Andy Jacobs: ‘The Libertarian Zone’


Andy is the shorter guy in the picture above

Via The Saturnalian:

A frequent commenter to IPR and longtime member of the Libertarian Party, Andy Jacobs, who also works on ballot access drives and thus has encountered a large segment of society, has discussed the idea of a “Libertarian Zone” in IPR comments since at least 2012. Below is a comment Andy made on June 5, 2014, which I believe best summarizes the Libertarian Zone concept and provides the rationale behind it.

:


Why We Do Not Have a Libertarian Society

The reason that we do not have a libertarian society right now is because there are too many people in this country who do not believe in liberty.

I’ve never been to PorcFest (the annual summer libertarian festival in New Hampshire from the Free State Project), but I’ve heard accounts from people who have attended it, and they said that it is great, because it is like a mini-libertarian society. What makes it a libertarian society? The only people who go to PorcFest are libertarians!

People can be free to disagree on a lot of issues, and this is fine. The problem is when people use force, most often in the form of government, to FORCE their views onto others. Now it is one thing to use force against a person who is violating the non-aggression principle themselves, such as a person who believes that they have a right to steal your car, but another thing to use force against a person who is not violating the non-aggression principle, as in they have not initiated any coercive acts of violence or destruction of property, nor have they stolen anything or defrauded anyone.

People who are not libertarians do not really believe that individuals have the right to disagree, because they want to use government to force their views on others, even when the people whom they are forcing their views on are not doing anything to harm anyone else. So this is why it is dangerous to liberty to have people around who do not believe in liberty. People who do not really believe in liberty DO NOT REALLY BELIEVE IN THE RIGHT TO DISSENT, as in they do not believe in “live and let live.”

I think that Lysander Spooner was right way back in 1867 when he wrote, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority, in that the Constitution is not a valid contract, because nobody living signed it. There is also the fact that the Constitution still established a coercive government.

Kenneth Royce, also known as “Boston T. Party,” wrote a book called Hologram of Liberty: The Constitution’s Shocking Alliance With Big Government, where his premise is that the Constitution was a coup, as in the real purpose of the constitutional convention where the Constitution was drafted, which was supposed to have been held to merely to amend the Articles of Confederation, was to create a strong national government, which is what has led to the mess that we are in today.

Regardless of whether or not Kenneth Royce is correct with his assertion about the Constitution, the fact of the matter is that nobody today signed it, and most people today, even those who hold elected office and those who work in government, do not have a freaking clue what the Constitution says or means.

Even with the flaws present in the Constitution, I think that we can all agree that if it were actually followed, we’d have a society that is a lot more free right now than it really is. Well how can you expect people to follow a document that most people have never read, or only read part of years ago, and therefore do not really understand? Do you think that if everyone had to sign the Constitution, or some kind of document that laid down the guidelines for living in this country, that a lot more people would take the time to read and understand what said document says, especially if there were some kind of penalty clause in it for violating it?

One of the flaws in the Constitution is that there is no penalty clause in it. I had an idea a while ago for a penalty clause in the Constitution that would say something like, “It shall be legal for anyone to engage in acts of violence, including violence resulting in death, against any elected or appointed government official, at any level, who violates any section of the Constitution.”

Do you think that government officials would be more careful about abiding by the Constitution, if they knew it was a legitimate legal defense for somebody to beat them or murder them if they violate the Constitution?

The Constitution really does not go far enough in protecting individual liberty. This is why ultimately, coercive government should be abolished. There should be no taxes. Individuals should interact with each other on a voluntary basis.

Why is this not the way it is now? Why do we not have a voluntary society? Why do we not at least have a coercive government that is small and strictly adheres to what is written in the Constitution?

The reason we do not have either a voluntary society, or a small government which is limited by the Constitution, is because there are too many people among us that fall into one of three categories:

  1. They are sociopathic control freaks.
  2. They are people who prefer to be led around like sheep by sociopathic control freaks.
  3. They are not sociopathic control freaks, and they do not necessarily prefer to be led around by sociopathic control freaks; however, they do not possess the will to do anything to stop the sociopathic control freaks, so they just “grin and bear it” (so to speak).

There are people who are freedom fighters, such as those of us who are in the Libertarian Party, as well as those who are working toward more freedom in other ways, but we are greatly outnumbered by the other three groups. The people who are in groups 1 and 2 are the enemy, especially group 1. The people in group 3 are either apathetic, or they sympathize with our way of thinking, but they do not realize it yet, or they realize it but think that the situation is hopeless, so they do not do anything, or are afraid to do anything.

