Awesome free state project open to bitcoin donations

[onarchy]

Looks interesting as a thought experiment; however, there is always a reason that unproductive regions are largely uninhabited.

Singapore and Hong Kong were unproductive regions 70 years ago, and that's still true. There are no natural resources in these states. Until recently Singapore did not even have fresh water. (Now they have through technological investments built rain water catchment and treatment systems to provide a significant portion of their own drinking water.) It wasn't natural resources that brought them prosperity, it was the fact that they transformed themselves into something very close to Free States. They had the most important resource of all: peace and liberty.

[1714133400]

1714133400

[Anonymous]

Might be a good business in hosting servers that the mafiaa cant have confiscated.

 

[MoonShadow]

Looks interesting as a thought experiment; however, there is always a reason that unproductive regions are largely uninhabited.

Singapore and Hong Kong were unproductive regions 70 years ago, and that's still true. There are no natural resources in these states. Until recently Singapore did not even have fresh water. (Now they have through technological investments built rain water catchment and treatment systems to provide a significant portion of their own drinking water.) It wasn't natural resources that brought them prosperity, it was the fact that they transformed themselves into something very close to Free States. They had the most important resource of all: peace and liberty.

I don't disagree, but those niches have been filled.  I'm not sure that the world needs another international trade hub.  Liberty is great, but the people still need an income, more so if the city-state they live in cannot support itself sans trade.  If it were not for the trade of the harbor, Hong Kong would starve.  Seasteading, as many challenges that if faces, seems like a more viable possibility because at least such a city-state can technically move.  The human soul strives for liberty, but the human body toils to eat.

[MoonShadow]

Might be a good business in hosting servers that the mafiaa cant have confiscated.

 

A data haven might yet prove to be the killer Bitcoin app.  The idea has been tried on several occasions, all have been crushed by outside forces.  The Principality of Sealand being both the most successful and most rediculous recent example that comes to mind.

[error]

So here are some tough questions.

Who's going to invade? Who was invading Hong Kong and Singapore?

What does someone do who is seeking political asylum and, because the government who claims him is a government, refuses to allow him to exit the country or even obtain a passport, so he must "sneak" out? It seems that such a person would be tossed back into the ocean.

[onarchy]

I don't disagree, but those niches have been filled.  I'm not sure that the world needs another international trade hub.  Liberty is great, but the people still need an income, more so if the city-state they live in cannot support itself sans trade.  If it were not for the trade of the harbor, Hong Kong would starve.  Seasteading, as many challenges that if faces, seems like a more viable possibility because at least such a city-state can technically move.  The human soul strives for liberty, but the human body toils to eat.

It seems that you are under the impression that 1) Hong Kong and Singapore are ONLY trade hubs, 2) there is no more room for any more hubs and 3) economic freedom can somehow only be used for creating trade hubs. I strongly disagree on all three points.

Today both Hong Kong and Singapore are trade hubs, but they are ALSO more. Hong Kong is an important financial center, while Singapore has a lot of industry. Hong Kong used to be a production center. In the 1970s the term "Made in Hong Kong" become famous in the west for cheap low-quality products, which later become a quality trademark. Singapore and Hong Kong are also two of the countries with the highest amount of tourists visiting, and for Singapore health tourism has become a significant industry. The airports of Hong Kong and Singapore are also consistently voted as the best in the world, and they attract a lot of travelers for this very reason. It is fair to say that Singapore and Hong Kong have many more legs to stand on than being a trade hub. This dynamism and continuous reinvention is very much due to the high degree of economic freedom.

Second, while they really are very important as trade hubs they first of all are in Asia. A lot of very exciting things are going on in Asia, but there are other regions in the world, especially Africa and South-America that lack bastions of peace and liberty. Don't you think it's possible that the African equivalent of a Hong Kong could become a trade hub for African goods or even South-American goods? Furthermore, there are 7 billion people on this planet today. Only 1 billion of them have a Western standard of living, with an additional 1 billion well on their way. 3 billion have access to electricity, and 2 billion live in utmost poverty. Hundreds of millions of people are today eager -- yes, desperate -- to move to a rich/industrialized country to look for jobs, and are unable to do so due to immigration barriers. Don't you think it's possible that there could be a market for a place that can offer jobs to low-wage immigrants eager to move to an industrialized country?  Also, every single day at least a million new people all over the world escape poverty and acquire the ability to buy industrial goods. Even if Singapore and Hong Kong are really, really good trade hubs, do you think they are able to keep up with the demand increase of one million new industrial consumers every single day?

