Libertarian Summer Camp

[Libertarian666]

Libertarian666,

It appears there are a lot of uninhibited islands out there.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ISISA/message/467

Doesn't get much more free than that.

Utterly wrong. The US government insists that I fill out a lot of extremely intrusive forms no matter where I live in the world.

Want to try again?

[Libertarian666]

Even anarchists, rather than moving to somewhere where the government can't or won't touch them, choose to often stay in suburbia or big cities and continue to complain about everything they choose to surround themselves with.

Name one place like that.

http://io9.com/5982119/the-remarkable-s ... r-40-years

Were they US citizens, and did they have offshore assets? If so, the US government would insist that they fill out tax forms every year regardless of where they live.

[doodle]

Moda,

Ya, I gather the term libertarianism covers a wide variety of terrritory.  I'm more of the do whatever you want, just leave me alone type (if LIbert. is the right term for my beleifs). 

Is it really possible that any action we take doesnt influence another even if only in some minuscule way? If that is the case, I can never totally leave anyone alone. My existence and actions no matter how seemingly trivial in fact change things for everyone else in some way.

[Pointedstick]

Utterly wrong. The US government insists that I fill out a lot of extremely intrusive forms no matter where I live in the world.

Want to try again?

Couldn't you renounce your citizenship? Or gain citizenship in a country that doesn't care about your offshore assets, and then not care about them as you lived your life on the island?

Whenever this subject comes up, you seem to get really agitated about the U.S. government's interest in its citizens' business when they are outside the USA, but I've never seen a really you give a definitive answer regarding why renouncing one's citizenship or becoming a citizen of a less intrusive country that doesn't care about such thing aren't good options.

[Libertarian666]

Utterly wrong. The US government insists that I fill out a lot of extremely intrusive forms no matter where I live in the world.

Want to try again?

Couldn't you renounce your citizenship? Or gain citizenship in a country that doesn't care about your offshore assets, and then not care about them as you lived your life on the island?

Whenever this subject comes up, you seem to get really agitated about the U.S. government's interest in its citizens' business when they are outside the USA, but I've never seen a really you give a definitive answer regarding why renouncing one's citizenship or becoming a citizen of a less intrusive country that doesn't care about such thing aren't good options.

Have you ever investigated how hard it is to get citizenship in another country?
I have.

[Pointedstick]

Is it really that hard? I know someone (an American) who gained British citizenship despite having no productive skills and basically admitting that her plan was to be a leech off their government healthcare system. It was hard (for obvious reasons), harder than she would have liked, but she did it.

I'll admit I haven't looked into it that much, but surely there are plenty of countries more than willing to grant citizenship to a wealthy, disaffected American, no? I mean, it's not like this is impossible. Lots of people do it all the time somehow.

But if you can't manage to do it, why not just renounce your citizenship and be a citizen of no country? If you live on an otherwise unclaimed island, you really have no use of citizenship in any particular country, right?

[Libertarian666]

Is it really that hard? I know someone (an American) who gained British citizenship despite having no productive skills and basically admitting that her plan was to be a leech off their government healthcare system. It was hard (for obvious reasons), harder than she would have liked, but she did it.

I'll admit I haven't looked into it that much, but surely there are plenty of countries more than willing to grant citizenship to a wealthy, disaffected American, no? I mean, it's not like this is impossible. Lots of people do it all the time somehow.

But if you can't manage to do it, why not just renounce your citizenship and be a citizen of no country? If you live on an otherwise unclaimed island, you really have no use of citizenship in any particular country, right?

No, there are no countries willing to grant citizenship to an American without a significant amount of time (years), money (like $500K and up), and/or ancestral connection.

As for renouncing US citizenship, you have to do that in person, which is pretty hard to do on an unclaimed island that probably doesn't have an American embassy handy. I don't think they will actually allow it if you don't have another citizenship, but even if they did you would then be stranded worse than Edward Snowden, unable to travel or stay where you were.

In short, this whole idea that "if you don't like it, just move someplace where there is no government intrusion" is completely out of touch with reality.

[Pointedstick]

If you were living on a small island, would you really have much use for money held in offshore accounts? You could trade with merchants in passing ships using gold, silver, and cash money you had from your pre-island time. And let's face it, if you're not a really high net worth individual, don't have offshore accounts, and don't work in the USA, then the U.S. government is probably not going to expend resources to have the IRA airmail you a tax form on your island, right? I mean, given the ridiculousness of the tax code, you would probably be due a hefty refund, in fact!