I really do not see any way that we can achieve liberty, unless we get away from groups 1 and 2. Libertarianism is just not compatible with the people who are in groups 1 and 2. The people in group 1 are especially dangerous. These are the people who would try to destroy a libertarian society if we were successful in creating one somewhere.

There are certain people in this country and world who will never accept libertarianism no matter what we do. The only things that we can do is get away from these people and defend ourselves, with violence if necessary, if they come near us.

We will never achieve a libertarian society, as long as we are outnumbered by Democrats, Republicans, socialists, communists, fascists, monarchists, or whatever other form of collective control systems you can imagine.

The Libertarian Zone

This is what led me to the concept of a Libertarian Zone, or Libertarian Zones. This would be a place, or places, where people who are not sociopathic control freaks, and people who do not like being lead around by sociopathic control freaks, can come together and live in voluntary cooperation (kind of like PorcFest, but year round, and hopefully on a bigger scale).

There’d have to be some way of spelling out the terms to live in or visit the Libertarian Zone, and there’d have to be some mechanism for enforcing those terms. This is what led me to the idea of the Libertarian Zone Contract. Entrance to the Libertarian Zone would not be based on race, ethnicity, or anything else beyond political, or more accurately, philosophical ideology. The ideology would be spelled out in the contract, which would be the same for everyone, and everyone would have to sign. The penalty for not signing would be ejection from the Libertarian Zone.

Perhaps everyone in the Libertarian Zone would have to post some kind of bond, and then if the Libertarian Zone Contract is broken, there would be randomly selected jury, participation in which would also be voluntary (since the price for liberty is eternal vigilance, I think that most people who live in the Libertarian Zone would welcome the opportunity to serve on a randomly selected jury). If the randomly selected jury finds that a person did indeed violate the Libertarian Zone Contract, bounty hunters would be able to collect the bond which the individual posted to enter the Libertarian Zone (anyone in the Libertarian Zone could be free to collect the bounty as a bounty hunter), by forcibly ejecting the offender if necessary. If the offender is particularly nasty, and refuses to leave, bounty hunters will be free to use deadly force against them. Given that there will be no laws against self defense in the Libertarian Zone, a really heinous Libertarian Zone Contract violator, such as a rapist or a murderer, would not likely get very far, because many people in the Libertarian Zone would likely walk around armed.

Nobody would be forced to own or carry a gun, but I’d bet that many people would choose to do it. There would be no War on Drugs and no welfare state, both of which breed crime, and there’d be no laws preventing people from owning or carrying guns, or knives or swords or mace or tasers or other weapons for self defense. I don’t think that crime would be a big problem, even more so given that every individual would have to read and sign a contract that says that they agree to not engage in coercive acts of violence, theft, fraud, or destruction of property, and that if they violate this contract, they will be forced to leave the Libertarian Zone, that they will be forced to pay restitution prior to leaving, and that depending on their actions, violation of the contract could result in their death, or severe bodily injury, since many of the residents of the Libertarian Zone will choose to carry weapons and will be well trained in their use.

I think that the Libertarian Zone would be a nice and prosperous place to live, and that once people were in it, and once they signed the Libertarian Zone Contract, which would be short, and in basic terms that most people could easily understand (if a person was retarded and not capable of understanding the Libertarian Zone Contract, they would have to be a ward of a Libertarian Zone Contract signer, as in a Libertarian Zone Contract signer would have to sign for them and would be responsible for caring for them), that most people would want to stay in the Libertarian Zone, and would be careful to not initiate force or fraud.

The Libertarian Zone is an idea I’ve been kicking around for a long time for how a Libertarian Society could be achieved, given the reality that there are some people in this world who are severe obstacles to having a libertarian society.

63 thoughts on “Andy Jacobs: ‘The Libertarian Zone’

  1. Jed Ziggler

    I’m continually shocked by the seeming sense of glee Andy gets at the idea of getting to murder people who violate his contract. One of the great evils of government is its use of deadly force. We accept it as a sad necessity in cases of self-defense and defensive warfare, but it is an evil in times of war, unnecessary drug raids, and most horrifically so-called “capital punishment” (really state-sanctioned murder) where a jury of flawed individuals make the decision to murder someone who is subdued, imprisoned, and therefore no longer a threat to society. Never mind the number of these people who are sent to their death are later proved innocent.

    The idea of ruthless bounty hunters collecting scalps for pay in lieu of trained officers of the law is a terrifying prospect indeed. While I am a critic of the police in this country, it is due to their immense power to arrest people for engaging in peaceful activities, not their presence in general.

    I applaud Andy Jacobs for his thoughtfulness in developing a unique concept, but it’s flawed.

