A group of Czech actvists associated with the libertarian Party of Free Citizens, has claimed a sliver of land along the Danube between Croatia and Serbia as the “Republic of Liberland”. Marked in green and labeled “Siga” on the map above, the territory in question is nominally claimed by neither Serbia nor Croatia, but is under de facto Croatian administration. Serbia claims the current course of the Danube as the border, which has been the one in place since the 1940s. Croatia claims the border is the course of the river during the 19th C., which would give it the yellow territory on the Serbian side of the river while assigning “Liberland” to Serbia.
The proclamation of Liberland follows:
In accordance with international law, a group of Czech citizens, gathered in a Preparatory Committee, decided to declare a new state, Free Republic of Liberland, in the territory defined by the coordinates below.
Its total area of about 7 square kilometres makes Liberland the third smallest sovereign state, after the Vatican and Monaco. Liberland is located along the Danube River between Croatia and the Republic of Serbia. The territory is not claimed by either of these two states. It was a no man’s land – terra nullius – as defined by international conventions.
On 13 April 2015 the Preparatory Committee declared the new state on the spot and raised a flag to claim the land. The Committee also elected the President of the Republic, who was also commissioned to send diplomatic notes not only to the two neighbouring states, but also to the United Nations and later to other countries, in order to inform them about the establishment of the new state of Liberland.
The objective of the founders of the new state is to build a country where honest people can prosper without being oppressed by governments making their lives unpleasant through the burden of unnecessary restrictions and taxes. One of the reasons for founding Liberland is the ever expanding influence of interest groups on the functioning of existing states and the consequent worsening of living conditions of people. The founders are inspired by countries such as Monaco, Liechtenstein or Hong Kong.
Liberland is led by its President Vit Jedlicka, who was elected by the Preparatory Committee. Free Republic of Liberland intends to accept applications for citizenship. Further details are available on the official website of the state www.liberland.org .
State Location: 45°46’N 18°52’E
This is not the first attempt to create a libertarian micronation. In 1972, a group lead by Michael Oliver attempted to found “The Republic of Minerva” on the then-unclaimed Minerva Reefs in the South Pacific. This prompted neighboring nations to endorse Tonga officially annexing the mostly-submerged islets and evicting any would-be nation-builders. A similar concept can also be seen in the Seasteading Institute‘s plans for a floating free zone in international waters, backed by Peter Thiel and Patri Friedman, or on a larger scale in the Free State Project‘s efforts to promote libertarian migration to New Hampshire.
The Principality of Sealand is probably the most famous micronation, and also has had a libertarian bent. Founded in 1967 on a former WWII gun platform in international waters, Sealand was originally focused on pirate radio and has more recently attempted web-hosting services outside any nation’s laws. While no nation-state has recognized Sealand, British courts have upheld that it is outside of British territorial jurisdiction. Sealand’s colorful history includes an attempted coup, civil war, and a hostage crisis leading to diplomatic negotiations with Germany in 1978.
Wow,
This reminded me of the event on May 17, 1884 when Major Ezra W. Clark an attorney with the United States
Department of the Treasury added to the District
of Alaska six islands, viz., Bennett, Forrester (of the San Carlos Islands), Henrietta, Herald, Jeannette, & Wrangell (formerly known as New Columbia Land). Five of these islands are in the Arctic to the North of Russia.
“This territory was already claimed by the sovereign state of Paraduin on March 5. The illegal Liberland flag has been removed.”
Uh oh…LOL!
ac: If not, and we’re working with a strict NAP-based legal system with absolute property rights, then it seems obvious that no law expelling or prohibiting extremists could be enforced.
me: Yes, since a strict NAP-based legal system is itself an extremist idea.
“I don’t understand why non-libertarians would want to move to a place where they would be surrounded by libertarians”
I’m not sure that I even understand why libertarians would want that. 🙂 We can barely get together and keep it semi-civil in a hotel for a long weekend before we’re sick of each other. 😉
This territory was already claimed by the sovereign state of Paraduin on March 5. The illegal Liberland flag has been removed.
The much bigger concern is that non-libertarians would become the majority, at which point The Libertarian Zone or Liberland would no longer be libertarian. Even if non-libertarians did not become a majority, if they were just a large minority they could still cause major problems in The Libertarian Zone or Liberland and cause them to be much less free places than they would be otherwise.
I don’t understand why non-libertarians would want to move to a place where they would be surrounded by libertarians, unless they were planning a hostile takeover, and in that case, what’s to stop, for example, a bunch of communists from pretending to be libertarians just long enough to get in?
The only “solution” to that would be to closely monitor everyone who lived there, in order to make sure they weren’t promoting any forbidden thoughts, and that certainly doesn’t sound like a very libertarian policy. Actually, it sounds like a McCarthy-style witch hunt.
All of the concerns Paul mentioned above could be covered in a Libertarian Zone contract.
^ Actually not a bad idea. Maybe the concept could spread from there.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/everyone-in-middle-east-given-own-country-in-31700,36484/
I was addressing the problems of Andy J’s overall concept more than the short term problems of Liberland. However, Liberland will still need to deal with all kinds of issues of what exactly is too close to nazism or communism, or how to handle the unsanctioned expressions of the kids that move there with their parents, long before they deal with the issue of teens who were born in Liberland… of course, that’s all if they even get it off the ground at all, which is by far the bigger problem for them right now.
Yes, but none of those places simultaneously claim to be based on the non-initiation of force concept and outlaw certain ideas/expression thereof, so I am interested in how they are supposed to handle this. I realize it’s a theoretical question, but nevertheless, since it keeps being brought up, I would like to understand the theory.
“Maybe. But IPR commenters’ kids don’t have to live here until they turn 18.”
Neither does the so-called Republic of Liberland at this point. 😉 I do think that’s a relevant distinction. It isn’t even clear that they would make any attempt to enforce whatever laws they might end up formulating, or that there will ever be a significant permanent population at all. So, even if they style themselves as a nation-state, I think it’s reasonable at this stage to not actually regard them as one when judging such “laws”. And minors have to live with their parents no matter where they go, so that’s hardly a unique situation for our micronation, it’s a general problem of how we define children’s rights vs. parental rights. Which libertarianism per se doesn’t have a strict or obvious answer to.
One thing that hasn’t been addressed, and which could make a big difference, is the degree of private land ownership here. Is all real estate in Liberland, or Liberzone, or Libertopia, or whatever you call it, to be ultimately leased from the state and revocable by the state for malum prohibitum offenses? That hardly sounds like an improvement on the states we already have. If not, and we’re working with a strict NAP-based legal system with absolute property rights, then it seems obvious that no law expelling or prohibiting extremists could be enforced. If nothing else, they would still own their home, etc., and nobody could be compelled to not interact with them. By the same token then, no restrictions at all on immigration could be enforced, either, because who are they to tell me I can’t sell my acre of land to a Communist?
I don’t think, however, that Liberland is setting out to be that radical. They describe themselves on their website as a “constitutional republic with elements of direct democracy” – so quite clearly the intention is some flavor of minarchist libertarianism, not some kind of anarcho-capitalist state-less zone.
Maybe. But IPR commenters’ kids don’t have to live here until they turn 18.
There’s bureaucratic inanity all the time about exactly which parties, symbols, bands, songs, etc., etc., are verbotten. I don’t see any such process of thought policing being done in a libertarian fashion. In a way I do understand it when it comes to purely private forums or places. I even have to make those same kinds of on the spot decisions when it comes to certain IPR trolls and just how much hate they can spew before it makes the atmosphere toxic here. But what if they were born and raised here, or moved here as kids with their parents and had to live with them? That’s a different level of decision.
I can understand the idea that I can ask someone to leave my home or motel room or place of business if I don’t like their chosen form of self-expression, but that becomes a bit of a problem when we are talking about a place where people live and raise their kids, even if it’s not a lot of people.
I’d still like to know who is initiating force in my examples above? The teenagers merely advocating it, or the people … doing what exactly? Kicking them out with their parents? Or without their parents? Shooting them? Locking them up? Beating them up? What exactly would be done about them playing songs, making speeches or passing out leaflets?
You see the same thing with religious groups and secular communes- i.e. with the Amish, or kibbutzim. They deal with it by giving minors a choice to leave or stay when they reach adulthood, which seems a reasonably workable solution up to a point. But then that’s where scale really matters- leaving a relatively small community or group is a viable option, even if it’s difficult or painful. Leaving an actual nation isn’t an option for most people, particularly if the goal is to emigrate somewhere state-less or with a more libertarian state, in which case there basically aren’t any options.
You’re absolutely right about the practical concerns if these decisions have to be made on any kind of larger scale, and you lay out the classic case for why governments shouldn’t be making any such decisions at all. But at this point we’re talking about a “nation” with fewer citizens than IPR has regular commenters. We and other similarly-sized groups seem to manage to draw that line without too much angst, mostly because at such a level, and in a voluntary organization, we can get away with a “know it when you see it” case-by-case standard instead of something more formal and legalistic.
Germany and other nations in the area also do a surprisingly decent job of drawing that line without too much grey-area complications. I don’t approve, on principled freedom of speech grounds, and definitely wouldn’t support such laws in the US. But they have shown that it’s reasonably possible to pull it off (particularly when the case for necessity is much stronger) without impinging too much on the functioning of a competitive multi-party liberal democracy.
Also, so far as we know the restrictions of Liberland are only applicable to immigrants – they haven’t yet addressed the question of what to do with a natural-born Liberalander who becomes a fascist, and in all likelihood they never will have to address that question. They haven’t even published their draft constitution or laws yet, just the statement/proclamation of independence. We still don’t know how Croatia & Serbia will respond, or if Liberland will ever be more than an uninhabited bit of soggy riverbank. So far as things they need to work out, something that can’t possibly be an issue for a couple of decades at the soonest, is pretty far down the list. They don’t have anybody capable of enforcing banishment from Liberland at this point even if they attempted it.
Even the US- where gov’t is generally categorically forbidden from making such judgments- has a similar policy of denying entry visas to extremists and members of war-criminal groups, etc.. You can’t enter the US- much less become a naturalized US citizen- without swearing an oath to not advocate the overthrow of the government and the like. Whether or not such a policy is justified is debatable (I’d just as soon get rid of it), but it’s clearly of a different kind, than the question of policing and restricting domestic political activities, or revoking citizenship on such a basis. See for example the Nazi war criminals who have immigrated to the US and were later caught- they had their citizenship revoked. Not as punishment (which isn’t allowed) but rather on the grounds that they’d never really been naturalized at all, since they lied about being a Nazi in their application and thus the resulting naturalization was a null-and-void fraud.
Presumably, though, some of them will have children, including teens. And given some time some of them will conceive and have children within the LZ/Liberland, and some of those children will become teenagers there without having signed any contract, but with the same abilities as adults to advocate for ideas through all sorts of means. The Vatican, due to their more recent interpretation of celibacy (originally that only meant not getting married), doesn’t have that particular issue.
Incidentally, who gets to define nazi and communist? Of course, there are the arm band wearing nazis and red flag waving communists who make no bones about it. But if David Duke claims that he is no longer a nazi but is a libertarian now, and that his racialist views are voluntary free association, do we believe him or not? If Hans Hoppe pals around with Eurofascists and advocates the forcible removal of homosexuals from Liberland, is he welcome or not? What about voluntarist anarcho-communists or voluntary racial separatists? How about a punk rock group that uses nazi or soviet imagery and slogans in a way that they claim is ironic, but that others may think is actually not? Etc., etc. It could get pretty thorny getting all that sorted out in the real world.
I have a hard time seeing anything at all “libertarian” in advocating less freedom and less restriction on government than is already well-settled 1st Amendment law in the United States. The strength and relative absolutism of free speech protections is one of the things that’s truly exceptional about America.
I understand and sympathize why “Liberland” would try to take such a measure, particularly given where they are, because otherwise it might be a real concern that they’d be over-run by extremists. Neighboring states that might look the other way at a handful of libertarians waving a flag in the middle of nowhere, are a lot less likely to do so for some kind of neo-Nazi training camp with thousands of putative “citizens” on their border.
But that’s where the distinction between “Liberland” a real country comes in. There is no large, permanent, self-reproducing society of Liberlanders. It’s more like a self-selecting club that happens to (supposedly) own a small-ish piece of property. A glorified country club, not a nation.
Kind of like how there’s one country in Europe that’s still an absolute monarchy with no freedom of religion or equality for women, where the king can strip citizenship or even execute people at will. But nobody really cares because it’s the Vatican: 109 acres of a few hundred voluntary inhabitants running the corporate HQ of Catholic Church, Inc.
However if you scale that back to the world of nation-states with large populations and expansive territory, i.e. where 99.999% of humanity lives, then the idea of “libertarian” thought police making and enforcing a list of illegal political ideologies is absurd, and the exact opposite of what Libertarians advocate.
Which just shows that navel-gazing about what laws hypothetical micro-nation Libertopia would have, really tells you nothing about what Libertarians should advocate or do here in the US and other nation-states. The circumstances are so dissimilar, any comparison is meaningless.
Not sure why Andy keeps capitalizing NAZI but whatever. I am sure Andy knows how teenagers can be rebellious and do things that society tells them they are not allowed to do. Suppose some teenagers in the LZ start espousing communist or nazi ideas as a form of rebellion, but they aren’t out there beating people up or overthrowing the government (or whatever you want to call it), just distributing propaganda, making and attending speeches, playing music that espouses their beliefs, going to meetings and rallies, that sort of thing. They haven’t actually initiated force against anyone, just advocated ideas that could lead to that if implemented, but they haven’t been implemented. They aren’t violating their LZ contract because they haven’t been of age to have to sign it or leave yet. So do you use force to break up their meetings, speeches, rallies, leafletting and concerts? Who is initiating force if you do? – you or them?
“langa
April 20, 2015 at 12:48 am
A free society can only work if the majority of people living there truly understand and embrace the philosophy of liberty. If that is the case, why would you worry about them being exposed to the ridiculous arguments put forth by authoritarians? They would easily see through them. So, I agree with Jed. If a ‘free’ society feels the need to stifle dissent, it’s already doomed to failure.”
The much bigger concern is that non-libertarians would become the majority, at which point The Libertarian Zone or Liberland would no longer be libertarian. Even if non-libertarians did not become a majority, if they were just a large minority they could still cause major problems in The Libertarian Zone or Liberland and cause them to be much less free places than they would be otherwise.
The situation Andy finds himself in is analogous to the situation the U.S. finds itself in with regard to extending constitutional protections to others especially those who would (potentially) do us harm. It’s a tough call to be sure.
Interesting stuff. A greenfield LZ like Liberland is an interesting opportunity to conduct a social engineering experiment. It seems wise to encourage immigrants to be like-minded when it comes to, at least, the civic order, ie, political views. It seems unwise to have a brightline exclusion of certain political thought, esp since it can’t be enforced and such exclusion has a heavy-handed feel about it.
So, since there seems to be much skepticism that Liberland will become a nation-state, Andy, you might want to reconsider the phraseology. Off the top, LZ prospects are strongly encouraged to embrace the freedom philosophy, including free market economics, social non-judgment, and a general live-and-let-live attitude toward all human action.
Andy, I agree with langa and Jed. Anyone living in the Libertarian Zone would most likely believe in libertarian principles, but making that a requirement seems like a conflict of libertarian principles. I just don’t see any way to enforce it, either.
You know, it is really funny how some of the same Libertarians who pitch a fit when Republicans like Bob Barr and Wayne Root come in the Libertarian Party, think that it is some kind of horrible thing to say that non-libertarians should be excluded from living in a libertarian society, like The Libertarian Zone or Liberland.
It’s even funnier that some libertarians think you can force people to be free. If the majority of the citizens want freedom, they’ll get it. If they want communism or fascism, then they’ll get that.
“langa
April 20, 2015 at 12:48 am
A free society can only work if the majority of people living there truly understand and embrace the philosophy of liberty. If that is the case, why would you worry about them being exposed to the ridiculous arguments put forth by authoritarians? They would easily see through them. So, I agree with Jed. If a “free” society feels the need to stifle dissent, it’s already doomed to failure.”
You know, it is really funny how some of the same Libertarians who pitch a fit when Republicans like Bob Barr and Wayne Root come in the Libertarian Party, think that it is some kind of horrible thing to say that non-libertarians should be excluded from living in a libertarian society, like The Libertarian Zone or Liberland.
A communist or a NAZI don’t simply have different opinions, they are advocates of an ideology that says that it is OK to commit force and fraud. This is unacceptable in a libertarian society.
A free society can only work if the majority of people living there truly understand and embrace the philosophy of liberty. If that is the case, why would you worry about them being exposed to the ridiculous arguments put forth by authoritarians? They would easily see through them. So, I agree with Jed. If a “free” society feels the need to stifle dissent, it’s already doomed to failure.
If put into practice being the key words.
What do you tell the teenagers who grow up in your zone and never signed the contract themselves, about holding forbidden views that call for the initiation of force (and many points of view do that, not only nazis and communists) if the only actual actions they take are free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press and other expression, etc? Will you use force to prevent them from expressing those views?
“Jed Ziggler
April 19, 2015 at 8:22 pm
Yes, in Andy’s Libertarian Zone, and apparently ‘Liberland’ you enjoy complete freedom! Except freedom of political thought. I’ll pass. No matter how much I disagree with commies & Nazis, I stand with their right to exist, even as I also fight to keep them from gaining power over me. Any state that criminalizes thought is not free.”
Oh wow, Jed just does not get it. This is not a case of mere thought. A communist and a NAZI are DIRECT THREATS to individual freedom. Their belief systems are the antithesis of a libertarian society.
This is not like asking if one prefers Coke or Pepsi, or if one prefers Elvis or The Beatles, or if one prefers the Pittsburgh Steelers or the Dallas Cowboys, or if one prefers chocolate ice cream or vanilla ice cream. These preferences do nothing to harm anyone else.
When it comes to being a communist or a NAZI, these ideologies, if put into practice, are a direct threat to the life, liberty, and property of others. People who hold these views have no place in a free society, and if they ever gain a large enough following in a free society, they will destroy it and said society will no longer be a free society.
Not wanting any communists or NAZI in the Libertarian Zone or in Liberland is like not wanting to have any serial killers or rapists in your house.
That really is following things out to their logical conclusion there, Jed. So, in the theoretical world, I agree with you 100%. But, if the worst thing about Liberland is a restriction on Nazis and commies, well, I just don’t give a damn.
Anyway, lets be realistic. I certainly don’t see either of their neighbors recognizing Liberland as a sovereign state. I do see some chance that Croatia and Serbia will just ignore 100 libertarians that gather on some land that they don’t care about. And, ya know, that may just be good enough for those folks.
But, I doubt it will even get to that point,
“Do you seriously consider that restrictions on Nazis and Commies
are a violation of civil liberties?”
Absolutely.
“Isn’t the very essence of both Communism and Fascism the idea
that they will use force to gain power and more force to retain it.”
Until they use said force, they should be free to believe as they wish, advocate for whatever policies/agenda they wish, and hold meetings, rallies, and conventions as they wish without government plants, spies, or other interference. Force should be criminalized. Thought, including the thought that force is an effective tool for social change, MUST remain legal.
JZ, you contradict yourself. Do you seriously consider that restrictions on Nazis and Commies
are a violation of civil liberties? Isn’t the very essence of both Communism and Fascism the idea
that they will use force to gain power and more force to retain it.
IMO any “state” that does NOT criminalize the use of force is unworthy of the name “state”.
Yes, in Andy’s Libertarian Zone, and apparently “Liberland” you enjoy complete freedom! Except freedom of political thought. I’ll pass. No matter how much I disagree with commies & Nazis, I stand with their right to exist, even as I also fight to keep them from gaining power over me. Any state that criminalizes thought is not free.
So I would not be welcome there either. Oh well, I wasn’t planning on applying.
andy, but they also exclude those convicted of crimes. Is that LZ worthy?
I guess that means certain IPR trolls won’t be welcome there, LOL…
I noticed that Liberland has an immigration restriction against people who hold communist or NAZI views. This is completely in line with my Libertarian Zone concept.
The prior/current residents would have a theoretical trump over some random outsider, if any such residents existed. The same for any non-resident land-owners.
Bir Tawil is the other piece of land in a similar situation- both Egypt and Sudan assert a border that would assign it to the other. It doesn’t have a permanent population, but does have established use by the nomadic herders in the area. Their claim easily precedes any random white guy going on an expedition to plant a flag there so his daughter can be a princess of a “real” country (yes, that really happened, and is exactly as legal as Libertopia-on-the-Danube).
Neither Bir Tawil or Siga (“Liberland”), really qualify as terra nullis. This is basically the international-law equivalent of arguing the income tax isn’t real because Ohio wasn’t really a state and so couldn’t ratify the 16th Amendment. It’s an amusing theory, but it isn’t how any of that works and is premised on mistaken assumptions of fact. Both areas are under the established governance and control of Egypt and Croatia, respectively, who check all the necessary boxes for whether or not a gov’t exists for TN purposes. That they theoretically, officially, take the position that the territory belongs to a neighboring nation isn’t really relevant. That just makes it, at most, an Egyptian-occupied part of Sudan or a Croatian-occupied part of Serbia.
Steven: ” It kind of takes away the “voluntary” aspect if people who have been living their for long term and consider their properties to be either Croatian or Serbian to have some outsider decide differently for them.
The POINT is that (a.) property HAS NO nationality. and (b) since neither Croatia or Serbia CLAIM this territory, any current residents (?) have no more authority to determine “nationality”
than anyone else.
PLEASE! no more three way civil wars. LOL
I don’t think anybody lives there. Google Earth shows no development and only a couple of dirt roads. Their photo of the “capital” shows a small hut and their flag, so presumably they do have some physical presence there. Whether or not they own the land, and if so under which nation’s laws they established such ownership, or if they’re just squatters, is a question I’ve wondered but haven’t seen answered yet. However, there doesn’t appear to be any existing permanent population. The opposite bank is a Serbian nature preserve.
It has been pointed out that the Danube is a recognized international waterway. So in theory at least, Liberland would have access to the sea without being blocked by their neighbors.
Good point! Otherwise it could be like The Who sang years ago… “meet the new boss same as the old boss…”
The obvious and overriding question not answered in here are whether there are already existing residents in this area prior to this unilateral proclamation – and if so whether any of them are not on board the idea of having their nationality changed via such proclamation. It kind of takes away the “voluntary” aspect if people who have been living their for long term and consider their properties to be either Croatian or Serbian to have some outsider decide differently for them.
andy, from their website:
Important notice: Due to overwhelming interest from around the world, we are currently unable to process individual e-mails with requests or answer individual questions. If you are interested in Liberland citizenship, please wait for the citizenship application form and keep watching the information posted in the News section of this page and on our official Facebook page. Do not send us your CVs or scans of your ID documents for now. Thank you all for your support and interest!
E-mail: [email protected]
Official Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/liberland
Does anyone know how to get in touch with them? I am assuming that if I go to the Czech Party of Free Citizens and send look for an email address that it will get to the people who are behind this libertarian country. If anyone knows of a better way to contact them let me know.
I envisage someone, perhaps Andy, founding the Freedom School II in LiberLand, like LeFevre’s.
This could all be THE turning point!
Good idea.
a: This could be a good place to try out the Libertarian Zone concept.
me: My first reaction as well. Andy, why not get in touch with these proto-LZers?
See https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/01/krzysztof-lesiak-the-failure-that-was-the-presidential-campaign-of-virgil-goode for a taste of the dozens of comments that were trashed here by someone other than me.
It looks like someone (Jill?) trashed the comments we were referring to.
Chris, you can hold any beliefs you want, but please don’t post repetitive gibberish. I’m not taking any unilateral action and you have contributed a lot to this site in the past, but WTF? Seriously. At least in your racist phase, or coming out of the closet as a racist or whatever it was, your thoughts seemed coherent, albeit ridiculous. This on the other hand…makes about as much sense as a homeless schizophrenic walking around the streets downtown yelling random things at passers by and traffic. I hope you get some help, dude, I really do. I mean that sincerely.
Enough, Chris!
Enough, Chris, please.
I hope Chris hasn’t gone off the rails again.
This could be a good place to try out the Libertarian Zone concept.
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/07/andy-jacobs-the-libertarian-zone/
I wonder what the chances are of this effort not be thwarted? Since it is in Europe and there are other micro-states perhaps it will be left alone if it provides a service like the Swiss do with banking or Lichtenstein does with international incorporations.