Shrugging...

[Carlos 0]

I'm having trouble with this also. All that needs to happen is some dictator decides he's going to annex your new country, and the West fails to come to your defense. Game over.

To think of it a different way, for the last century thousands of Dr. Stadlers have been placing weapons that would make the Xylophone blush in the hands of some of the most vicious thugs on the planet. On top of that America's pragmatism and altruism has resulted in all sorts of filthy scum simply having superior military technology donated to them!

For a rogue nation without outside support to outproduce everyone else in military technology may very well be on the verge of impossibility, no matter how many John Galts you had

Given that statistically John Galt is honestly something like 1 out of ten billion, I'm not holding my breath...

[Carlos 0]

Not many years after that, a far more pugnacious group decided to discard that premise and no national-scale attacks on their country have succeeded since. A country with a population smaller than any of America's largest cities now has an estimated 200 nuclear weapons and the only reason they have any potential threats left is due being infected by America's modern lack of will to fight and kowtowing to evil.

That small country's military is basically just an annex of ours. Where do you think they got their massive military?

[Carlos 0]

I reject the premise that evil is omnipotent, and I reject the premise that rational men are powerless to defend themselves.

Phil, no one is saying that evil is omnipotent. What I am saying is that it is possible to create a situation where survival for even John Galt is impossible.

[KurtColville 0]

On a piece of land, bought from a country willing to sell its claim to sovereignty...

What government would ever willingly reduce the scope of their power? If a country was good enough to do this, then the country would probably be good enough to live in anyways.

The only way I could imagine this working would be to buy an island from some financially collapsing country that needs the money badly. Of course, the kind of country that would be in such a state would probably be the kind you wouldn't want to live next to!

Right, I'm thinking that there are actually a fair number of backwater nations that have little islands or chunks of land that they don't really care about and would be willing to sell for something worthwhile like gold. In fact, every once in a while, I hear a news blurb about some little country offering land for sale. There are a bazillion islands out there for sale. Securing their legal independence would probably be difficult, but essential.

I'm sorry but I think this whole prospect of actualizing Galt's Gulch is a hopeless pipedream. Given the advanced state of technology of the US government, it would be a complete impossibility to have a hidden autonomous nation within America, so the only option would be to (as you mentioned) buy or settle on some other piece of land in the world.

I don't hold it against you or anyone else who honestly comes to this conclusion. I recognized from the get-go that this is a controversial, complicated, and ridiculously far-fetched idea. I have had to battle my own doubts about it. But I'm convinced now that it could work and that it's by far the best hope for a free society.

Early on in thinking about it, I decided that I needed to stop approaching it with "selling" the idea and trying to persuade other reasonable people as a priority. I came to think that the right approach is to obtain such a piece of land, iron out a set of laws that gives a free country a good start, and start a successful business(es) there in order to get a small-scale modern civilization going. If it works, that will be the magnet that attracts people who want to live, not my endless PR statements.

Right, I'm not interested in hiding. I'd want the country to function right out in the open, free to trade and live.

But think about this: when you establish your small utopia on some island somewhere, how will the rest of the world economic powers feel when you refuse to allow regulation of your banking system, or to be part of the UN? Who will come to help you when the Soviets decide to come take the rich oil-fields you've developed, or muslims start attacking your country? You will just be another Taiwan (or worse than that), and get sat-on by your communist 'superiors' while an unsympathetic world turns a blind eye.

Defense would be a top priority. I don't know how much hostility such a new country could expect early on. It could be ignored as an impotent pipedream, not worth attacking, or it could be picked on as an easy, friendless target. A lot of thought and money would likely have to go into planning its defense. Not to minimize the magnitude of potential threats, but I think those threats could be all but eliminated by dealing with the first threat decisively and mercilessly.

There are actually a lot of countries in the world that have non- or minimally regulated banking systems, that aren't part of the UN, and that aren't involved in loads of crippling "one-world" treaties. They are largely ignored, becuase they're small and insignificant.

I'd also offer this observation, for what it's worth. If the idea of starting a new country based on individual rights really is impractical because not enough people would support it and the rest of the world would annihilate it, then what chance does freedom have in any existing country in the forseeable future? I'd rather try than wait and hope that some country will become tolerant of freedom.

I'm not kidding myself that this is difficult on an unprecedented scale. And it's totally out of my league, since I'm not rich, I don't own a successful business, and I have no experience in the law. But I'm convinced that this is the right idea and I'm ready to work for it.

[Carlos 0]

Thank you for your interesting post Kurt. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[KurtColville 0]

Thank you for your interesting post Kurt. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

You're welcome, and thanks for considering it. Like I said, I know it's a radical idea, but as long as someone is honest about it, I'm happy to deal with them, even if they disagree with it.

[styg50 0]

There are a lot of great ideas in this thread, but the recurring thought of creating a totally new, severely demarcated new country seems like a strange desire to me...

Eventually you will have to fight to protect it, so how is that different from fighting to protect your own property here in the US? I understand that everywhere around us propertyowners kowtow to environmentalism and altruism, but they underestimate the battle to be waged and the nature of their destroyers, and most end up succumbing to their own contradictory premises, none of which should be a problem for Objectivists.

Property owners in the US have a history of property rights behind them, and lots of resources available to them, far too much history and far too many resources to consider abandoning them right now. This doesn't mean that shrugging isn't an option, or that leaving the country isn't a possible way of fighting for your values, just that there is no better place to make a stand than on US soil, in my opinion. I really love where I live though, so I am definitely biased towards protecting it.

But think about this: when you establish your small utopia on some island somewhere, how will the rest of the world economic powers feel when you refuse to allow regulation of your banking system, or to be part of the UN? Who will come to help you when the Soviets decide to come take the rich oil-fields you've developed, or muslims start attacking your country? You will just be another Taiwan (or worse than that), and get sat-on by your communist 'superiors' while an unsympathetic world turns a blind eye.

Defense would be a top priority. I don't know how much hostility such a new country could expect early on. It could be ignored as an impotent pipedream, not worth attacking, or it could be picked on as an easy, friendless target. A lot of thought and money would likely have to go into planning its defense. Not to minimize the magnitude of potential threats, but I think those threats could be all but eliminated by dealing with the first threat decisively and mercilessly.

There are actually a lot of countries in the world that have non- or minimally regulated banking systems, that aren't part of the UN, and that aren't involved in loads of crippling "one-world" treaties. They are largely ignored, because they're small and insignificant.

These are the kinds of things that aren't necessary to worry about if you try to protect your property in the US, but become critical and consuming considerations if you insist on a separate country. No one forces you to store your wealth in the form of dollars, they just make it seem that way. You could own realestate or raw materials or gold. For the savvy there are ways to exist personally on a gold standard, but it requires a lot of attention (maybe it gets easier the longer you do it, I have no idea), and I have met few productive people in my life who weren't willing to barter in lieu of cash transactions (forget going through middlemen though, they rarely have that option).

Fiat currency is one of the critical shackles that keep people bound to the government, mainly because it entitles the government (ie lots of people you have never met and probably wouldn't like if you had) to your worth, anytime they want a cut, either through "first dip" payroll taxes or the abominable evil of inflation. Finding ways to reduce your reliance on US currency is a huge step towards building up the resources you need to fight back, and it can be done under any administration and almost any circumstances. If you are lucky, certain forms of welfare under socialism will "entitle" you to get back some of what you can't prevent the government from taking. Nothing wrong with having a little Ragnar in you.

Fighting on US soil still has a lot to offer, not the least of which is the US itself. Sure the American sense of life is limping around like a cripple, blind in one eye and sagging under the worn rags of altruism, but that staff it leans on for support is sturdy. This nation was founded in allegiance with reality, and even though its founders couldn't explain that connection to the satisfaction of collectivists past and present, its effect has reverbrated through the soil of the human race, stimulating humanities most impressive growth, ever. Acknowledgement of reality was the tree that grew from that soil, and the American sense of life bears its weight on a stick carved from that tree. Maybe the cripple will topple when the collectivists try to knock that stick out from under it. Maybe it would be for the best. But I think the collectivists would be reluctant to kick the stick out, if they knew we were right there, ready to pick it up.