I was thinking of a teaberry shuffle where the little
country might reduce the cost of shipping and import
by taking ownership on paper before heavy tariffs
were levied on imports from the small country. . maybe
a fanciful idea....... -- j

p.s. https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/pla...

The rule of [bad] law overwhelms us, and our Constitution has failed to prevent that. Constitutions are used to create Governments, and governments have the Powers of Force, which Force is the same which is prohibited to the Slaves.

So at what point might government somehow be "limited enough". That's not really the question, is it" The stack of governments is at least 4-high over every human being, and they tax/steal roughly half their income for whatever they decide "is good for us". So we continue only to see governments grow and grow, yet history is clear that always they Fail. So, when we're hit by the inevitable Great Collapse and governments-all go outta business, will you really want to create yet another Failure?

"a small country could do an end run around tariffs
by taking ownership of cargo for a fee"
I'm intrigued by this, but I don't understand because it seems the destination country would assess the tariff on the small country just the same.

My comment about trade was in response to someone saying that a micronation would struggle to survive without trade. I'm saying the human race struggles to survive without mutually agreed trades, which is a main point I took from AS.

I agree with the video and that there are too many laws. I agree they serve to oppress, esp if they're only sometimes enforced, i.e. when some powerful person wants to. That's opposite of rule of law. I want very few laws, consistently enforced, and built on a Constitutional framework that prevents tyranny of the majority.

Keeping it secret is nigh-on impossible. Therefore our home is our Gulch to whatever extent possible. That's for some sovereignty, for survival thru the collapse, and for self-defense always.

We cannot really get to John Galt's Gulch - the idea is grand but impossible because the Rulers will not tolerate it. We may dream otherwise, but...

The biggest difference between Libertarianism and Objectivism is with regard to intellectual property. To my surprise and enlightenment, the Khallings made me aware that the libertarian position on this issue is not what I had learned 25 years ago. On the IP issue, the Objectivists are correct.

Thank you, but I must respectfully decline, I do expect that it would be interesting, but there are too many irons in my fire while my time keeps slipping away. Most of us have seen enough history to know what has brought mankind to the brink of extinction, so this becomes a distraction from today's critical need for action. I must keep focus on Today!

sounds like a good topic for a new post, K, don't you think? -- j

a small country could do an end run around tariffs
by taking ownership of cargo for a fee, and then
(as the cargo continued on its voyage or trip) reduce
the effective cost of tariffs. . during the interval of
time before legislation could be passed, there could
be profits. . maybe? -- j

yes, it is. we are not anti-Jefferson. again, happy to give you research if you want it.

I believe in the rule of Reason. I just read that the average person breaks 3 "laws" per day; mostly it seems nobody can know nearly all the "laws" which intend to Rule us. Much of that serves only to oppress, but it does keep the lawyers busy.

I think that people are more naturally inclined to live and let live; but there are lines/circles around us all which would be foolhardy to cross.

This takes about 8 minutes
http://no-ruler.net/the-philosophy-of-li...

I've been quite interested in Jefferson for a long time, even visited his home in Virginia a few years ago, took the hosted tour, but even so I don't pretend to know everything about him. You do have your point of view, and I suspect it's kinda anti-libertarian, which I find curious.

I never agree that it depends on view. I'm always looking for an objective basis. got this husband, see, who does scholarship in the area. I can share some of it with you, if you are interested.

I wish it were true, but I don't believe people naturally inclined toward settling disputes with a reason. I believe in rule of law.

That would depend upon whatever your view might be. Utilitarian over
natural rights. I'm not all sure what you are trying to say.

note: I made brain-fart back there, out to have said libertarian-minded way BACK THEN, sorry

Here's a note we sent to Liberland's Prez yesterday:

"Thank you for your great intentions in attempting to create a more free country! You are wise and courageous people & we admire you.

While we eagerly await reading the English version of the Constitution of Liberland & the Laws of Liberland, a brief scanning of the website http://liberland.org/en/about/ & forum posts is not particularly encouraging for many reasons:

1—The creator of Liberland has proclaimed himself to be President, which is, as far as we know, a force-based political position.

2—Constitutions and laws are political constructs which generally CONSTITUTE the “legal” ways in which the newly created State can impose its will on it subjects (aka “citizens”).

3—It appears that Liberland is simply another small State whose rulers have already accepted the win-lose paradigm of rulers, politicians, laws, etc., with the noble intent of attempting to limit the powers of their newly created State, just as the founders of the USA did in creating what has become the most dangerous terrorist organization on the planet, the out-of-control US “government”.

4—The folks in your forum are already debating which freedoms will be confiscated by the new Liberland State. They mostly seem to be stuck in the European Win-Lose Paradigm & do not yet understand the concept of the Win-Win Free-Market Stateless Voluntary Society.

5--This note dated today on your website is not particularly positive for the project. Have you any comments?:

“Croatian police blocked the road that goes to Liberland. You can see the video and read the article here http://www.rtv.rs/sr_lat/drustvo/liberle... (written in Serbian; but you can use Google Translate in order to translate to your native language).; Liberland flag is removed (although it's not specified who did it).; Croatia does not have sovereignty over the Liberland territory; but it has soverignty over the road that takes to the Liberland.; Unless the Liberland president posseses a teleportation device; access to Liberland will not be possible.”"

Should this be in "Going Galt"?

I think that modern Libertarianism is quite divorced from a Jefferson. It is utilitarian over natural rights. I'm pretty sure you would not get Jefferson to buy into that.

Nope, there was much libertarian philosophy long before we made the LP. Jefferson was among the libertarian-minded way be that, and he was hardly alone.
Even within the LP there exist sects out there "off the wall". Having been a Libertarian by registration since virtually it's beginning, I've seen it all, and as a "political system", it plain sucks, for numerous reasons,

You really didn't address my comment nor even seem to pay attention to it, sorry. I submit that, given the chance, people will quite naturally come to ways of settling disputes with Reason and sometimes use binding arbitration. There is thus little or need to spend one's life in the courts of your Rulers, arguing about the good of some "law" over some other "law" and taking your chances that somehow the government's courts will make a reasonable decision. The archives have long been overflowing with such garbage.

Try to answer your question that from within the Gulch.

My opinion is the only way a true Gulch will work is if it is secret and hidden to only a few from the outside world. Anything less would cause a massive Liberal Apocalypse.

I would love to think that this can easily succeed. I think its going to be more difficult than that however. Something special would have to be relied upon until it was strong enough to defend itself somehow. Maybe offer virtual citizenship to all comers until a LOT of people could be shown to be behind the project. Lets say 1 million like minded people stood behind it and willing to put money into a bank started there, backed by gold. Initially those people would be scattered around the world, united by some sort of social media connection, and trading with each other preferentially. Might be enough economic power to permit a new country to be left alone. Socialist leaning powerful countries are only going to want to take over its riches, so that eliminates it being inside the USA . Maybe a good target location would be a really failed state somewhere. It will be difficult to be sure

"self appointed president" hmmm.....

I also think Bjorn Borg, tennis champion, owned(s) one as well. (edited for typo)

How do keep people from settling their disputes by armed conflict rather than through the courts if there's no police to enforce the law?