I am trying to find out if there are any other people in this world who think like I do, i.e. have the same political philosophy as I do. Someone who has more time and more skilled in legalese could reformulate this for as long as the themes are the same.
The Philippines taught me how to live like this. I learned a lot from the filipinos about how to live in freedom[2]!
I expect most people do not want freedom. Thus they will not vote "Yes to both". People think they want freedom, but they really don't.
Proposed Anarchy Constitution
Citizenship in the sovereign State of ________ (hereafter referred to as the State) is granted only to the initial owners of the territory purchased to form the State, to any offspring of citizens who declare their unequivocal allegiance to this Constitution, and to any person who so declares their allegiance coincident with written approval from at least two-thirds of the living adult citizens who existed at the time the two-thirds threshold was attained. Citizenship is perpetual except where voluntarily renounced. Renunciation occurs by written statement with three citizen witness signatories or implicitly immediately upon voting for any treaty, law, or amendment that violates this constitution. Non-citizens are not allowed to own private property within the State's territory. Any citizen who has renunciated explicitly or implicitly must dispose of his applicable private property within 1 year, else it will be sold at auction by any citizen of the State and the proceeds distributed proportionally to all citizens.
The State will have no power to enact laws, regulations, raise revenue, nor any euphemism or alternative formulation of the aforementioned concepts. Property rights within the State's territory will be transferred only by a trade between agreeable parties. Property ownership and contracts will be tracked by one block chain. Property rights can be enforced by any citizens at any time, so that possession of property agrees with the non-ambiguous statement of the block chain.
The State will have no power over social concerns and welfare, including but not limited to marriage, compulsory education, cohabitation, individual rights, poverty alleviation, and crime. Individuals may voluntarily enter into social contracts on the block chain, in which case the terms of the voluntary contracts can be enforced by any citizens at any time. The citizens may discourage heinous crime by carrying firearms. Punishment during the act can be death by self-defense. Retribution (punishment after the act) is against natural law and thus will not be allowed[1]. The right to carry firearms of any type is universal for all citizens, and there will be absolutely no restrictions nor procedures required to do so. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons are not allowed in the State's territory.
Any adult citizen of the State may create his or her own passport, driver's license, and other State issued document necessary to comply with international norms. Adult citizens may create passports for minor offspring but not operator licenses for machinery (i.e. teenagers may not drive in the State's territory and to be enforced by any citizen at any time).
In the case of ambiguity, citizens must respect the freedom of other citizens to do as they please.[2]
Again the State has no power of taxation nor any other form of raising revenue. Treaties of the State can grant revenue generating measures to external powers, but compliance can only be enforced by on citizens by the external power with liens against their private property that is not within the State's territory. There will be no elected officials and no salaries nor developments funded by the State.
The Constitution can not be amended and its terms are perpetual. The only way to absolve this Constitution is for
all citizens to renounce their citizenship. Occupation of the State's territory by a foreign power does not suspend this Constitution, which continues even if all the citizens are residents
in absentia.
When traveling abroad, citizens are subject to laws of the territorial jurisdiction corresponding to their physical presence. When in international waters, outer or inner space, or within the State's territory, citizens are indemnified by this Constitution against any jurisdictions which impinge on the sovereignty of this constitution.
The State waives its right to a
200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) around its territory, and instead claims a 1-mile EEZ.
The State may enter any treaty which does not inpinge on any statement in this constitution and the treaty is valid only if approved in writing by at least three-fourths of the living adult citizens who existed at the time the three-fourths supermajority threshold was attained. Any such validated, unexpired treaty may be rescinded by a two-thirds written vote of the living adult citizens.
[1] In other words, citizens have a duty to be proactive about their self-defense, which it the optimum method of reducing crime.
[2] If you don't like your neighbor's barking dog, then move or buy him out. No nanny state here!
The
1933 Convention on Rights and Duties of States, also known as the Montevideo Convention provides for the free will of a people of a territory. Of course the practical problem with enforcing the
actionable sovereignty (e.g. getting other states to recognize the passport, etc) of such
a micronation is that other powers (e.g. states and other terrorists) will both refuse to recognize the sovereign will of the people of State's territory and some powers may even forcefully attack the territory of the State.
http://www.worldislandinfo.com/Starting%20island%20country.htmlhttps://flagspot.net/flags/to_min.html#deshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Country_of_World_Peace#Efforts_to_obtain_sovereigntyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealandhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_TrinidadAs you can see from the examples above, states are very interested in making sure we remain vassals by quickly responding to any attempt by natural persons to declare sovereignty over any territory which they purchased and/or occupy. Of course, because the powers of taxation and money creation beget from subjugation of individual sovereignty.
I believe there is a loophole which can be leveraged to render the powers of the states impotent.
There exists
UN Convention on Stateless Persons. If you are in a country which is a signatory to this convention and you renounce your existing citizenship (or preferably get an official recognition of your relinquished citizenship), meaning you are a stateless person, then that signatory country where you are physically present must provide certain rights to you. They must provide you with an identity and travel document.