  2. paulie Post author

    I’m continually shocked by the seeming sense of glee Andy gets at the idea of getting to murder people who violate his contract.

    I’m not shocked. It comes from a place of anger and frustration.

  3. Andy

    “Jed Ziggler
    July 31, 2014 at 2:26 pm
    I’m continually shocked by the seeming sense of glee Andy gets at the idea of getting to murder people who violate his contract.”

    I’m continually shocked at how Jed Ziggler just does not seem to get it.

    I have no sense of “glee” about murdering people who violate the Libertarian Zone Contract. I’d prefer it if people adhered to libertarian principles. If the Libertarian Zone existed I’d be willing to bet that murder would not happen very often.

  4. Andy

    ruthless bounty hunters collecting scalps for pay in lieu of trained officers of the law is a terrifying prospect indeed.”

    This is an absurd statement, and Jed sounds more like a boot licking statist than a libertarian here.

    If a bounty goes up on person’s head in the Libertarian Zone, which would happen after a randomly selected, fully informed jury trial, everyone in the Libertarian Zone would be eligible to collect the bounty, and if the crime is serious, everyone on the planet would be eligible to collect the bounty.

    Having a professional, coercively funded police force, like we have now, is a much worse system. The “professional” police are probably the biggest violators of individual rights that there is.

  5. Andy

    “and most horrifically so-called “capital punishment” (really state-sanctioned murder) where a jury of flawed individuals make the decision to murder someone who is subdued, imprisoned, and therefore no longer a threat to society. Never mind the number of these people who are sent to their death are later proved innocent.”

    Less heinous offenses in the Libertarian Zone would not likely result in the death of the Libertarian Zone contract violator. If the convicted Libertarian Zone contract violator simply left the Libertarian Zone, or if they paid restitution to their victim, and then left the Libertarian Zone, there’d be no reason for the situation to escalate to the point where the Libertarian Zone contract violator would be murdered.

  6. Andy

    “”While I am a critic of the police in this country, it is due to
    their immense power to arrest people for engaging in peaceful activities, not their presence in general.”

    I disagree. I think that it is their presence in general that is the problem. Government police have power. Power leads to corruption.

    “I applaud Andy Jacobs for his thoughtfulness in developing a unique concept, but it’s flawed.”

    I think that the system which I have come up with is better than what we have in this country now, and it is more realistic way for achieving, and maintaining, a free society.

  7. Andy

    The Libertarian Zone is not for everyone. It would be a voluntary community that would where the only people who lived there would be those who agreed to abide by the terms of the Libertarian Zone contract. The Libertarian Zone is actually MEANT to repel statists. The Libertarian Zone is apparently not for weak willed people who claim to be libertarians either. The Libertarian Zone is meant for people who are rugged individualists who respect the NAP principle.

  8. paulie Post author

    I don’t see why kiling anyone except in defense would have to be a feature of a hypohetical Libertarian Zone. Other penalties such as exile and restitution would seem to me to be sufficient.

  9. Jill Pyeatt

    I’m glad to see someone paint a picture of how people could live together in a Libertarian world. There are a couple things I disagree with, and a couple questions I would have about how Andy’s world would work in certain situations;(such as an unwanted pregnancy), but Andy is always passionate and consistent, I know a lot of thought has gone into this. I imagine a society like his would evolve as time goes on and situations present themselves.

    Id like to see a series of articles like this from key Libertarian activists. I particularly suggest that George Phillies and Starchild write such an article. We could make this an ongoing series.

    Of course, anyone presenting a view of their ideal world, even though it isn’t libertarian, would be welcome. It would be interesting to have someone who identifies as an anarchist write something up for us.

    Is anyone else interested in dreaming for a few hours, then sharing it with us?

  10. Robert Capozzi

    What happens in the LZ when the terms and conditions of the contract cannot cleanly be applied to a situation?

  11. paulie Post author

    What happens in the LZ when the terms and conditions of the contract cannot cleanly be applied to a situation?

    I guess that would never happen 🙂

  12. Jed Ziggler

    “Image is circa 2001, when he was in his prime.”

    Kane was a fucking BADASS in ’01. Then he took his mask off, and it’s been all downhill from there.

  13. Andy

    What do you think is better, the current situation where we supposedly live under a Constitution which nobody living today signed, and which most people have never read, and do not even understand, or a Libertarian Zone where everyone reads and signs a contract, and those who don’t can move somewhere else?

    The Constitution is not a valid contract. Nobody living today signed it, and the average American does not have a clue what the Constitution says, including most of the people in government.

    I think that my Libertarian Zone contract idea is superior to a constitution which no living person signed, and which most people have never read.