Finally, where did you get the idea that economic freedom somehow was only good for becoming a trade hub? The evidence shows that economic freedom is good for ALL kinds of economic activity: trade, industry, banking, services, tourism, agriculture, energy. The idea that somehow there is room for only a finite amount of economic freedom is strange. The economy is not a zero sum game. All the evidence shows that if a new country increases its economic freedom then EVERYONE benefits. The cake increases in size so that the country that increased its economic freedom does not take away from the cake of others.

Thus, there is no reason to believe that somehow we now have "enough" economic freedom in the world and that the "niche" of economic freedom has been filled. Dictatorship and authoritarianism is not an economic "niche" that produces anything of value. If the whole world was rid of all dictatorships and authoritarian regimes then the world would be a better place for everyone. There is no end to how much economic freedom is needed. The more, the better.

Let me give you a clue to some of the business models that are viable in a Free State:

today there are literally hundreds of millions of able but poor people all over the world who want a better life and want to move to an industrialized state. The Free State provides something completely unique to investors:

- really, really good governance (i.e. low corruption, proper rule of law, enforcement of contracts, security of person and property and very high efficiency in the state machinery, i.e. very few hurdles + of course no regulations and low taxes)
- an abundance of cheap labor (due to free immigration)

Normally an investor can one of these things in a country, but not both, because most Western countries have a combination of fairly good governance + high wages, whereas poor countries have a combination of bad governance + low wages. The Free State provides both and therefore is in a unique position to compete with anyone on price.

Thus, ANY business who has a business model which requires or benefits from cheap labor will have a reason to invest in the Free State.

[onarchy]

So here are some tough questions.

Who's going to invade? Who was invading Hong Kong and Singapore?

The main threat is unstable neighbor regimes and of course the host country itself, which may want to violate the treaty and nationalize the Free State. Precisely to avoid this the Free State MUST have a security force sufficiently large to deter an invasion.

What does someone do who is seeking political asylum and, because the government who claims him is a government, refuses to allow him to exit the country or even obtain a passport, so he must "sneak" out? It seems that such a person would be tossed back into the ocean.

No, he would not. The normal mode of operation is that you present a passport on arrival in the Free State. If you for some reason do not have a passport you may still present yourself to the authorities of the Free State and seek asylum. However, generally speaking you need to have a voucher in order to come into the Free State. Someone has to vouch for you, meaning that they can prove their ability to pay for leaving the country or taking care of that person if no country acknowledges him. That person may be himself (he must pay a deposit that will be kept in a locked bank account) or some other party. Some countries such as Somalia practices a full denial of entry for anyone who leaves their country without a passport, even it can be proved that they came from Somalia. In this case, the only way to get into the Free State is for the person to hand over their passport to protective care to a trusted party, e.g. a registered airline. This passport will then only be given to the person on arrival back in Somalia at some point in the future.

In other words, the most important thing with immigration security is to present yourself to the authorities of the Free State. If you don't do this it will be interpreted as ill intentions, which will not be tolerated.

[onarchy]

Might be a good business in hosting servers that the mafiaa cant have confiscated.

 

A data haven might yet prove to be the killer Bitcoin app.  The idea has been tried on several occasions, all have been crushed by outside forces.  The Principality of Sealand being both the most successful and most rediculous recent example that comes to mind.

Generally speaking the Free State will not be a complete data haven. Piracy and e.g. child pornography will not be tolerated.

[Anonymous]

Piracy will not be tolerated.

What's the "consequences" for this ?

Please spell it out exactly....

[Anonymous]

Might be a good business in hosting servers that the mafiaa cant have confiscated.

 

A data haven might yet prove to be the killer Bitcoin app.  The idea has been tried on several occasions, all have been crushed by outside forces.  The Principality of Sealand being both the most successful and most rediculous recent example that comes to mind.