I guess I'm trying to see whether the real reason you haven't done this is because living alone on a small island would suck. That's why I haven't done it!

[Libertarian666]

If you were living on a small island, would you really have much use for money held in offshore accounts? You could trade with merchants in passing ships using gold, silver, and cash money you had from your pre-island time. And let's face it, if you're not a really high net worth individual, don't have offshore accounts, and don't work in the USA, then the U.S. government is probably not going to expend resources to have the IRA airmail you a tax form on your island, right? I mean, given the ridiculousness of the tax code, you would probably be due a hefty refund, in fact!

I guess I'm trying to see whether the real reason you haven't done this is because living alone on a small island would suck. That's why I haven't done it!

I have provided some facts in another thread. Please review them and answer there, if you are really interested in this topic.

[moda0306]

I guess I'm having trouble trying to realize what the need would be to renounce your citizenship if you're living on a deserted island.

Would we really fear the US government coming to get us?

Tech, you seem to get pretty defensive on this subject.  We're just trying to have a conversation.  If we seem condescending, it's because we all assume that there isn't much the US can or would care to do to you on some island.

So what are you afraid of the US doing?

[Pointedstick]

If we seem condescending, it's because we all assume that there isn't much the US can or would care to do to you on some island.

That's basically the position I take.

If I bought a boat, sailed to an unowned, unclaimed island, and managed to live on it peacefully for the rest of my days, I fully expect the government to declare me dead or of no interest and promptly forget about me. I do not expect that they would organize a military operation to find my island, invade it, and hand me a tax bill for all the income I didn't earn during my time on the island (what use would I have for money?) or any of the accounts I closed before I left (what would be the point of financial accounts?)

[Libertarian666]

If we seem condescending, it's because we all assume that there isn't much the US can or would care to do to you on some island.

That's basically the position I take.

If I bought a boat, sailed to an unowned, unclaimed island, and managed to live on it peacefully for the rest of my days, I fully expect the government to declare me dead or of no interest and promptly forget about me. I do not expect that they would organize a military operation to find my island, invade it, and hand me a tax bill for all the income I didn't earn during my time on the island (what use would I have for money?) or any of the accounts I closed before I left (what would be the point of financial accounts?)

There are no unclaimed islands. Every island, inhabited or not, is claimed by one (or sometimes more than one) government. People have tried to claim things like abandoned drilling platforms, and have been forcibly dispossessed by government. People have tried to set up shop on a coral reef that was barely above water, and have been forcibly dispossessed by government.

Do you sense some kind of trend here? Maybe it's just all a coincidence.

[Pointedstick]

There are no unclaimed islands. Every island, inhabited or not, is claimed by one (or sometimes more than one) government. People have tried to claim things like abandoned drilling platforms, and have been forcibly dispossessed by government. People have tried to set up shop on a coral reef that was barely above water, and have been forcibly dispossessed by government.

Do you sense some kind of trend here? Maybe it's just all a coincidence.

Perhaps it's time to build Rapture.

[Libertarian666]

There are no unclaimed islands. Every island, inhabited or not, is claimed by one (or sometimes more than one) government. People have tried to claim things like abandoned drilling platforms, and have been forcibly dispossessed by government. People have tried to set up shop on a coral reef that was barely above water, and have been forcibly dispossessed by government.

Do you sense some kind of trend here? Maybe it's just all a coincidence.

Perhaps it's time to build Rapture.

I think there will eventually be space colonies that will provide a new frontier for freedom; unfortunately, that will almost certainly be past my expiration date.

[moda0306]

MT,

Less stuff to be stolen, but much higher chance that you'll die if you don't get what you need.  So those coconuts and fish are f'king valuable . So I don't think the analogies are that bad. Especially because they rid us of all the pesky realities of current societal structure... Which helps organize your thoughts philosophically, not so much realistically though.

Lack of stuff to reallocate, though, makes it hard for bureaucracy to take root.

The bottom line is whether we believe that a person who gains his position by threats of violence is in a better position to make good decisions about the optimal allocation of resources than those who created the resources in the first place.

Reasonable people can differ on the answer to this question, but to me that is the question.

MT,

The problem is, people don't create resources, they develop and refine them into something better... Possibly. But the resources were there and valuable to begin with.

That's the problem.  There are a massive amount of natural resources out there in terms of real value. We aren't just entities floating through space. We're all sharing an island with a mix of resources. You speak of "the use of force" by some, but one man's claim on resources is essentially use of force on all other men who might also like to use those resources.

Literally, by all existing on the same rock and wanting/needing the same resources we are using force against each other without even realizing it.  If one knows how to drill for or refine oil, good for them, but it doesn't mean that all the world's oil is yours if nobody else knows how. 

So we all use force just by taking up space and resources that someone else might like. That's the unfortunate nature of sharing an island together... We don't avoid it with small government and a "free society."  Force is still there, and if there is a government in place drawing the deeds up, they're a part of that force... It's just a form of force a lot of libertarians find palatable.

[Pointedstick]

If one knows how to drill for or refine oil, good for them, but it doesn't mean that all the world's oil is yours if nobody else knows how.

Well who else should get it then? Can you come up with a consistent and sensible principle to divide up the world's natural resources in a way that is "fairer" than "first person to use it gets it"? It must be both consistent and sensible, e.g., no "I get all the resources", or "poets get oilfields and oil barons get outer space".

[doodle]

If one knows how to drill for or refine oil, good for them, but it doesn't mean that all the world's oil is yours if nobody else knows how.

Well who else should get it then? Can you come up with a consistent and sensible principle to divide up the world's natural resources in a way that is "fairer" than "first person to use it gets it"? It must be both consistent and sensible, e.g., no "I get all the resources", or "poets get oilfields and oil barons get outer space".

If one knows how to drill for or refine oil, good for them, but it doesn't mean that all the world's oil is yours if nobody else knows how.

Well who else should get it then? Can you come up with a consistent and sensible principle to divide up the world's natural resources in a way that is "fairer" than "first person to use it gets it"? It must be both consistent and sensible, e.g., no "I get all the resources", or "poets get oilfields and oil barons get outer space".

Does the same apply to the rainforests? In the Amazon there is constant tension between logging companies wanting the wood for construction and the natives who need the ecosystem to be preserved in order to maintain their way of life. Same goes for damning up waterways, or mining the earth or whatever.

Libertarians start with a set of assumptions, premises, and value judgments about how things ought to be and then seek to force this particular worldview on everyone else by establishing an arbitrary set of laws and principles that benefit themselves and their particular philosophy about how to structure reality. To me, the American libertarian party appears beset by a host of logical inconsistencies... 

They couch their message of greed in the language of freedom...just as organized religion (in my opinion) couches a divisive message of hate in language of love.

[Mdraf]

Libertarians start with a set of assumptions, premises, and value judgments about how things ought to be and then seek to force this particular worldview on everyone else by establishing an arbitrary set of laws and principles that benefit themselves and their particular philosophy about how to structure reality. To me, the American libertarian party appears beset by a host of logical inconsistencies... 

All philosophies do that

[doodle]

Libertarians start with a set of assumptions, premises, and value judgments about how things ought to be and then seek to force this particular worldview on everyone else by establishing an arbitrary set of laws and principles that benefit themselves and their particular philosophy about how to structure reality. To me, the American libertarian party appears beset by a host of logical inconsistencies... 

All philosophies do that

Of course, but what gets my goat is that American Libertarians proclaim that they value freedom above all else. However, one isn't free to disagree with their definition of freedom. Their freedom to enforce arbitrary property rights supersedes my freedom to travel and move across this planet and live as I see fit. According to their philosophy, a Libertarian wouldn't seem to have any problem with someone buying up all the land on earth and charging everyone rent to live on it....frankly, I cant see the difference between that state of affairs and slavery.

[MediumTex]

Libertarians start with a set of assumptions, premises, and value judgments about how things ought to be and then seek to force this particular worldview on everyone else by establishing an arbitrary set of laws and principles that benefit themselves and their particular philosophy about how to structure reality. To me, the American libertarian party appears beset by a host of logical inconsistencies... 

All philosophies do that

Of course, but what gets my goat is that American Libertarians proclaim that they value freedom above all else. However, one isn't free to disagree with their definition of freedom. Their freedom to enforce arbitrary property rights supersedes my freedom to travel and move across this planet and live as I see fit. According to their philosophy, a Libertarian wouldn't seem to have any problem with someone buying up all the land on earth and charging everyone rent to live on it....frankly, I cant see the difference between that state of affairs and slavery.

