Author Topic: How difficult is it to realistically start a new nation? :P  (Read 1137 times)

Guest

  • Guest
How difficult is it to realistically start a new nation? :P
« on: November 12, 2005, 02:02:17 PM »
I'm figuring you'd need a 'holy eff-ton of money', and a eastern hemisphere country in relatively stable condition that is willing to sell off a few hundred square miles of land and do it through an international treaty.

A friend (not particularly pro or antigun) and I were discussing this, and he liked the idea of allowing the general public to own whatever weaponry they could afford, as long as the more military-type hardware came with the training to use it and organized to be used properly in defense. No need for a whole military beyond a single national-guard type entity. This would also be a draw to people who like heavy weapons- let them come enjoy their adult toys and get a free defense force out of it.

Taxes could be set at 'competitive' rates, which would attract businesses the same way as the Cayman islands and other tax shelters. Banking laws could be written to outdo Switzerland. Without a welfare state budget system, you wouldn't need to take many dollars out of people. A medical system out from under the restrictive FDA could attract doctors willing to provide advanced treatments at low cost, but I do believe a regulatory system to prevent malpractice would be in order.

Environmentally, I don't subscribe to the idea that if you remove all restrictions, suddenly everyone will magically stop dumping used motor oil in their creek or venting waste chemicals into the wild outdoors. I'll just hire Michael Crichton (author of, among other things, State of Fear- not his best work on most levels of merit such as characters or ambience, but  it looks like he just cranked it out so it will become a film in a few years. It doesn't hurt that the "guess what I learned from reading a Crichton novel" factor is higher than ever.) to act as a consultant and head up my version of the EPA.

Nuclear energy would be pretty important, and also carry the highest pricetag. Just because it's cool,  I'd encourage the use and development of alternative energy. Solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal can't carry all of the needs, but they are THE future besides Nuclear. All government vehicles will run on Biodiesel, because then we can give EVERYONE a converted diesel h1. Eventually, we would get a Nuke plant out of Israel or the US. This is when we allow everyone owning five or more belt fed weapons to buy housing lots around the plant for peanuts.

Mail would be a combination of post office for areas where the privatized ones don't see a 'profit', or else just purely private companies. You'd have more recourse for when your property is damaged or tampered with in transit.

Drugs would be regulated lightly. Similar to Amsterdam what with Hash bars and whatnot. I'd like to cultivate a sort of atmosphere toward drugs, at least the hard ones, similar to the current anti-smoking one. I'm inclined to let you do whatever you want in your own home, but outside it, hard drugs would fall under 'hazardous material' laws. If you have kids in your house, that's a big no no if you want your drugs too. And no operating a motor vehicle under the influence. Besides, if anyone really wants some, they'll get it. Some drugs can be shown to destroy lives- crack, meth, etc. Some can be shown to not really do much. Even then, I feel it is intrusive to arbitrarily ban a drug that someone must voluntarily take. This is a sad thing and hopefully human nature eventually conquers this problem. That's the only possible hope.

Tobacco kills people and kills 'em bad. I'd just have it disqualify you for certain things- not that you're going to be entitled to much in the first place.
Hemp? Who cares. No giving it to kids under 16.
Cocaine? Chew coca leaves if you want, grow 'em if you want. No giving 'em to kids. Powder? In your own home if you want.
Opium? Knock yourself out.
Heroin? Hard drug. Hazardous materials.
Crack? I'm gonna say 'ban this', by declaring it a hazardous substance not allowed in-country.
Methamphetamines? Same as above.
Normal amphetamines? Not nearly as bad as meth. Hard drug rules apply.
MDMA/XtC? Hm. It destroys the neural system.

Posessing any of these wouldn't be a crime, but it would be discouraged. You don't want workers in Hazmat suits decontaminating your house from Crack or Meth for a week, now do you? Besides, in this now-legal tropical paradise with legalized weed, that would be most of what anyone does, aside from brilliantly coming up with new varieties and methods.

Ok, I'm done for now. Your turn. Smiley

RadioFreeSeaLab

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,200
How difficult is it to realistically start a new nation? :P
« Reply #1 on: November 13, 2005, 08:29:53 AM »
I'm in.
What of immigration and foreign policy?

Guest

  • Guest
How difficult is it to realistically start a new nation? :P
« Reply #2 on: November 13, 2005, 12:45:22 PM »
you are aon the right track in terms of ideology, but one thing concerns me at first glance: Agriculture.

You stated that you would want to have a low tax structure and a banking system that would rival Switzerland correct? Good call, but that would draw in tons of people. How are they going to be fed?

Selecting an area that would be ripe for agri-business would be just as important as tax laws and Militias. If someone were to start a country like that, do you think that the neighboring countries, or even the UN for that matter, would let it long survive? Free people scare "important" men... Serfs too. Economic sanctions against your country would be in the works fairly quick. That means starvation for your populace if you don't have a thriving agricultural industry.

A nation needs to be self sufficient, especially in terms of food. "A few hundred square miles of land" coupled with the influx of folks that would be drawn to such a place would spell disaster.

Need more [fertile] land!  

Otherwise, count me in.

Guest

  • Guest
How difficult is it to realistically start a new nation? :P
« Reply #3 on: November 13, 2005, 01:44:40 PM »
No need to explain the drugs issue Blackburn. To me, drugs, like guns are a litmus test. Trust me to do what I please with a real Ma Deuce and a kilo of whatever drug you choose, and I'll trust you.

I was just pointing out the flaws (as I saw them) in your initial post. Food is more important than most folks in the West realize. To their great peril.

The cutting edge is a good place to be indeed. I would push high-tech ag as much as anyone, but Acreage is important too. Not only for Ag, but for the kind of people that a libertarian eutopia would draw. I would not be truly happy there without at least 12 acres of decent land. That is my minimum.

In terms of how hard it would really be, no nation exists in a vaccum. The "International Community" (read: the UN and globalist corps.) would find a way in short order to cause serious problems. Groups of truly liberated people scare the bejeezus out of those in power.

Again, it would be a long, hard road, but I would sign up post haste.

garyk/nm

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 498
  • shovelbum
How difficult is it to realistically start a new nation? :P
« Reply #4 on: November 14, 2005, 02:09:14 AM »
Location x 3! Should probably be located on a large body of water for food purposes and for income (tourism by invitation?).
Wonder if there are any good islands available?