  14. Andy

    “Robert Capozzi
    August 2, 2014 at 1:30 pm
    What happens in the LZ when the terms and conditions of the contract cannot cleanly be applied to a situation?”

    There is no such thing as a utopia. If this is what you are looking for, I can’t help you.

    I think that the Libertarian Zone would be a lot better for libertarians than what we have now, but nothing is perfect.

  15. Andy

    I think that it should be pretty obvious to all that the best way to achieve a libertarian society is for libertarians to separate themselves from all of the statists out there. Form a new society in which statists are not welcomed.

    Just imagine if a bunch of big government types started attending Porcfest. They’d eventually ruin it and it would no longer be libertarian. The wussy leftists would not want people to carry guns. The right wing religious zealots would not want anyone using drugs, and they’d want to shut down the big gay dance party. They’d want the vendors to charge sales tax and to only trade in Federal Reserve Notes. They’d want to enforce child labor laws and not allow people to have their children work the vendor booths. They’d send cops in who’d harass people, and want to check their ID’s and search people. Statists would ruin Porcfest for libertarians just like they ruin everything else for libertarians.

    Libertarians should face reality, and that is that libertarians are incompatible with anyone who is not a libertarian. Libertarians want to live free, and want others to live free. Every other philosophy is opposed to this to one degree or another.

    I’d say that a good 2/3 of the population will never be libertarian. So the best thing to do is to get away from these people.

    Once again, think of Porcfest, but instead of just being one week, it would be a continual community.

  16. Robert Capozzi

    A, perhaps inspired by Galt’s Gulch in Atlas Shrugged, some in the LM have long pined for a libertopia. One guy was trying to buy a Caribbean island. Thiel and Petri Friedman, iirc, were going to buy a cruise ship and dock in international waters.

    The single biggest challenge to the LZ is that people don’t live their politics. They have jobs, families and friends, and places they’ve grown accustomed to. That’s why even the Free State Project has largely failed.

    It’s not to say that the LZ is a “bad” idea. It might be cool, actually. It’d be interested in seeing how the writing of the contract might go. I imagine it could get quite contentious, based on the often contrary nature of Ls.

  17. Andy

    Could the Libertarian Zone be formed as a floating city in the ocean?

    Check out this video from the Seasteading Institute:

    Stop Fighting

  18. Andy

    Robert Capozzi Said: ” It might be cool, actually. It’d be interested in seeing how the writing of the contract might go. I imagine it could get quite contentious, based on the often contrary nature of Ls.”

    Ideally, there’d be more than one Libertarian Zone. If one does not like the terms of the contract, or perhaps the location, or something else about one Libertarian Zone, they could go to another Libertarian Zone.

  19. Andy

    The recent failed referendum vote on independence for Scotland from the United Kingdom provides a perfect example of why you can not have a libertarian society when a majority of a given population does not believe in liberty. This is not to say that an independent Scotland would be some kind of libertarian paradise, but I’d be willing to bet that it would have been more free than they are as a part of the United Kingdom.

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/in-scotland-the-parasites-punished-the-productive/

  20. Gallagher Titus

    I’ve been following the debate on the other page. What will defend the Zone from invaders?

  21. Andy

    A well armed populace would be a deterrent. There’d be no police or military as we know them in the Libertarian Zone, but libertarians in the zone would be free to hire security forces, so long as the security forces followed the Libertarian Zone contract.

    Keep in mind that Libertarian Zone members could own machine guns, tanks, rocket launchers, armed drones, etc…

    I believe that the Libertarian Zone would turn into a hub for commerce (remember, it would be tax free) and tourism (legal casinos, drugs, and prostitution would be sure to draw tourists), plus the LZ would not interfere with other nations, so I doubt there would be much motivation to invade the Libertarian Zone.

  22. Gallagher Titus

    How young will the prostitutes be? And will child pornography be allowed?

  23. Andy

    Age of consent is something that could be decided in the Libertarian Zone charter before the LZ is officially started. I would not have a problem with making it 18, but LZ members could debate and vote on this before the Libertarian Zone is established.

  24. Gallagher Titus

    What if the people demand it to be 12 or younger and anyone who disagrees is not libertarian? Are you willing to go along with that?

    And what happens to the old people when they can no longer sustain themselves or afford medical care?

  25. Matt Cholko

    Would all of the rules be determined by the members/residents of the zone? Presumably, that would mean that ANYTHING the residents agree to goes, right?

    In theory, I can go along with that. In practice, what happens if zone A says it is okay to kidnap people from zone B and rape them, and zone c says we’re gonna stop those scumbags from zone a by any means necessary? Then, they break out their private nukes and wipe zone A off the map.

  26. Robert Capozzi

    aj: Keep in mind that Libertarian Zone members could own machine guns, tanks, rocket launchers, armed drones, etc…

    me: Hoo boy! Sounds like Paradise! 😉

  27. paulie Post author

    In practice, what happens if zone A says it is okay to kidnap people from zone B and rape them, and zone c says we’re gonna stop those scumbags from zone a by any means necessary? Then, they break out their private nukes and wipe zone A off the map.

    What would stop that now?

  28. Andy

    I would probably drop out of the project if most LZ members thought 12 should be the proper age of consent. Is this something that most libertarians believe? I do not think so.

    You could have no age of consent, but I could see problems arising from that, so this is why I would probably advocate for an age of consent to be a part of the Libertarian Zone contract.

    Old people would have to save and invest money or rely on charity. I think that both would be easier to do in a tax free environment.

  29. Andy

    The basic idea for a Libertarian Zone is for libertarians to live in the same area and have a libertarian society.

    Right now we do not have a libertarian society because libertarians are out numbered everywhere.

  30. Andy

    Matt, is that really what you think a bunch of libertarians would do? I do not think that would happen.

  31. paulie Post author

    I’m just saying, L zones aren’t a magic bullet.

    I don’t think even Andy has suggested they would be. Too lazy to reread the article now but I’m pretty sure he conceded they wouldn’t be.

  32. Andy

    Here is a big reason why we don’t have freedom in the USA, and why are chances for getting it are not good.

    http://rt.com/usa/half-government-million-percent-320/

    More than half of Americans depend on government subsidies

    Published time: August 22, 2012 17:18
    Edited time: August 22, 2012 21:18

    Government dependency is on the rise, with more than half of all Americans relying on the government for survival. While the Obama administration is broadening eligibility, US citizens increasingly also say they prefer it this way.

    Americans’ self-reliability has been decreasing as eligibility for Medicaid, food stamps, earned income tax credit, work pay tax credit and unemployment benefits have broadened since 2009 to allow more US citizens to enjoy them.

    More than half of the US population – 165 million of 308 million Americans – is now dependent on the state in some form. Of these, 107 million Americans rely on government welfare, 46 million seniors collect Medicare and there are 22 million government employees.

    The number of Americans on welfare have increased from 97 million to 107 million since President Obama took office, according to research by Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee Jeff Sessions. The number of Americans on food stamps during the president’s term has risen by more than 14 million.

    “Under Obama’s plan, you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job – they’d just send you a welfare check,” stated a recent anti-Obama television advertisement.

    And it seems that Americans increasingly want it that way. In 2011, a report by Globescan showed that the number of US citizens who believe in the strength of a free market economy dropped to 59 percent from 74 percent in the previous year, falling below Brazil and China. When Globescan first conducted this survey ten years ago, 80 percent of Americans favored a free market economic system.

    Those with the lowest annual incomes were more likely to oppose a free market economy.

    This year’s annual Index on Dependence on Government, released in February, found that since 2008, the American people’s dependence on government has grown by 23 percent. The US government broke a record last year, spending the most on federal assistance in the nation’s history.

    The Heritage Foundation found that on average, Americans who depend on federal assistant received $32,748 in annual benefits, which is more than an average American worker makes in a year. In 2011, the median annual paycheck was reported as $26,364.

    “We expect the government to take care of us from the cradle to the grave,” said an analyses in the Economic Collapse blog.

    In 2010, more than 70 percent of federal spending went to dependence programs – which is almost 2.5 times more what it used to be fifty years ago. In 1962, only 28.3 percent of federal spending was used for these purposes.

    But the cost of these programs does not go to those who reap the benefits. Half of all American households pay no income taxes – the very half that is most likely to be granted welfare and food stamps.

    As government dependency increases, the cost of federal assistance programs will decrease with less people paying for it.

  33. Andy

    I’d be particularly interested in hearing from Libertarians who live in high population areas about how you expect to take over your local government.

    Or is your plan to sit around and complain about wanting more freedom, but cling to your high population big government area where you are so outnumbered by big government types that you stand close to zero chance of ever achieving success, and then just live out the rest of your life until you die which watching government grow bigger and bigger and not being able to do anything about it?

    If enough Libertarians congregated in the same small town or county, even with part time residences (like pop up trailers or tents) used for voter registration addresses, they could take over said low population town or county.

    I don’t see Libertarians as having a realistic chance to “take over” in some place like New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc… The cost of getting Libertarians elected to a majority on the city councils of these cities and their suburbs, as well as to their county commissions/board of supervisors, and their Sheriff offices, is just way too high.