A person who believes that property rights should be protected normally sees the benefits that this arrangement provides both to the property owner AND to the rest of society.

If a strong property rights protection regime does amount to slavery, why do you think that in the straits of Florida there are so many boats coming to the U.S. to escape Cuba, and yet to my knowledge not one boat has ever been intercepted carrying Americans who were trying to get to Cuba to escape their lives of slavery in the U.S.

[Pointedstick]

Of course, but what gets my goat is that American Libertarians proclaim that they value freedom above all else. However, one isn't free to disagree with their definition of freedom.

Again… all philosophies do that. American liberals for example declare that they value fairness above all else, but it's not fair to suggest that their definition of fairness is biased and skewed.

"Freedom," "fairness," these are all subjective terms. They are abstract concepts that exist only in the minds of people who value them as ideals, so their meanings are always malleable, always changing.

[doodle]

All philosophies do that

Of course, but what gets my goat is that American Libertarians proclaim that they value freedom above all else. However, one isn't free to disagree with their definition of freedom. Their freedom to enforce arbitrary property rights supersedes my freedom to travel and move across this planet and live as I see fit. According to their philosophy, a Libertarian wouldn't seem to have any problem with someone buying up all the land on earth and charging everyone rent to live on it....frankly, I cant see the difference between that state of affairs and slavery.

A person who believes that property rights should be protected normally sees the benefits that this arrangement provides both to the property owner AND to the rest of society.

Of course they do....but that is no different than a communist believing that abolishing all individual property rights and placing them in the hands of the state is the most beneficial. In both cases, the individual doesn't have freedom...he is forced to play the game of life according to some arbitrary rulebook concocted by one group or another.

Libertarians couch greed in a message of freedom in the same way that many organized religions couch hatred in a message of love. Isn't it ironic that most Libertarian's seem to be those people to whom life has blessed with the most opportunity and talents....even if that talent is simply guts and fortitude? In that case, their attraction to the particular philosophical tenets of Libertarianism isn't just that they innately believe in them, but rather that they stand to benefit most from that particular state of affairs. 

[Pointedstick]

Libertarians couch greed in a message of freedom in the same way that many organized religions couch hatred in a message of love. Isn't it ironic that most Libertarian's seem to be those people to whom life has blessed with the most opportunity and talents....even if that talent is simply guts and fortitude? In that case, their attraction to the particular philosophical tenets of Libertarianism isn't just that they innately believe in them, but rather that they stand to benefit most from that particular state of affairs.

"Grr! People gravitate toward philosophies and life paths that they believe benefit themselves! It's so unfair!"



You're pretty bitter today. Did a libertarian cut down your rainforest or something?

[doodle]

Libertarians couch greed in a message of freedom in the same way that many organized religions couch hatred in a message of love. Isn't it ironic that most Libertarian's seem to be those people to whom life has blessed with the most opportunity and talents....even if that talent is simply guts and fortitude? In that case, their attraction to the particular philosophical tenets of Libertarianism isn't just that they innately believe in them, but rather that they stand to benefit most from that particular state of affairs.

"Grr! People gravitate toward philosophies and life paths that they believe benefit themselves! It's so unfair!"



You're pretty bitter today. Did a libertarian cut down your rainforest or something?

hahaha...sorry. This topic can make me a bit prickly.  What rubs me the wrong way is hypocrisy and I was just trying to point that out :-)

Anyways, Im very confused on a lot of matters right now in life so I cant really say Im for or against anything....just mired in doubt on a lot of things. 

[Pointedstick]

hahaha...sorry. This topic can make me a bit prickly.  What rubs me the wrong way is hypocrisy and I was just trying to point that out :-)

Anyways, Im very confused on a lot of matters right now in life so I cant really say Im for or against anything....just mired in doubt on a lot of things.

All I can say is, "don't outsmart yourself." You're a very smart fellow, which means that you suffer from the unique risk of creating a mental model of the world that actually doesn't make sense, or makes sense but doesn't actually help you live the life you want to live. There's nothing wrong with pursuing personal goals because they help you as long as you're not hurting other people by doing it.