We need that more than yet another government .

[­­­Atlas_]

Might be a good business in hosting servers that the mafiaa cant have confiscated.

 

A data haven might yet prove to be the killer Bitcoin app.  The idea has been tried on several occasions, all have been crushed by outside forces.  The Principality of Sealand being both the most successful and most rediculous recent example that comes to mind.

Generally speaking the Free State will not be a complete data haven. Piracy and e.g. child pornography will not be tolerated.

Boo. You don't believe in property rights. You are limiting what I can do with my energy and matter with your IP garbage.

[onarchy]

Piracy will not be tolerated.

What's the "consequences" for this ?

Please spell it out exactly....

Criminal prosecution.

[error]

Piracy will not be tolerated.

What's the "consequences" for this ?

Please spell it out exactly....

Criminal prosecution.

I do believe they're talking about "copyright infringement," not hijacking ships at sea.

[MoonShadow]

Might be a good business in hosting servers that the mafiaa cant have confiscated.

 

A data haven might yet prove to be the killer Bitcoin app.  The idea has been tried on several occasions, all have been crushed by outside forces.  The Principality of Sealand being both the most successful and most rediculous recent example that comes to mind.

Generally speaking the Free State will not be a complete data haven. Piracy and e.g. child pornography will not be tolerated.

I can pretty much promise that copyrights would have no force in a true free market.

[onarchy]

Boo. You don't believe in property rights. You are limiting what I can do with my energy and matter with your IP garbage.

For some reason, many libertarians are Marxist materialists when it comes to information. I don't understand this, but I will try to briefly explain some consequences of not accepting IP.

Intellectual Property is a species of information rights. So let us first start with defining a right objectively:

- a right is something you can legitimately use physical force to enforce.

Example: you have rights to your own body, i.e. if someone attacks you, you can legitimately use physical force to protect your body. Another example: you have property rights over X, i.e. if someone infringes that property you can legitimately use physical force to protect X.

So what then is an information right? It is a right that spawns from some information. An anti-IP materialist denies such a right, because it is non-material. In other words, someone who is against IP must also logically be against the forceful protection of ANY information.

This has severe consequences. Let's look at some of them.

- if no information rights exist, there is no basis for enforcing contracts, because a contract is entirely made out of that non-material stuff we call information. Thus, someone who denies information rights can agree to something, and even sign a contract that he is supposed to give a person 100 dollars for object X, and then simply refuse to give the money. He will say "agreement? What are you talking about? That's just this information non-sense. It is MY physical money, and I can do with it as I please. You were just stupid that gave me X voluntarily believing that I would give you 100 dollars. That's YOUR problem. You have NO right based on scribbles on a piece of paper to violate MY physical property (i.e. enforcing the contract).

- if no information rights exist, then THREATS of physical violence are perfectly ok. So if you deny information rights, then logically it is ok for me to point a gun at you and say "give me all your money or I will kill you!" Physically speaking I have not harmed you in any way. I have simply used my own property in a peaceful manner that in no way has harmed you, and I have used my freedom of speech. If you in any way felt compelled to voluntarily give me your money then that is YOUR problem. You have NO right based on mere utterances from my mouth to violate MY physical property (i.e. criminally prosecute you for wielding threats of violence)

Notice that the structure of these arguments are identical to the argument that is used against IP. If you're stupid enough to give me a book with a novel written inside it, then, even if I agree implicitly not to distribute the content of that book when I purchase that book, it's still ok to do so, because the physical book is MY property and I can do with it whatever I want.  If you in any way feel cheated that I went ahead and distributed the information in your book on the internet then that is YOUR problem. You have NO right based on mere scribblings on a piece of paper to violate MY physical property. (i.e. criminally prosecute me for breaching the implicit agreement you made when I bought the book.)

