions of people came to Singapore by choice: it is a melting pot of Chinese, Malays, Indonesians, Indians, Europeans, etc, with 42% still being first-generation immigrants. It doesn't cost an arm and a leg to enter or leave.
It is far from perfect, but it's what I imagine futuristic societies to be like: space stations, artificial island communities, etc. Some will cater to libertarians, and through competition good rules of governance will thrive over bad. If the whole earth was divided into thousands of competing Singapore-like corporations, the world would be a much better place.
UK and France, on the other hand, were feudal kingdoms that grew into nation-states and then empires. No comparison. And USA is becoming even worse: it was supposed to be an alliance of several constitutional republics (i.e. States), but now it's one huge empire centrally-managed out of Washington. :mad:
OK, so the purpose of this thread is to discuss libertarian micro-nations, presumably from a mostly socialist point of view: would you send your navies to destroy them if your best and bright were visiting / moving there, not following silly prohibition laws, and not paying you their "fair share" of taxes? :rolleyes: