Awesome free state project open to bitcoin donations

[onarchy]

Because you're making a false equivalence. It wasn't until 1989 that copyright was even implicit in the United States. That came with the ratification of the Berne Convention.

That's because the need for copyright in law is very recent. Prior to Gutenberg the act of copying books was a very laborious task. With the printing press copies could be made very easily. And with industrialization copying inventions became quite easy too. Then and only then copyright, patents and intellectual properties were conceived because for the first time in the history they became NECESSARY. However, culturally speaking many are still conceptually living in the pre-industrial world: "it's my book! I can do with it whatever I want!"

IP laws are not inalienable rights, and they have been very significantly tightened, due to heavy industry lobbying, in the United States over the last 30 years, especially with several acts passed in the 90s. We had perfectly functioning contract law before significant copyright and other IP protections. The two are not inextricably linked.

Yes, intellectual property rights ARE inalienable rights. Just because the precondition for intellectual property was not fulfilled until a few centuries ago doesn't mean that it isn't inalienable. Inalienable doesn't mean "has existed and will exist forever." When that is said let me add that I think that the IP laws of the US (like many of their other laws) are not good. I can explain what kind of IP laws I think should be practiced, if you like, but that is really irrelevant to this discussion. Before we get into the nitty gritty details of formulating good IP laws we should be able to get past the most significant bit: should or shouldn't ANY IP be protected by law at all? The reason I mention US laws here is to make sure you understand that I am not saying that just because I think that IP is an inalienable right, then all US IP laws are just.

[1714162479]

1714162479

[1714162479]

1714162479

[1714162479]

1714162479

[onarchy]

I don't have time to debate the fancy website.  Stop saying Singapore an HK are the most free, economically free, whatever free.

I can prove it. See heritage.org/index.

Can I open a strip club in Singapore?  I cannot even sell chewing gum.  Give me a break.  If I sell medical marijuana there I'll be executed.  

No you cannot do these things, and I think gay porn is off the table too. So according to your standards until strip clubs, medical marijuana, gay porn and chewing gum is legal, we should not in any way distinguish Singapore from North-Korea. Don't you think that is a little bit unproductive? Sure, Singapore has authoritarian elements, but that's true of ALL states in the world today. This does not change the fact that Singapore and Hong Kong are the CLOSEST things we have Free States today. They have low taxes, very few (and well-functioning) regulations, well-protected property rights, very efficient bureaucracy and little corruption. But to you all this is unimportant as long as strip clubs and medical marijuana is illegal.

I would say that this is the reaction of typical spoiled Westerners who know nothing about what it means to not be able to feed one's family or to live without electricity and toil long hours for even the simplest of amenities. But to the billions of people who live in or very near poverty, whether gay porn and strip clubs are available are simply not an issue, because they can afford neither. To these people it would be a dream come true to be able to live in Singapore or Hong Kong.

Now, we certainly acknowledge that neither Singapore nor Hong Kong are full Free States, but that they are very close and by far closest in the world should be acknowledged and celebrated. The Free State Initiative will strive towards greater social liberty than in Singapore, although there is a very real chance that such liberties will not be fully allowed by the host country. But even if that turns out to be the case the Free State is still worth pursuing for all the reasons we write about in the website. If you don't think those very reasons that enable you to be spoiled and sit in front of your computer (that would not exist without economic freedom) and whine about chewing gum and medical marijuana are important, then frankly you do not deserve to live in a free country.

[kiba]

Yes, intellectual property rights ARE inalienable rights. Just because the precondition for intellectual property was not fulfilled until a few centuries ago doesn't mean that it isn't inalienable. Inalienable doesn't mean "has existed and will exist forever." When that is said let me add that I think that the IP laws of the US (like many of their other laws) are not good. I can explain what kind of IP laws I think should be practiced, if you like, but that is really irrelevant to this discussion. Before we get into the nitty gritty details of formulating good IP laws we should be able to get past the most significant bit: should or shouldn't ANY IP be protected by law at all? The reason I mention US laws here is to make sure you understand that I am not saying that just because I think that IP is an inalienable right, then all US IP laws are just.

Those rights are meaningless to anti-IP entrepreneurs. We will culls business that use these "rights".

They are not "rights" in so much as they are disadvantage on the free market.

[LMGTFY]

I don't have time to debate the fancy website.  Stop saying Singapore an HK are the most free, economically free, whatever free.

I can prove it. See heritage.org/index.

OK, economically free. Because Singapore is effectively a one-party state: the Peoples Action Party has won every election since 1959. In the 1970s visitors with long hair had compulsory hair cuts at the airport. When I was last there, in the 1980s, opposition politicians were "confessing their sins" on TV. Freedom House rates Singapore as "partly free", The Economist rates it as a "hybrid regime", the third rank out of four, in its "Democracy Index". (via Wikipedia).

Socially and politically Singapore is hugely authoritarian. Australia and New Zealand are 3rd and 4th on the Heritage list, and I'd regard both of those as suspect in terms of freedom - but Singapore? Hong Kong? Really?

[NghtRppr]

The same argument can be made against a contract. One who breaches a contract is not initiating violence or making threats on your property.

A person binds themselves to the terms of a contract voluntarily. That isn't the case with intellectual property. Even if you make everyone you sell a CD to sign a contract that says "I will not redistribute the contents of this CD", you still haven't recreated intellectual property because there is nothing stopping a third party that didn't sign that contract from doing so. A contract is binding because it's voluntarily agreed to. You can't automatically bind third parties which is why intellectual property isn't legitimate.

I completely agree that it doesn't make any sense, just like piracy doesn't require that you are causing me physical harm, but rather take away FUTURE revenue from my mental work.

That's because you've been deluded into thinking that you own the products of your work. That's false though. If you steal from me a slab of marble and then chisel a statue out of it, do you own the statue now? No, the statue is mine and I also claim that you've destroyed my slab of marble and owe me for damages. Once you empty your head of that delusion, you will stop feeling entitled to own an idea just because you thought it up.

[jimbobway]

"Free State Initiative" is sounding more and more like some kind of Orwellian doublespeak.

Let's see... Isolate a population geographically and make them entirely dependent on resources provided by the State. Subject them to bizarre rules to control their behavior and confine them to regulated economic channels. And repeat this process all over the world, perpetuating a paradigm of neo-colonialism...

YES.  This sums up to exactly what I am thinking.  It is masking itself behind the word free when it is not really free.

[NghtRppr]

"Free State Initiative" is sounding more and more like some kind of Orwellian doublespeak.

Let's see... Isolate a population geographically and make them entirely dependent on resources provided by the State. Subject them to bizarre rules to control their behavior and confine them to regulated economic channels. And repeat this process all over the world, perpetuating a paradigm of neo-colonialism...

YES.  This sums up to exactly what I am thinking.  It is masking itself behind the word free when it is not really free.

It's a shame that the name is going to lead people into thinking it's somehow related to or modeled after the free state project. I hope nobody has any regrets after donating and then seeing what kind of ideology this guy is pushing.

[wb3]

A contract is entered into voluntarily. Intellectual property isn't. Even if you make everyone you sell a CD to sign a contract that says "I will not redistribute the contents of this CD", you still haven't recreated intellectual property because there is nothing stopping a third party that didn't sign that contract from doing so. A contract is binding because it's voluntarily agreed to. You can't automatically bind third parties which is why intellectual property isn't legitimate.

This makes perfect sense to me, however, judges seem to disagree. IP, at least in music, is due to laziness. A band creates a hit and rather than use the song to draw people to concerts, they want to sit home and collect money (for the rest of their life).

On the other hand, the law is starting to paint themselves into a corner. Soon people will be able to take advantage of these ridiculous rulings and bring down the whole house of cards. The big thing here is "work for hire", that the RIAA is now fighting. But with a few more rulings, People especially freelance employees, will claim IP, Publicity Rights (completely stupid), etc...  Workers will want control over their contributions to the work product in order to get paid for something forever.

If I am contracted to write a ISM Manual, I will keep the writes to that manual even after my death. There are even cases of people purposely letting crapy movies and songs out to collect the $150,000 dollar fine.

As an example:

All rights to this post are reserved, and only to be posted on bitcoin.org forum. No rights are granted in the reproduction of this post. Especially search engines such as Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc... If this post is reproduced in and presented in a search engine, you may be sued and may have to pay fines up to $150,000 per reproduction. Thanks for understanding, as it took a significant amount of thought and time to produce this message.  Including the "ascii art" at the bottom.

  []
(.)(.)
\    /
 (  )
 |  |

[jimbobway]

I don't have time to debate the fancy website.  Stop saying Singapore an HK are the most free, economically free, whatever free.

I can prove it. See heritage.org/index.

Can I open a strip club in Singapore?  I cannot even sell chewing gum.  Give me a break.  If I sell medical marijuana there I'll be executed.  

No you cannot do these things, and I think gay porn is off the table too. So according to your standards until strip clubs, medical marijuana, gay porn and chewing gum is legal, we should not in any way distinguish Singapore from North-Korea. Don't you think that is a little bit unproductive? Sure, Singapore has authoritarian elements, but that's true of ALL states in the world today. This does not change the fact that Singapore and Hong Kong are the CLOSEST things we have Free States today. They have low taxes, very few (and well-functioning) regulations, well-protected property rights, very efficient bureaucracy and little corruption. But to you all this is unimportant as long as strip clubs and medical marijuana is illegal.

I would say that this is the reaction of typical spoiled Westerners who know nothing about what it means to not be able to feed one's family or to live without electricity and toil long hours for even the simplest of amenities. But to the billions of people who live in or very near poverty, whether gay porn and strip clubs are available are simply not an issue, because they can afford neither. To these people it would be a dream come true to be able to live in Singapore or Hong Kong.

Now, we certainly acknowledge that neither Singapore nor Hong Kong are full Free States, but that they are very close and by far closest in the world should be acknowledged and celebrated. The Free State Initiative will strive towards greater social liberty than in Singapore, although there is a very real chance that such liberties will not be fully allowed by the host country. But even if that turns out to be the case the Free State is still worth pursuing for all the reasons we write about in the website. If you don't think those very reasons that enable you to be spoiled and sit in front of your computer (that would not exist without economic freedom) and whine about chewing gum and medical marijuana are important, then frankly you do not deserve to live in a free country.

Ok, this is starting to get personal.  Attacking Westerners now, huh?   Claiming Westerners don't know how to feed their family or work long hours?  Claiming that I don't deserve to live in a free country?

I think you don't even know what a free country is.  From what I read, you think being free is being able to get as rich as possible without government interference.  There are other freedoms like freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of ideas, etc.  In places like Singapore these freedoms are restricted.  In places like the United States, it is now possible for gay people to become legally married.  People in the U.S. can organize and protest in front of the White House.  In Wisconsin there were protesters by the thousands in the state capitol and their rights were protected.

So I don't think you truly appreciate or know what freedom is.  All you care about is money.

[onarchy]

The same argument can be made against a contract. One who breaches a contract is not initiating violence or making threats on your property.

A person binds themselves to the terms of a contract voluntarily. That isn't the case with intellectual property.

This exact argument can be made against laws banning murder. The murderer can argue that he never signed a contract not to kill anyone. Thus, this argument ALONE is not sufficient.

Even if you make everyone you sell a CD to sign a contract that says "I will not redistribute the contents of this CD", you still haven't recreated intellectual property because there is nothing stopping a third party that didn't sign that contract from doing so.

This exact argument can be made against third party resellers of items acquired by theft. He never signed a contract with the original party and should therefore be allowed to keep the stolen goods. Thus, this argument ALONE is not sufficient. Illegal organ sales for instance, should by this logic be completely legal.

A contract is binding because it's voluntarily agreed to. You can't automatically bind third parties which is why intellectual property isn't legitimate.

The same can be said about a slave trader. The third party who buys a slave didn't originally enslave the person. Now that slave is property and so third party slavery is ok. He never agreed not to enslave that party. Thus, this argument ALONE is not sufficient.

I completely agree that it doesn't make any sense, just like piracy doesn't require that you are causing me physical harm, but rather take away FUTURE revenue from my mental work.

That's because you've been deluded into thinking that you own the products of your work. That's false though. If you steal from me a slab of marble and then chisel a statue out of it, do you own the statue now? No, the statue is mine and I also claim that you've destroyed my slab of marble and owe me for damages. Once you empty your head of that delusion, you will stop feeling entitled to own an idea just because you thought it up.

The only thing you prove here is that the labor argument ALONE is not sufficient. I need to specify that it only applies to peaceful work, i.e. work that does not violate the property rights of others. But whose property do I violate when I write a book? In what way is sitting in my own home writing a book on my own computer which I bought with my own money that I earned fair and square not peaceful?

[onarchy]

I would say that this is the reaction of typical spoiled Westerners who know nothing about what it means to not be able to feed one's family or to live without electricity and toil long hours for even the simplest of amenities. But to the billions of people who live in or very near poverty, whether gay porn and strip clubs are available are simply not an issue, because they can afford neither. To these people it would be a dream come true to be able to live in Singapore or Hong Kong.

Now, we certainly acknowledge that neither Singapore nor Hong Kong are full Free States, but that they are very close and by far closest in the world should be acknowledged and celebrated. The Free State Initiative will strive towards greater social liberty than in Singapore, although there is a very real chance that such liberties will not be fully allowed by the host country. But even if that turns out to be the case the Free State is still worth pursuing for all the reasons we write about in the website. If you don't think those very reasons that enable you to be spoiled and sit in front of your computer (that would not exist without economic freedom) and whine about chewing gum and medical marijuana are important, then frankly you do not deserve to live in a free country.

Ok, this is starting to get personal.  Attacking Westerners now, huh?   Claiming Westerners don't know how to feed their family or work long hours?  Claiming that I don't deserve to live in a free country?

In addition to being spoiled you also seem not to be able to read. I didn't attack anyone. It is not an attack to tell the TRUTH. I didn't claim that you don't know HOW TO feed your family or work long hours. I said that you didn't know what it was like NOT to be able to feed your family despite long hours, and you don't know what it is like to toil long hours EVEN FOR THE SIMPLEST OF AMENITIES. And yes, I don't think you deserve to live in a free country when your only reaction to the Free State Initiative is whining about chewing gum in Singapore. In other words, you are actively working against the an organization that wants to create the freest state on earth, because Singapore bans chewing gum. Such a person obviously is spoiled rotten and does not deserve to live in freedom.

I think you don't even know what a free country is. From what I read, you think being free is being able to get as rich as possible without government interference.  There are other freedoms like freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of ideas, etc.  In places like Singapore these freedoms are restricted.  In places like the United States, it is now possible for gay people to become legally married.  People in the U.S. can organize and protest in front of the White House.  In Wisconsin there were protesters by the thousands in the state capitol and their rights were protected.

Did I say that the FSI was against any of these things? The Free State Initiative will work for peace on ALL levels, including for individuals to live in peace to do their own peaceful activities that others find offensive. No, you decided to react like a spoiled brat that I described Singapore "close to a Free State" because it bans chewing gum.

So I don't think you truly appreciate or know what freedom is.  All you care about is money.

When you don't have any money and are living in poverty I can assure you that all you care about is money too. Chewing gum comes far down on the list of priorities to these people.

[NghtRppr]

This exact argument can be made against laws banning murder. The murderer can argue that he never signed a contract not to kill anyone. Thus, this argument ALONE is not sufficient.

Murder is covered under the non-aggression principle. There are no contracts needed for that.

This exact argument can be made against third party resellers of items acquired by theft. He never signed a contract with the original party and should therefore be allowed to keep the stolen goods. Thus, this argument ALONE is not sufficient. Illegal organ sales for instance, should by this logic be completely legal.

There are only two legitimate ways to obtain property, by claiming unowned property or by buying it from the current owner. A person that receives stolen property from a third party has done neither so they don't legitimately own it.

The same can be said about a slave trader. The third party who buys a slave didn't originally enslave the person. Now that slave is property and so third party slavery is ok. He never agreed not to enslave that party. Thus, this argument ALONE is not sufficient.

The argument against stolen property applies to slavery. I own myself and therefore only I can legitimately sell myself into slavery, which I see no problem with. If someone wants to sell theirself into slavery, have at it.

The only thing you prove here is that the labor argument ALONE is not sufficient. I need to specify that it only applies to peaceful work, i.e. work that does not violate the property rights of others. But whose property do I violate when I write a book? In what way is sitting in my own home writing a book on my own computer which I bought with my own money that I earned fair and square not peaceful?

Let's recap, shall we. You think that you own something because you mix your labor with it. I said that's false and I provided an example illustrating why. Then you said (I think) that you can mix your labor with a book and thereby own the book. No, either you already owned the book and writing in it is just doing whatever you want with your property or someone else owns the book and you just defaced their property. Writing in a book has nothing to do with owning the book. Of course, what exactly that has to do with owning what's written in the book is beyond me but it sounds like question-begging thus far.

[onarchy]

"Free State Initiative" is sounding more and more like some kind of Orwellian doublespeak.

Let's see... Isolate a population geographically and make them entirely dependent on resources provided by the State. Subject them to bizarre rules to control their behavior and confine them to regulated economic channels. And repeat this process all over the world, perpetuating a paradigm of neo-colonialism...

YES.  This sums up to exactly what I am thinking.  It is masking itself behind the word free when it is not really free.

Ok, I am now going to make a list of things that you will be able to do in the Free State that today is impossible in the United States or pretty much any country in the world:

- 100% privately owned roads
- 100% private health care
- 100% private education
- 100% private social security
- 100% private water and sewage
- 100% private airports and ports
- 100% private money (including Bitcoins) and free banking
- very close to 100% free immigration
- extremely low taxes, possibly zero (the goal is to have the Free State entirely financed by voluntary donations)
- zero regulations, other than that provided by private property


And yes, chewing gum will also be legal, although the private owners of the roads may have high fines for spitting it on their property. AND, if the host country does not have any objections, the Free State will also make drugs, alcohol, gay marriage, porn and full peaceful freedom of expression legal. There is a good chance that the host country as part of its charter will limit freedoms in one or more of these areas, but that will not be our fault.

Can you tell me exactly (be very specific now) in which way we are "masking behind the word free when it is not really free"?  What on this list I just mentioned is so horrible that you think we are virtually North Korea? Do you disagree that the list I just mentioned above makes the Free State *dramatically* freer than any state in the world today?

[kiba]

Can you tell me exactly (be very specific now) in which way we are "masking behind the word free when it is not really free"?  What on this list I just mentioned is so horrible that you think we are virtually North Korea? Do you disagree that the list I just mentioned above makes the Free State *dramatically* freer than any state in the world today?

Other than the fact that libertarians today oppose copyright and patents?

[onarchy]

This exact argument can be made against laws banning murder. The murderer can argue that he never signed a contract not to kill anyone. Thus, this argument ALONE is not sufficient.

Murder is covered under the non-aggression principle. There are no contracts needed for that.

WHY does the non-aggression principle apply? And why is intellectual work supposedly not protected by this principle?

This exact argument can be made against third party resellers of items acquired by theft. He never signed a contract with the original party and should therefore be allowed to keep the stolen goods. Thus, this argument ALONE is not sufficient. Illegal organ sales for instance, should by this logic be completely legal.

There are only two legitimate ways to obtain property, by claiming unowned property or by buying it from the current owner. A person that receives stolen property from a third party has done neither so they don't legitimately own it.

Why does a person own his own body? He neither bought owned property nor claimed unowned property. I would claim that it is because he as an individual continuously mixes his WORK with the natural state and thereby acquire property rights. Simply "claiming" unowned property is not enough. I "claim" to own the entire universe that is as of yet unclaimed (i.e. the vast majority of it). Why is this not sufficient?

I own myself and therefore only I can legitimately sell myself into slavery, which I see no problem with.

WHY do you own yourself?

Let's recap, shall we. You think that you own something because you mix your labor with it.

Peacefully, yes. I.e. mixing labor with stolen goods or with slaves does not give rise to property.

I said that's false and I provided an example illustrating why.

You gave an example that I agreed with. You gave an example of work that involves violating others and hence is illegitimate. We don't disagree on that, so you can't use it as an argument against the labor theory.

Then you said (I think) that you can mix your labor with a book and thereby own the book. No, either you already owned the book and writing in it is just doing whatever you want with your property or someone else owns the book and you just defaced their property. Writing in a book has nothing to do with owning the book. Of course, what exactly that has to do with owning what's written in the book is beyond me but it sounds like question-begging thus far.

Here you are explicitly denying the existence of information, and then we are back to why information should be respected in other rights such as in contracts or when threats are made. As could use your argument above and say that I was not really making a threat. I was just peacefully waving my gun around while making a noise with my mouth: "give me all your money or I'll kill you!" If you perceived that as a threat then that's your problem. The same argument applies to contracts. If you deny the existence of information and only focus on physical actions, then I didn't sign a contract, I only write doodles on a piece of paper. Why is it ok to ignore the information content of a book, but not the information content of a contract or a threat?

[jimbobway]

I would say that this is the reaction of typical spoiled Westerners who know nothing about what it means to not be able to feed one's family or to live without electricity and toil long hours for even the simplest of amenities. But to the billions of people who live in or very near poverty, whether gay porn and strip clubs are available are simply not an issue, because they can afford neither. To these people it would be a dream come true to be able to live in Singapore or Hong Kong.

Now, we certainly acknowledge that neither Singapore nor Hong Kong are full Free States, but that they are very close and by far closest in the world should be acknowledged and celebrated. The Free State Initiative will strive towards greater social liberty than in Singapore, although there is a very real chance that such liberties will not be fully allowed by the host country. But even if that turns out to be the case the Free State is still worth pursuing for all the reasons we write about in the website. If you don't think those very reasons that enable you to be spoiled and sit in front of your computer (that would not exist without economic freedom) and whine about chewing gum and medical marijuana are important, then frankly you do not deserve to live in a free country.

Ok, this is starting to get personal.  Attacking Westerners now, huh?   Claiming Westerners don't know how to feed their family or work long hours?  Claiming that I don't deserve to live in a free country?

In addition to being spoiled you also seem not to be able to read. I didn't attack anyone. It is not an attack to tell the TRUTH. I didn't claim that you don't know HOW TO feed your family or work long hours. I said that you didn't know what it was like NOT to be able to feed your family despite long hours, and you don't know what it is like to toil long hours EVEN FOR THE SIMPLEST OF AMENITIES. And yes, I don't think you deserve to live in a free country when your only reaction to the Free State Initiative is whining about chewing gum in Singapore. In other words, you are actively working against the an organization that wants to create the freest state on earth, because Singapore bans chewing gum. Such a person obviously is spoiled rotten and does not deserve to live in freedom.

I think you don't even know what a free country is. From what I read, you think being free is being able to get as rich as possible without government interference.  There are other freedoms like freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of ideas, etc.  In places like Singapore these freedoms are restricted.  In places like the United States, it is now possible for gay people to become legally married.  People in the U.S. can organize and protest in front of the White House.  In Wisconsin there were protesters by the thousands in the state capitol and their rights were protected.

Did I say that the FSI was against any of these things? The Free State Initiative will work for peace on ALL levels, including for individuals to live in peace to do their own peaceful activities that others find offensive. No, you decided to react like a spoiled brat that I described Singapore "close to a Free State" because it bans chewing gum.

So I don't think you truly appreciate or know what freedom is.  All you care about is money.

When you don't have any money and are living in poverty I can assure you that all you care about is money too. Chewing gum comes far down on the list of priorities to these people.

You nothing about me and you obviously can't read either.  Again, you are generalizing and stereotyping Westerners.  You don't even know if I am a Westerner or if I am or have lived in poverty.  You don't know if I have toil for long hours trying to get basic amenities.  You come to all of these conclusions because you have a huge chip on your shoulder.  Clearly you are a bigoted person who has a distaste for Westerners.  

The reason why I brought up chewing gum is because that is where it starts.  Next you there will be rules on how to flush the toilet, how to marry, what to wear or not wear, how to walk, etc.  Each freedom is being taking away until there is little or no more freedom.

Here is some bigoted bullshit from your website that need specific examples:

 "In the West diversity is hailed in all areas except in material matters. Economic diversity is generally considered a huge evil and as a consequence Western countries set up huge immigration barriers that keep all the poor people on the outside, without access to the opportunities to improve their lives. In this way self-righteous Westerners are able to maintain the illusion of social equality. Out of sight, out of mind. As long as there are no visibly poor people in the West, people can pretend that there is material equality, even though there are still just as many poor people that just happen to live somewhere else. And worse: these poor are working in factories with bad conditions in their own countries to produce goods that are consumed in the West. In this way Westerners get to enjoy the fruits of cheap labor while preaching social equality."

More bigoted bullshit that needs specific examples:

"Western nations were redesigned during the Enlightenment more than 200 years ago, with the intention of taming government once and for all. They failed and the Western countries have largely returned to the feudal and corporatist welfare states that dominated earlier times."

[onarchy]

You nothing about me and you obviously can't read either.  Again, you are generalizing and stereotyping Westerners.  You don't even know if I am a Westerner or if I am or have lived in poverty.  You don't know if I have toil for long hours trying to get basic amenities.  You come to all of these conclusions because you have a huge chip on your shoulder.  Clearly you are a bigoted person who has a distaste for Westerners.

It's true that I don't know that you are from the West for sure, or not, and if you're a poor farmer from Bangladesh I apologize. HOWEVER, you DO have access to electricity, computers and the internet. Based on that fact, in combination with your spoiled attitude, I concluded that you are probably NOT a poor farmer from a poor country ravaged by bad governance, corruption, taxes, regulations, war and civil unrest. Please correct me if I am wrong.

The reason why I brought up chewing gum is because that is where it starts.  Next you there will be rules on how to flush the toilet, how to marry, what to wear or not wear, how to walk, etc.  Each freedom is being taking away until there is little or no more freedom.

So rather than being slightly more humble and actually asking "how will you prevent freedom from slipping away?" you just chose with zero calories of effort to dismiss the whole thing as trash. Maybe I have a very good answer to your concern, but you never gave me the chance to answer before you drew false conclusions. And you have the audacity to call ME bigoted.

Here is some bigoted bullshit from your website that need specific examples:

 "In the West diversity is hailed in all areas except in material matters. Economic diversity is generally considered a huge evil and as a consequence Western countries set up huge immigration barriers that keep all the poor people on the outside, without access to the opportunities to improve their lives. In this way self-righteous Westerners are able to maintain the illusion of social equality. Out of sight, out of mind. As long as there are no visibly poor people in the West, people can pretend that there is material equality, even though there are still just as many poor people that just happen to live somewhere else. And worse: these poor are working in factories with bad conditions in their own countries to produce goods that are consumed in the West. In this way Westerners get to enjoy the fruits of cheap labor while preaching social equality."

Can you tell me exactly what is UNTRUE about the above statement? Isn't it true that diversity is hailed in the West, except when it comes to "social inequality"? Isn't "social inequality" considered a huge evil in the West? Isn't it true that there is virtually no free immigration to the West from poor countries? Isn't it true that Westerners enjoy the fruits of low wages by workers who get wages and have working conditions which if they lived in their own countries would be appalled by? Exactly what in the above statement is untrue?

More bigoted bullshit that needs specific examples:

"Western nations were redesigned during the Enlightenment more than 200 years ago, with the intention of taming government once and for all. They failed and the Western countries have largely returned to the feudal and corporatist welfare states that dominated earlier times."

Do you think it is untrue that Western nations were redesigned during the Enlightenment 200+ years ago? What about the US constitution from 1787? That's some 224 years ago. Do you think that there is much left of the original enlightenment ideal of minimal government in the United States?

[onarchy]

This does nothing to make me feel any better about the project... "Private" means the somebody else owns and controls what would otherwise be public infrastructure. There is no commons in this scenario. Everyone shops at the company store...

Ah, but if you look at the slogan of the Free State Initiative it says "prosperity through PEACEFUL cooperation." And in the website it is emphasized that the goal is 100% PEACE (i.e. freedom from coercion/violence). You may not like a peaceful society, and that's ok, but to say that the website is dishonest? It is very specific about what kind of freedom it will foster, namely freedom from violence and coercion, i.e. peace. That's it, it's not freedom from having to earn a living, or freedom from having to live as a finite being in a finite world.

[PLATO]

I'm glad to see this thread getting interest.

What happens when I put a roadblock on my "Private Roads" for the lulz?

Onarchy - Have you ever read Neal Stephenson's "The Diamond Age"? Interactions between states, quasinational entities, individuals etc. are all governed by a 'Common Economic Protocol' - based on the libertarian ideal of "you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt me." It sounds like you are trying to set something in this vein up - am I correct in summing up your objection to information freedom as, "IP holds value, so allowing 'piracy' is tantamount to allowing economic theft from the rightsholder."

[wb3]

If everything was private, there would be very little for free. Toll Roads, Pay Bathrooms, etc...  I kind of like the Pay Bathroom idea.