So the action I am asking you to vote on today is as follows. I want to know who is willing to co-purchase a territory for a new State, then travel to a nation which offers residency for foreign expats and which also
does not tax foreign residents on foreign income and dividends, then print passports for ourselfs in our new sovereign State, relinquish our existing citizenships, and then declare to the host nation where we are physically present to recognize our citizenship in our sovereign State. The host nation (which must be a signatory to the aforementioned UN convention) must either honor our passports or apply our rights under the stateless person's treaty.
I would suggest we more or less stick together in the same signatory nation so have more political clout and economy-of-scale in completing the process. We could also pool our capital to buy some land and create a community we can protect in coming economic collapse. Some examples of affordable bulk land in suitable climates and signatory nations:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130503074339/http://www.byronlutz.com/antolopez.htm (recently increased to $75,000 for 12 acres)
http://www.bestranches.com.ar/ranches.html * 4500 acres with river, trouts, private natural sand beach in the ranch, cascades, streams for $1.4 million
* 18,000 acres with river for $690,000!
The worst that can happen is we gain residency in this signatory nation and a travel document as stateless persons. Well a stateless person is thus a sovereign person. Thus goal achieved. We can then travel freely back to our State's territory as "stateless persons".
The best that can happen is the signatory nation decides to honor our passports and issue us a travel document to go along with it. And that others in the world might see our success and emulate it.
We should be prepared that the powers-that-be would attempt to crush us by any means possible, because this would be a direct threat to their NWO plans. Or would it? Hmmm. The majority of the people in the world are sheep. They are not going to opt for sovereignty. The powers-that-be have nothing to fear from us. Rather if they attack us, they can create sympathy for us and stir an awakening amongst the masses that they don't want. In other words, we should follow the passive, non-violent approach to attaining freedom a la Gandhi.
In the worst case, we end up with ownership of the State's territory (we can subdivide with individual titles). We get rid of our onerous Western citizenship which in the coming years will be insane expropriation albatross around the neck of every westerner with networth, a business, or income. We carry at least a stateless person's travel document. We probably do destroy our chances of being accepted for purchasing citizenship in an economic citizenship program such as Dominica, but could probably attain citizenship in the signatory country where we are physically present over some years of residency.
Downsides include the very high likelihood that the "Western" (Europeanized) countries in green in the map in the webpage linked below will surely not grant us tourist visas.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11770294/Mapped-How-the-world-is-tackling-human-trafficking.htmlhttp://www.nestmann.com/former-u-s-citizens-face-discrimination-returning-usaAn example of an interesting island to consider is:
http://www.privateislandsonline.com/islands/macuata-island100 acres for $2.85 million, so that is $28,500 per acre. With 25 of us each investing $114,000, we'd each get roughly 4 acres (1.6 ha).
The reason to choose an island for attempting to establish sovereignty is because no citizens of the nation claiming jurisdiction can claim that we violate their rights to passage or otherwise harm them with our assertion of our rights on our purchased property. The citizens of the claiming nation have no justification to need to travel to our territory because it is private property. One of the reasons an island nation would strongly object to one of its island territories declaring sovereignty is because the 200-mile EEZ could hamper travel within the archipelago if many of the islands so declared their sovereignty.
Also the sovereignty motion would have a better chance of success if the State entered a treaty with the claiming nation respecting the sovereign conflicting sovereign claim of the claiming nation contingent on the claiming nation agreeing to honor the constitution of the State. In other words, an unresolved matter and state of mutually respecting truce. The treaty could include an agreement to pay a VAT tax on any rental and tourism revenue generated within the State's territory, so the claiming nation could save face and also revenue, but the treaty should ideally stipulate that in return the claiming nation would need to show that it spent the VAT on projects which benefited the State such as telecommunications and transportation infrastructure to the State's island. I assume many of the citizens our our micronation would be Knowledge Age workers or have foreign investments and thus wouldn't be subjected to such a VAT any way. Also the treaty could grant our citizens the option to obtain passports from the claiming nation.
In this negotiated way, I think it may be possible to attain some semblence of sovereignty in this mad world:
http://www.worldislandinfo.com/Starting%20island%20country.htmlProblem 3: No process for forming new countries
● The best solution is to become a leader in an island that might like to break away from its country: Nevis, of St. Kitts-Nevis, for instance. The separate islands of the Comoros have each achieved substantial autonomy under their own leaders in recent years. And East Timor has made the transition to sovereign nation.
● You still need recognition from the international community. And that requires sympathy, triggered by oppression of your little island, or at least popular support for its breaking away.
It seems the key ingredient is making it more politically and practically painful for the claiming nation to subjugate your State's sovereignty than it is for them to accept a deal that grants them most of the power they had.
The powers-that-be want to control the physical economy. They probably also want to control the Knowledge Age economy, and they think they can by controlling the information highway leading in and out of any physical territory. Thus I doubt they are that concerned about some libertarian nutcases who want to have some sort of pseudo-sovereignty which doesn't really challenge their globalization rules significantly.
I voted "Yes to both".
Poll