    How many people in the area that you live in are the following categories?

    1) Welfare recipients.

    2) Government employees (including retired and collecting a government pension).

    3) Government contractors.

    4) Work in a government protected occupation.

    5) Are social conservatives or are left wingers who want to regulate personal behavior.

    People who fit into these categories are not likely to support libertarians (with only maybe rare exceptions).

  34. Matt Cholko

    100% of Americans “depend” on government for a whole host of things, Andy. Schools, roads, water, recreation areas, mail delivery, and on, and on, and on. We’re all “subsidized” by government.

  35. Andy

    Yes, but many are more subsidized than others. You do know that there are net tax consumers and net tax payers, right?

    How many of the net tax consumers in this country do you really think are going to give up their tax consuming existence and embrace free market principles? I’d bet that it is a very low percentage of them.

  36. paulie Post author

    How many people in the area that you live in are the following categories?

    1) Welfare recipients.

    2) Government employees (including retired and collecting a government pension).

    3) Government contractors.

    4) Work in a government protected occupation.

    5) Are social conservatives or are left wingers who want to regulate personal behavior.

    People who fit into these categories are not likely to support libertarians (with only maybe rare exceptions).

    I know plenty of people in all these categories who are libertarians (except the last one, by definition, unless you mean voluntary regulation by something other than a forced monopoly). Sure, some people vote their pocketbooks, but the main impediments to libertarian success remain not being persuasive enough, not doing enough outreach to the general public, and not being well enough organized. All of those problems can be overcome, and I believe will be.

  37. paulie Post author

    Or is your plan to sit around and complain about wanting more freedom, but cling to your high population big government area where you are so outnumbered by big government types that you stand close to zero chance of ever achieving success, and then just live out the rest of your life until you die which watching government grow bigger and bigger and not being able to do anything about it?

    No, I’m not nearly that pessimistic.

  38. paulie Post author

    If enough Libertarians congregated in the same small town or county, even with part time residences (like pop up trailers or tents) used for voter registration addresses, they could take over said low population town or county.

    The people who already live there may vote to make such registration scams illegal. And suppose you do take over some place that few people want to live in with some voter registration scam you would still have the problem that it’s not an attractive place to live, thus a lot of people would not want to live there.

    People have a lot of reasons why they move or don’t move to various places: family, jobs, friends. It’s not easy for a lot of people to pick up and move somewhere just because of ideology. Especially, but not only, to a place that a lot of people do not want to live because it’s what most people consider a crappy place to live with few amenities.

  39. Andy

    Registering to vote at a 2nd residence is not a scam. Lots of people do it. It is especially common with “snow birds” (in places like Florida and Arizona) and people who move frequently for work.

    Also, why assume that the low population town or county is not a desirable place to live? It could be a cool place to live, especially after libertarians take it over.

  40. Andy

    “Andy

    March 20, 2015 at 11:45 am

    Registering to vote at a 2nd residence is not a scam. Lots of people do it. It is especially common with “snow birds” (in places like Florida and Arizona) and people who move frequently for work.”

    It is also common with college students. Perhaps a low population town or county with a college could be found, and there could be a Libertarian Club on the campus that turns into a big club and brings more libertarians to the “Free Town” or “Free County” Project.

  41. paulie Post author

    It’s a scam when you are doing it with the sole intent of taking over a place where you don’t actually live. That’s different from having two places where you do actually live, as in the examples of snowbirds and college students.

  42. paulie Post author

    Low population places are generally low population for a reason. Some people prefer to live in places without a lot of people; but those people tend to be especially wary of a bunch of new people popping up in their neck of the woods, especially with an expressed agenda of taking over. And there are still a lot of people who wouldn’t want to live there even if you do manage to take over, in addition to all the problems of getting people to move anywhere solely on the basis of ideology.

  43. Andy

    “paulie Post author

    March 20, 2015 at 11:59 am

    It’s a scam when you are doing it with the sole intent of taking over a place where you don’t actually live. That’s different from having two places where you do actually live, as in the examples of snowbirds and college students.”

    Who is to say that they don’t actually live there? They could live there part of the year. Also, if libertarians chipped in they could collectively purchase some land, and then divvy it out based on how much every person contributed, and this is something that could also be done with a building (it could be made into a condo). This way libertarians could be property owners in said city/town or county.

    Some libertarians would live in the town or county year round. Others could have it as a part time residence. I’d bet that some of the part time residents would turn the city/town or county into a full time residence if the project started to become successful.

  44. Andy

    “paulie Post author

    March 20, 2015 at 12:02 pm

    Low population places are generally low population for a reason.”

    Populations can grow. Look at the California coast. Not many people lived there at one time. Now it is one of the most densely populated parts of the country. The same thing with Phoenix, Arizona. The same goes for south Florida.

    Heck, North Dakota has experienced a relative (by North Dakota standards) population boom over the last several years due to the number of new jobs created from the oil boom in that state.

    “Some people prefer to live in places without a lot of people; but those people tend to be especially wary of a bunch of new people popping up in their neck of the woods, especially with an expressed agenda of taking over. And there are still a lot of people who wouldn’t want to live there even if you do manage to take over, in addition to all the problems of getting people to move anywhere solely on the basis of ideology.”

    This depends on how serious libertarians are about achieving liberty in their life times. This is what the Free State Project in New Hampshire is attempting to do. I am talking about doing this on a smaller scale, which is why I am focusing on a low population city/town or county. Libertarians in New Hampshire still do not have a majority anywhere, which is why they are not more successful.

    Every city/town, county, and state in this country is run by Democrats or Republicans or a combination of both. Libertarians don’t “run” anything. This is something we could change, but it is going to require some work, and some people relocating, or setting up 2nd residences, to make it happen.

    The entire Libertarian Zone concept is based on libertarians forming their own community. A Libertarian Zone would not have to worry about trying to win elections against Democrats and Republicans.

    I don’t think that we can ever achieve real freedom when we are surrounded by hoards of people who do not want to be free. The best we could hope for under said scenario (which is our present reality) is some kind of watered down, bastardized version of freedom, and even this may be a long shot.

    I’d say that a good 2/3 of the population of this country is not even really open to libertarianism. Trying to mobilize the 1/3 of the population that is at least open to the idea of libertarianism would take a lot of money, and a lot of hard work, and even if we were somehow able to raise enough money to reach out to these people, some of these people would only be fair weather libertarians, or libertarian lites.

    There are plenty of examples of people immigrating some place based on ideology. I am just suggesting that libertarians go some place where we can become the majority. The prospects for real freedom, or even watered down freedom, are not good in places where libertarians are vastly outnumbered.

  45. Andy

    “paulie Post author

    March 20, 2015 at 11:59 am

    It’s a scam when you are doing it with the sole intent of taking over a place where you don’t actually live.”

    There are also people who travel a lot for work, or who can work from home. These are people who could live a lot of different places. I am talking about truck drivers, airline pilots, writers, investors, web site designers, and even traveling petition circulators.

    There are also retirees, and full time motorhome people. If the “Free City/Town” or “Free County” Project was in a northern state, we could set up an RV park there where libertarian motorhome people could go for the warm months, and then they could “snow bird” somewhere else for the cold months. They could have lots at the RV park, along with a P.O. Box to get their mail, and they could register to vote at the RV park.

  46. Andy

    Paul said: “I know plenty of people in all these categories who are libertarians (except the last one, by definition, unless you mean voluntary regulation by something other than a forced monopoly).”

    These people are the exception, not the rule, and it is not even close.

    “Sure, some people vote their pocketbooks,”

    Most people will vote their paychecks, and many cing to their government programs or jobs no matter what.

    Look at the government employee unions. All they do is push for more government. The same with government contractors, and the same with the typical welfare recipient (including corporate welfare recipients).

    I don’t think that everyone who works for the government is some kind of demon (although a lot of them are), but even most of the ones who seem reasonable, or who even talk about freedom on some issues, generally vote the party line (which is not on the side of liberty).

    “but the main impediments to libertarian success remain not being persuasive enough, not doing enough outreach to the general public, and not being well enough organized. All of those problems can be overcome, and I believe will be.”

    Sure, lack of outreach, and quality of outreach, are big problems for libertarians, but even so, a large chuck of the population, probably around 2/3 of the people, are either control freaks, or wannbe control freaks, or they prefer being lead around like sheep by people who are control freaks, so they do not even desire what libertarians are selling.

  47. Andy

    Jill Pyeatt asked a question a while ago about how would abortion be handled in a Libertarian Zone. This is a good question. The libertarian movement is divided on the issue of abortion, and as I suggested above, there could be more than one Libertarian Zone, so perhaps different Libertarian Zones could handle the issue of abortion differently.

    I could see it going the following ways:

    1) Abortion could be considered to be “legal,” as in it would be spelled out as acceptable in The Libertarian Zone Contract.

    2) Abortion could be considered to be “illegal,” as in it would be classified as murder in The Libertarian Zone Contract, which could result in penalties (spelled out in The Libertarian Zone Contract) to the parties involved in carrying out the abortion.

