Gyroscopic Investing

TennPaGa wrote: Doesn't sound like a great way to live.

I would doubt they lack for applicants.  And note they are not forcing their way on anyone else, unlike was has been/is being done to the rest of the country.

I have to admit, that sounds really, really cool. I'm very interested to see how it turns out.

Quite a marksmanship test they've got going. Hitting a man-sized target at 100 yards with open sights 7 out of 10 times is no mean feat.

Seems like they're expecting the worst, rather than simply being prepared for the worst. 

Personally, I'll take the Free State Project over The Citadel:

http://freestateproject.org/.

Anything where federal laws would still apply doesn't seem to be the insulator from coercion that it advertises. Further, I question the love of liberty of any group that repeatedly drumbeats about patriotism, and in a way folks that put Thomas Jefferson on a pedestal.  He was a man with some great ideas who had some very flawed views on liberty/coercion.

I also don't understand the focus on guns.  They're simply a tool to help protect yourself or your property as a last resort. We already know if the government really want to engage in war with its citizenry it would win. Our freedoms are usurped in large and small ways every day.  Why guns are the thing worth killing government agents over is beyond me.  I don't like having to pay into FICA, but you don't see me threatening to blow up the IRS if they increase my FICA tax to 10%.  There are tons of threats to our happiness that guns can't fix. I don't see them enforcing certain healthy behaviors or requiring certain forms of insurance.  I really could care less whether my neighbor is a good marksman. I'd rather live next to a thoughtful, friendly person than someone who can shoot well.

I do find things like this interesting. What I'd really like to see is a community that can somehow completely be independent of the federal government. I truly would love to see a full blown libertarian experiment succeed somewhere. If all the Galts of the United States actually want to move there is the next question. 

rocketdog wrote: Seems like they're expecting the worst, rather than simply being prepared for the worst. 

Personally, I'll take the Free State Project over The Citadel:

http://freestateproject.org/.

The more of these type (of whatever details) that crop up the better.  How about one some place warmer eg NC ?

I don't think there is any doubt things are going to end badly, it may just take long time e.g. 50 years. 

EDIT: and perhaps not so long: 

NEXT WAR: Obama, Dems Plan Changes to Immigration Law...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/us/po ... rhaul.html

TennPaGa wrote: Not to be confused with the military school.
Doesn't sound like a great way to live.

The "Patriotism" and "American Exceptionalism" buzzwords are code-lingo for right-wing militia extremists.  Saying "Establishment Republicans" are not invited further confirms it.

It reminds me of Woodbury in The Walking Dead.

moda0306 wrote: I do find things like this interesting. What I'd really like to see is a community that can somehow completely be independent of the federal government. I truly would love to see a full blown libertarian experiment succeed somewhere. If all the Galts of the United States actually want to move there is the next question.

I have a feeling that this won't happen until we have the technology to create new islands/continents in the ocean somehow.

edsanville wrote:

moda0306 wrote: I do find things like this interesting. What I'd really like to see is a community that can somehow completely be independent of the federal government. I truly would love to see a full blown libertarian experiment succeed somewhere. If all the Galts of the United States actually want to move there is the next question.

I have a feeling that this won't happen until we have the technology to create new islands/continents in the ocean somehow.

http://blueseed.co/

Pointedstick wrote:

edsanville wrote:

moda0306 wrote: I do find things like this interesting. What I'd really like to see is a community that can somehow completely be independent of the federal government. I truly would love to see a full blown libertarian experiment succeed somewhere. If all the Galts of the United States actually want to move there is the next question.

I have a feeling that this won't happen until we have the technology to create new islands/continents in the ocean somehow.

http://blueseed.co/

Ha, I love it!

There was an old book somewhat along these lines:

Oath of Fealty is a 1982 novel by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. Set in the near future, it involves an arcology, a large inhabited structure, called Todos Santos, which rises above a crime-ridden Los Angeles, California, but has little beyond casual contact with the city

I always find intentional communities interesting.  Seems funny that these libertarians would only grant you a lease to your new home.  No real ownership!

Edit: They also have "No HOA" but have all these rules -- you must own a gun, you must be able to hit a human-sized target 7 out of 10 times once a year"

Socialists need not apply, but you must must maintain an emergency food source

Marxists need not apply, but "The III Arms Company, current facilities located in West Virginia, was founded to act as the economic cornerstone of the Citadel. Forty-plus American Patriots pulled together to get this company off the ground to serve two purposes: To build solid fighting arms to defend Liberty and our fellow Patriots, and to raise revenue to build the Citadel."

It's actually very consistent with the notion of a private society. The alternative is an HOA+private property that's not really private since the HOA can overrule private decisions on the property. Leasing basically cuts out the fiction. You follow the rules in the contract and neither party can change the terms they're bound to.

But yeah, it's something every intentional community has to grapple with.

And in point of fact, you're always leasing from somebody. What do you think your property taxes are? The only difference is that for something like this, you pay a contract that defines your lease, whereas when the government leases you land in the form of charging you property taxes, they can unilaterally change the tax whenever they want and you have no recourse, because you have no contract.

Well if you consider all land ownership subject to taxation as a "lease" then this is different because, not only are you leasing, you are leasing from someone who themselves has a lease.  Double the risk.  What if they have financial trouble and can't pay the tax bill? 

Then I guess you'd be in the same boat as people renting apartments. Doesn't seem like all that frequent an occurrence, and if it did, the property could just be sold off to new management without disturbing the lessees.

Pointedstick wrote: I have to admit, that sounds really, really cool. I'm very interested to see how it turns out.

Quite a marksmanship test they've got going. Hitting a man-sized target at 100 yards with open sights 7 out of 10 times is no mean feat.

Really?  It's a man sized target.  I learned on open sights and I could hit much smaller targets than this with a .22, provided the gun was sighted in correctly.

Really?  No property ownership, only leasing?  This sounds terrible because if the coop has enough people not paying their rent the entire thing could get foreclosed on and you would get kicked out of your home.  What kind of liberty or freedom is that?  Freedom to have your deadbeat neighbors get you evicted from your house?  It does sound like a terrible exercise in tragedy of the commons.  I'd be interested to see this take off and see what the actual living conditions are like, though.

Storm wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: I have to admit, that sounds really, really cool. I'm very interested to see how it turns out.

Quite a marksmanship test they've got going. Hitting a man-sized target at 100 yards with open sights 7 out of 10 times is no mean feat.

Really?  It's a man sized target.  I learned on open sights and I could hit much smaller targets than this with a .22, provided the gun was sighted in correctly.

7 out of 10 times at 100 yards? Maybe I'm just a lousy shot with a rifle. I need a lot more practice with iron sights.

Storm wrote:

Really?  It's a man sized target.  I learned on open sights and I could hit much smaller targets than this with a .22, provided the gun was sighted in correctly.

I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home, they're not much bigger.

Pointedstick wrote: I have to admit, that sounds really, really cool. I'm very interested to see how it turns out.

Quite a marksmanship test they've got going. Hitting a man-sized target at 100 yards with open sights 7 out of 10 times is no mean feat.

Stationary targets aren't too tough, but when they're moving it's difficult.

dragoncar wrote:

Storm wrote:

Really?  It's a man sized target.  I learned on open sights and I could hit much smaller targets than this with a .22, provided the gun was sighted in correctly.

I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home, they're not much bigger.

Hahah, OK Luke.