So if you don't accept information rights, you have to accept that contracts cannot be enforced and you cannot criminally prosecute threats or fraud. You also have to accept that espionage or secret surveilance is ok, child pornography is ok and it's ok to sample a piece of your DNA that you leave behind anywhere in public and then analyze and publish it on the internet, including a list of of all your genetic diseases. The same is of course the case with your fingerprints. Without information rights it is also perfectly ok to make a fully 3D-image of your face (using 3D imaging techniques) and then use YOU in any kind of realistic depiction. E.g. it's ok to depict you in a porn movie. It's ok to depict you as a violent killer or to take the face of a famous actor and then make a movie with that actor starring in that movie without that actor's consent, leeching on the fame of that person. Furthermore you have no obligation to tell anyone it's a fake. Without information rights you can falsify any data or image you like and then LIE that it is a real picture or movie of YOU, e.g. a perfectly life-like movie showing YOU raping a baby to death while laughing sadistically. Without information rights you can say whatever outrageous lie you want about a person and that person cannot in any way have you prosecuted.

Are you prepared to live in an insane world like the one I just described? If not you MUST accept the validity of information rights. In other words, you must accept the legitimacy of using physical force to enforce things based on information. Thus, for any sane person an argument against IP must be something other than "I can do whatever I want with MY physical property, so long as I don't infringe YOUR physical property" because that argument leads down the road I just described.

Typically there are two other arguments that are used against IP. 1) "I didn't sign an explicit contract, therefore I can do whatever I want with my property" and 2) "information is an infinite resource, and only finite resources can be property."

Let's start with the infinite resource argument. Suppose that there existed an immortal being. It lives forever. Thus, it's time is an infinite resource. Therefore it does not own its own time, because only a finite resource can be property. Therefore enslaving this immortal being for a finite amount of time is perfectly ok.

I think most normal people would agree that just because you live forever it's not ok to enslave you, even for a second. This implies that infinite abundance of some resource is NOT a sufficient argument against property rights for that resource. The infinite argument can be used in all sorts of creative ways. There are virtually infinite amounts of functionally identical atoms in the universe. So atoms are not a finite resource. Therefore property rights to an atom cannot be legitimate since you can always get another one. Everyone will now immediately recognize that this is a false argument. True, there are infinitely many atoms in the world, but your LIFE is a finite resource and the work required to arrange those atoms in a particular place and pattern required some of your highly finite time and energy. So that there are infinitely many atoms is completely irrelevant. By the same token it is completely irrelevant that information is an infinitely abundant resource because your LIFE is a finite resource and the work required to create that unique pattern (e.g. a book) required some of your highly finite time and energy. In both cases it is your WORK that gives rise to property rights, not because work is a finite resource (although it certainly is) but because work is the actions by which you as an individual acquire identity. You are you because of your actions, and by patterning reality that part of reality becomes part of you.


Let's move on to the no-explicit-agreement-argument. Basically some argue that when you buy a book you nowhere explicitly agreed to not spread the content of that book, even though inside the book it says "copyright (c) All rights reserved" which is legalize for an implicit contract stating ("when you get this book into your possession you accept that there are restrictions on what you can do with it.") Implicit contracts are default contracts that are valid by law unless explicitly stated otherwise. This is a very important and useful tool because it allows you to go outside without a sign over your head saying "I don't want to be killed."

If implicit contracts are not valid then this means that if you DON'T wear that sign one day, for some reason, then it is perfectly ok for anyone to kill you. They can simply say "I didn't agree not to kill him, and he didn't say it wasn't ok." Sane people understand that life would be unbearable without such implicit contracts, and copyright law is simply one of these implicit contracts. Copyright COULD be implemented with a sign on the book stating "by opening this book you agree not to spread the content of this book to anyone" or if that is not acceptable then even sign an explicit contract with the seller that you will not spread the content of that book.

In short, none of the standard arguments against IP leads to a sane world because of the logical implications it has for other laws and rights.

[kelp]

If implicit contracts are not valid then this means that if you DON'T wear that sign one day, for some reason, then it is perfectly ok for anyone to kill you. They can simply say "I didn't agree not to kill him, and he didn't say it wasn't ok." Sane people understand that life would be unbearable without such implicit contracts, and copyright law is simply one of these implicit contracts. Copyright COULD be implemented with a sign on the book stating "by opening this book you agree not to spread the content of this book to anyone" or if that is not acceptable then even sign an explicit contract with the seller that you will not spread the content of that book.

In short, none of the standard arguments against IP leads to a sane world because of the logical implications it has for other laws and rights.

Did you really just argue that not having IP laws is a slippery slope to allowing murder?

[onarchy]

If implicit contracts are not valid then this means that if you DON'T wear that sign one day, for some reason, then it is perfectly ok for anyone to kill you. They can simply say "I didn't agree not to kill him, and he didn't say it wasn't ok." Sane people understand that life would be unbearable without such implicit contracts, and copyright law is simply one of these implicit contracts. Copyright COULD be implemented with a sign on the book stating "by opening this book you agree not to spread the content of this book to anyone" or if that is not acceptable then even sign an explicit contract with the seller that you will not spread the content of that book.

In short, none of the standard arguments against IP leads to a sane world because of the logical implications it has for other laws and rights.

Did you really just argue that not having IP laws is a slippery slope to allowing murder?

Not a slippery slope, no. I made a principled argument. I.e. if IP laws (implicit information contracts) are not legitimate, then obviously NO implicit contract laws are legitimate. I.e. if you claim that IP laws are illegitimate because they are implicit contracts you MUST also argue that it is illegitimate to make a law with the implicit contract that bans killing someone. It's not a slippery slope argument, but a reductio ad absurdum argument. Any argument that makes it morally ok to kill someone unless you have an explicit contract is obviously insane.

[onarchy]

- a right is something you can legitimately use physical force to enforce.

[/quote]

Sorry, but I can't let that stand without a challenge. Your statement attempts to simply presume legitimacy without explaining what that means, as such it is nothing but tautology once reduced -> "A right is legitimate".[/quote]

I think you misunderstood me. "Legitimate" in this case was just short for "generally accepted in society." It says nothing about the MORAL legitimacy of a right. You can for instance have a right to public health care in Sweden, but not in some other countries. That right doesn't mean that it is morally acceptable, only that you can use physical force to enforce it. In other words, Swedes consider it ok to use the threat of jail to secure health care for everyone. Hence, health care is a right in Sweden. While we certainly can discuss moral rights, it is not necessary for this discussion, and really is side-tracking the issue. I am simply applying LOGIC and looking at what happens when an argument and principle is applied CONSISTENTLY to ALL its areas of impact.

This is what is meant by IP rights, it is an attempt to channelize nothing less fundamental than the air we breathe... That is consciousness itself.

This is patently false. You are perfectly in your right to read a book that you have purchased and to think the thoughts that it inspires in you. You can even use that inspiration to make new thoughts that you can spread freely and/or earn money from. The only thing you are not allowed to do is to destroy another person's ability to economically profit from his own intellectual work, by spreading pirate copies of his work around.

For someone to say they own what has been perceived by the operation of my eyes, ears, and mind; to control what I may in turn create form those perceptions is no different.

You are now making the same argument as those who claim that contracts cannot be legally binding, I covered this at length in my previous post. Read that post once more.

[error]

Your comparison between IP and contract enforcement is a complete non-sequitur.

Unfortunately, intellectual property is wholly incompatible with a free society. If you're actually interested in learning, you can start here.

[onarchy]

Perhaps I should have stated my point more explicitly. You are simply applying the utilitarian ethic as a moral absolute.

I have no idea where you're getting this from because I am not a utilitarian.

My point is that there is in fact no asymmetry between individual and group interests.

I agree, and I have no idea why you claim this or why you think this is relevant to any of the arguments I presented. You don't actually answer any of my arguments. What I have shown in my long post is this:

- the denial of information rights leads to absurd results such as the legalization of fraud, breach of contract and threats. Any argument with the structure "I can do whatever I do with my PHYSICAL property so long as I don't infringe your PHYSICAL property" attacks information rights.

- if only finite resources can be protected by property rights, then immortal beings can be enslaved
- also, by the infinity argument there are virtually infinite atoms, so no atoms can be protected by property rights. Hence the infinity argument as used against IP also undercuts physical property rights
- finally, if you don't accept the validity of implicit default contracts then you must also accept that it is perfectly ok to kill someone unless they explicitly say otherwise.

You have not answered a single of these arguments, and each and every one of them is crushing against the anti-IP stance.