Libertarian Islands

[Whack-a-Mole]

@emacknight

Nope, before 1776 the US was a colony of the British government.

Which, by my reckoning, makes them not the United States.

[SmithCommaJohn]

@hajario

I can’t wait for the first major storm to devastate the place. I hope that they don’t count on the navy of a huge nation to assist with the rescue.

“Help me! I’m drowning!”

“Pull yourself out of the water by your bootstraps!”

[Bosstone]

@VinylTurnip

Yeah, I’m having a bit of trouble following emacknight’s argument— government shouldn’t bother regulating pollution because there’s still gonna be pollution if they don’t enforce the regulations? Isn’t it actually a rock-solid argument for stricter regulation?

The general thrust of his argument seems to be “They suck at it, so we might as well not have it and save ourselves the money.”

Responding more generally to the OP, I would love to see an exercise in creating a first-world libertarian nation. I’d even happily cede a large swath of US land to the project if I had the power, on the condition that if the new nation can’t meet some reasonable benchmarks by the end of a reasonable period the land reverts back to the US and libertarians agree to shut the hell up.

If it works, well knock me over with a feather.

[SeldomSeen]

Quote, Sam Stone

I’ve always thought that these ‘libertarian islands’ and other attempts to create restricted libertarian enclaves like the ‘Freedom Ship’ were incredibly misguided. The big problem is that tightly enclosed environments in harsh environments are exactly the wrong environments for libertarianism. You need rigid order on a ship or on a small artificial island, because almost all activities are intertwined and it’s impossible to avoid interfering with others when just carrying our your daily activities. They are also tightly constrained in resources, making development difficult.

I suspect that these ideas are driven more by developers and entrepreneurs looking to find a way to extract wealthy libertarians from their money.

Sam Stone makes a very astute point here. If a thoroughly libertarian society can be viable at all (and I am not convinced that it can remain viable for any length of time) it could only be workable in an uncrowded and unspoiled environment. Our concept of a libertarian world springs from the Jeffersonian vision of a nation of independent freeholders spread thinly over a limitless frontier, with each small village or family unit harvesting what they need from the land and trading such incidental overproduction as they might happen to have. What even Jefferson failed to realize was that the frontier was not limitless, but the potential population was.

A laissez faire system is wasteful and inefficient, with constant duplication of effort and incompatible expectations. To continue the frontier analogy; the freeholder can thrive for a time, hunting wildlife that roams his acres, maybe digging a bit of coal or lead (for heating and bullets) from a handy outcrop on his hillside, disposing of his human and animal waste in the little creek that flows by his back door, where it is conveniently swept out of his life. However…in time his family grows, the deer learn to avoid his property and he must go further afield to hunt, perhaps on his neighbor’s farm…and why not? don’t the deer belong to anyone who can shoot one?

In time too, the load of waste in the creek will become too large for the riparian vegetation to filter and the downstream neighbor (who also draws water from the creek) may become ill. In time, the pit from which he digs his coal will become too deep to be worked by his individual efforts. To continue to heat his home he must develope and use technology…maybe a windlass and headframe, or some tram rail, and he needs some hired help to shoulder some of the burden.

And so it goes. At some point our rugged individualist must either a) forcefully encroach on his neighbor in order to maintain his lifestyle, or b) abandon his homestead and move further onto the frontier where he can start over in an unsettled territory (assuming there is any) or c) learn to work cooperatively and interdependently with his neighbor and with society at large. Establish a hierarchy of needs, a division of labor, some common goals and common-sense rules. Most people choose (c), and in this way societies grow and mature. And in this way the limited and limiting libertarian idealism is supplanted by a larger vision and a more sustainable society.

For a actual application of the “libertarian Island” concept, see the Principality of Sealand.

In late June of 2006, the island suffered a devastating fire which destroyed much of the country’s administrative center and main power generation facility…the disaster has compromised significantly the quality of life and the continued developement of the island’s economic and social growth.

One wonders if a common system of fire protection was considered too “socialistic” for this libertarian utopia.
SS

[waterj2]

@Sam_Stone

Paul Romer, husband of Ex-Obama chief economist Christina Romer and a very influential economist himself, has proposed similar ideas to kick-start wealth and trade in the third world: Charter Cities.

Christina Romer’s husband is the economist David Romer. Paul Romer is, as best I can tell, of no relation. And I think the “very influential economist” label applies better to David, though I’m not in the best position to judge.

[Grumman]

@SeldomSeen

One wonders if a common system of fire protection was considered too “socialistic” for this libertarian utopia.

It’s not:

Firstly, you have a responsibility not to set fire to other people’s property, through negligence or malice. Therefore it is not unreasonable to require that people take precautions to mitigate any damage they may cause to other people.

Second, like criminals, enemy armies and contagious diseases, fire is an enemy to all that grows stronger if left to fester. Therefore a fire department is justified by the same line of reasoning that justifies a police force, army or vaccine - because a particular fire is a threat to everyone, even if it hasn’t got to you yet.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@SeldomSeen

For a actual application of the “libertarian Island” concept, see the Principality of Sealand.
One wonders if a common system of fire protection was considered too “socialistic” for this libertarian utopia.
SS

@Grumman

It’s not:

Firstly, you have a responsibility not to set fire to other people’s property, through negligence or malice. Therefore it is not unreasonable to require that people take precautions to mitigate any damage they may cause to other people.

Nah…Libs should love firemen!

One of the richest men in all of history (literally) was Marcus Licinius Crassus of Rome (old Rome circa 70BC). He made a good deal of his fortune in firefighting. If your house was on fire he’d show up and offer to buy it from you at a pittance. If you said no you’d have nothing so most people accepted (he was under no obligation to put it out). If you sold he’d put out the fire and own the land on the cheap. If you said no you lost everything.

Libertarian utopia!

[Sam_Stone]

@waterj2

Christina Romer’s husband is the economist David Romer. Paul Romer is, as best I can tell, of no relation. And I think the “very influential economist” label applies better to David, though I’m not in the best position to judge.

Wow, thanks for pointing that out. I’m familiar with David Romer, but for some reason I never realized they weren’t the same person. For some reason I never connected on the first name difference. My bad.

Here’s his bio from Wikipedia:

Paul Michael Romer (born 1955) is an American economist, entrepreneur, and activist. He is currently the Henry Kaufman Visiting Professor at New York University Stern School of Business and will be joining NYU as a full time professor beginning in 2011.[1] Prior to that, Romer was a Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Center for International Development and the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, and a Non-Resident Fellow at the Center for Global Development. He is an expert on endogenous growth theory.

Romer earned a B.S. in physics in 1977 and a Ph.D. in economics in 1983, both from the University of Chicago. He taught at the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Chicago, and the University of Rochester. He was named one of America’s 25 most influential people by Time Magazine in 1997, [2] and in 2000 started the online educational company Aplia, which was purchased in 2007 by Cengage Learning. Romer has been awarded the Horst Claus Recktenwald Prize in Economics in Nuremberg, Germany. He is the son of former Colorado Governor Roy Romer.[3]

So everything else I said about him was accurate. He’s just not Christina Romer’s husband.

[tomndebb]

@Der_Trihs

No, libertarianism isn’t anarchy; it’s more like feudalism. Where the lords can do as they like and the serfs suffer.

OK. You have inserted your standard snide comment.

Now, unless you have a specific comment that addresses an actual libertarian principle or action, (without attributing “libertarian” actions to entities that were not libertarian, such as nineteenth century U.S. or U.K.), do not further hijack this thread.

[ /Moderating ]

[Der_Trihs]

@tomndebb

OK. You have inserted your standard snide comment.

Now, unless you have a specific comment that addresses an actual libertarian principle or action, (without attributing “libertarian” actions to entities that were not libertarian, such as nineteenth century U.S. or U.K.), do not further hijack this thread.

[ /Moderating ]

Well. Their historic lack of electability means that there aren’t many “officially” libertarian actions to discuss in the first place. And there’s a lot of disagreement on what is an “actual libertarian principle”. So I don’t really know what is left to talk about.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Sam Stone

In short, these are very close to the ‘libertarian island’ idea, and very similar to the old Hanseatic League cities in that they would be an enclave of free trade and self-governance inside other countries.

There’s nothing necessarily market fundamentalist about free trade and self-governance. Paul Romer is not a libertarian (as you noted). Your post is interesting (and sincere thanks, btw), but misleading. From the Charter City FAQs:

Q: Would housing in a charter city be constructed according to building codes?
A: Possibly. The people who rent apartments can’t verify after the fact that the building where they will live was constructed to be safe. Building codes are one way to solve the informational asymmetry. Efficient building codes can ensure safety without restricting the supply of small, low cost apartments.

Q: Would a charter city have a master plan devised by the government?
A: Some aspects of planning inevitably fall to the government. For example, the government needs to decide whether vehicles drive on the right or the left and enforce that rule. Other planning activities are better left to private actors. For example, the government clearly shouldn’t tell firms what to produce.

Setting up a new city does not mean that the spatial location of economic activity needs to be centrally planned either. The city’s charter is a foundational legal document, not an exhaustive plan. The world can support a range of urban development strategies. Some cities might follow a more planning intensive strategy similar to that of Haussmann’s rebuilding of Paris in the 19th century. Others might opt to do away with zoning restrictions or to rely more on the decentralized process of individual decisions celebrated by Jane Jacobs.

I added emphasis, because this to me is what makes the idea exciting. But it’s not especially libertarian. Host and guarantor nations won’t want to establish rules that will put a environmental cesspool in their backyard. They may or may not want a drug paradise or any other sort of so-called intrusive governmental regulation. Again though: I like experimentation. Too bad the billionaire in the OP doesn’t align himself with Paul Romer.

Re: 1. The OP. I always thought the Western Sahara was a good place for libertarianism. Sort of a Somalia-lite. Somalia demonstrates that the establishment of property rights and the rule of law (one aspect of libertarianism) is 10,000x + more relevant to prosperity and human development than low low taxes.

2. The success of any charter city will be inversely proportional to the share of strictly libertarian settlers. Methinks that even a group of religious fanatics would show more flexibility and staying power.

[Sam_Stone]

I actually made the same points you just did. I said that he specifically called for some planning, and specifically mentioned road rules and public sanitation.

The basically principle though is to provide a haven against taxes, tariffs, corruption and other features of 3rd world countries that hold back development. I think the comparison to the Hanseatic league is fair - they weren’t libertarian, but they were able to conduct their own affairs without interference from monarchs, and they were given specific property rights so they didn’t have to worry about some local Baron or functionary stepping in to take away the fruits of trade after it had been earned.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@tomndebb

OK. You have inserted your standard snide comment.

Now, unless you have a specific comment that addresses an actual libertarian principle or action, (without attributing “libertarian” actions to entities that were not libertarian, such as nineteenth century U.S. or U.K.), do not further hijack this thread.

[ /Moderating ]

I agree Libertarianism is not anarchy.

I would like Libertarians to spell out what laws, in their lawful society, are ok and what laws they would eschew.

They are distinctly mute on this topic. Instead they prefer something more akin to religious zealotry in their politics.

If they want a Libertarian elected then it is incumbent on them to say what their world will look like and how it would work.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Sam_Stone

The basically principle though is to provide a haven against taxes, tariffs, corruption and other features of 3rd world countries that hold back development. I think the comparison to the Hanseatic league is fair - they weren’t libertarian, but they were able to conduct their own affairs without interference from monarchs, and they were given specific property rights so they didn’t have to worry about some local Baron or functionary stepping in to take away the fruits of trade after it had been earned.

I think I asked before…

…What has the EPA done to make the world a worse place?

Be specific please.

I have no doubt the EPA runs companies off to China.

The companies merely moved to places that don’t give a shit about pollution. I have provided cites for the hell the pollution is creating in China.

Yeah the jobs go there. Do you want the jobs here (North America) if only we allowed such pollution to go unchecked?

China is starting to learn the mess they have allowed. They are starting to address it. But it is a colossal problem and they do not want to slow economic growth. These two desires are incompatible. China is only recently addressing the pollution because it has reached epic proportions and is unavoidable.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Sam_Stone

I actually made the same points you just did. I said that he specifically called for some planning, and specifically mentioned road rules and public sanitation.

The basically principle though is to provide a haven against taxes, tariffs, corruption and other features of 3rd world countries that hold back development.

…except high taxes are not a feature of 3rd world countries: tax revenue as a share of GDP tends to be lower, I suspect due to weak rule of law. Substitute “regulation” for “taxes, tariffs” and I might agree though: in too many 3rd world countries, regulations form the basis of much corruption, as bribery becomes accepted and possibly necessary to run a business. But really, parachuting in a demonstrably functional system of laws and governance, with all its inefficiencies and welfare loss triangles, would be the best way of thinking about it. Brazil is anything but a libertarian paradise, but its legal institutions work better than Haiti’s, which is why Romer thinks such a partnership might work.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Whack-a-Mole

I agree Libertarianism is not anarchy.

I would like Libertarians to spell out what laws, in their lawful society, are ok and what laws they would eschew.

They are distinctly mute on this topic. Instead they prefer something more akin to religious zealotry in their politics.

If they want a Libertarian elected then it is incumbent on them to say what their world will look like and how it would work.

Smart business conservatives should eschew the bracing concept of liberty for the more practical virtue of skepticism.

[Grumman]

@Whack-a-Mole

I would like Libertarians to spell out what laws, in their lawful society, are ok and what laws they would eschew.

What, all of them? Why should we go to all that trouble when you have shown not the slightest willingness to discuss our position in good faith?

They are distinctly mute on this topic.

Really? I thought I just told you what I as a libertarian thought on half a dozen areas of government influence and why.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Grumman

What, all of them? Why should we go to all that trouble when you have shown not the slightest willingness to discuss our position in good faith?

You want to revamp society and the laws that govern them and ask me why you should go to the trouble of telling me what your plan is?

Really?

Really? I thought I just told you what I as a libertarian thought on half a dozen areas of government influence and why.

No you didn’t.

Devil is in the details.

[Chronos]

Quoth Grumman:

It’s not:

Firstly, you have a responsibility not to set fire to other people’s property, through negligence or malice. Therefore it is not unreasonable to require that people take precautions to mitigate any damage they may cause to other people.

Second, like criminals, enemy armies and contagious diseases, fire is an enemy to all that grows stronger if left to fester. Therefore a fire department is justified by the same line of reasoning that justifies a police force, army or vaccine - because a particular fire is a threat to everyone, even if it hasn’t got to you yet.

And yet, we see that when people do actually try to implement what they would describe as libertarian ideals, public firefighting is one of the things that gets the axe. Remember that story about a year ago about the firefighters in Tennessee who stood by and watched a guy’s house burn to the ground, because he hadn’t contracted with them? It rings hollow to say “that’s not real libertarianism” when that’s what real libertarians actually do.

[Robb]

I’ve watched the Principality of New Utopia over the Internet for years. I don’t think it is strictly libertarian, but I’d like to see it built just to see what happens.