    3) The Libertarian Zone Contract may not address abortion at all, but even if the subject was not specifically addressed in The Libertarian Zone Contract, it would likely come up as an issue at some point. Let’s say a pro-life Libertarian Zone Contract signer takes it upon himself or herself to “seek justice” on an abortion doctor by going “vigilante” on them, or let’s say that a pro-life Libertarian Zone Contract signer “presses charges” against the parties involved in an abortion (as in the formerly pregnant woman, the abortion doctor, etc…). I envision that The Libertarian Zone justice system would have all Libertarian Zone Contract signers act as randomly selected, fully informed jurors, and would include a randomly selected judge. The pro-life Libertarian Zone Contract signer could claim that the parties involved in an abortion violated The Libertarian Zone Contract by initiating force against the fetus, and that this is murder, and that they should therefore be banned from The Libertarian Zone, and that perhaps a bounty should be placed on their heads. It would then be up to the jury as to whether or not the parties involved in the abortion violated The Libertarian Zone Contract or not.

    I think that one of the primary reasons that women seek abortion is economic (obviously not the only reason, but certainly a major reason). The Libertarian Zone would be a free market economy. Free markets lead to prosperity. So I think that there’d be plenty of economic opportunities for women to where they’d feel less economic pressure to where they’d be less inclined to consider abortion in the first place. Also, those who are strongly pro-life would also have more wealth at their disposal (since they’d be living in a tax free environment) and would therefore be more able to adopt children, or to donate money to charities that take take of unwanted children, and for that matter, they could even pay women to not get abortions.

    So I doubt that abortion would be as much of an issue in a Libertarian Zone as it is in the present society in which we live.

  48. paulie Post author

    These people are the exception, not the rule, and it is not even close.

    There’s lots of exceptions like that. I meet them all the time.

  49. Andy

    “paulie Post author

    June 9, 2015 at 12:11 am

    ‘These people are the exception, not the rule, and it is not even close.’

    There’s lots of exceptions like that. I meet them all the time.”

    I meet people who work for the government all of the time, and most of them are either hardcore statists, or they are just “go with the flow” (which is towards more and more government) types. Very few give a rat’s behind about individual freedom. They value their check from the government more than they value the concept of a free market with a high degree of civil liberties.

    Really, one of the biggest flaws in this country was allowing government employees to vote. People who receives checks from the government should not be able to vote, so this includes all of those who are employed by government, those who are government contractors, those who receive government pensions, and all who receive government welfare or any form of government subsidy.

    I’m not even getting into the anarchist/voluntaryist argument here (which I agree with, I’m just not going there for this comment).

    So going under the false assumption that “we’ve got to have some government,” I think that government would be a lot smaller now, which would mean that there’d be more freedom in this country, if people who get checks from the government had to forfeit their “right” to vote, and were also barred from donating to political campaigns.

    Government employees should have also been barred from unionizing.

    If they want to vote and be able to participate in politics and form unions, they should go to the private sector.

  50. Andy

    Check out this video of two thugs from the state (ie-“revenue agents”) show up at Porcfest 2015 to harass vendors. Now just imagine of Porcfest become overwhelmed with statist goons like this. Porcfest would be ruined and it would be just like the rest of the present day USA.

    This further illustrates the need for a Libertarian Zone.

    What Happens When Government Thugs Threaten Porcfest

  51. Andy

    “Now just imagine of Porcfest ”

    Should read, “Now just imagine if Porcfest…”

  52. paulie Post author

    I meet people who work for the government all of the time, and most of them are either hardcore statists, or they are just “go with the flow” (which is towards more and more government) types. Very few give a rat’s behind about individual freedom. They value their check from the government more than they value the concept of a free market with a high degree of civil liberties.

    I think your perception may be skewed because you don’t realize how many of the pro-liberty people you meet actually have government jobs, since you don’t know what they do for a living. The anti-liberty people who have government jobs are more likely to make their employment known because they may mention as a reason for not signing or otherwise being negative or trying to kick you out and so on. However, I’ve met many libertarians who either have or have had government jobs, government contracts and so on.

    It’s true that many government employees are statists or go with the flow types, but then so are many people with private sector jobs. It may be true that government employees and contractors are on average more statist than those who have private sector jobs, but I don’t know of anything except anecdotal evidence for this. Even if it is true, there are still many exceptions. I’ve met plenty all the time and continue to meet more constantly.

  53. Andy

    The video below features some Democrat complaining about how Free State Project supporters are “wrecking” New Hampshire. This is an example of why libertarians and big government types are incompatible and should not live in the same areas.

    Free State Project Has Wrecked the State of New Hampshire

  54. Pingback: Throwback Thursday: Andy Jacobs: The Libertarian Zone | American Third Party Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *