Billionaire funding creation of artificial libertarian islands

[FlexGunship]

Just a thought, after reading Evo's article it suggests to me although not obvious, is that a deeper motivator for the establishment of these man made islands would be a safe haven to insulate the chosen few from what could be chaos developing in the civilized world.

Agreed. Minus "the chosen few."

Libertarians aren't stupid; I self-identify as one. It won't be a floating island of fat cats, and corporate big wigs. Who would clean the toilets? If the idea is successful (unlikely) then it will be a microcosm of the U.S. in the early 1900s with significantly higher technology and more effective medicine; for better or for worse.

Let's not lose scope here, libertarians are simply individuals who think issues of social and financial preference are best left to individuals to decide on, not their government. It's not going to be a lawless oil rig given over to the rogue with the most money or weapons. just imagine the United States where no one pays taxes, and instead pay for the services they use:

Drive on a road? Pay for it.
Call the police? Pay for it (unless a suspect is apprehended and found guilty).
Have a fire in your home and call the fire department? Pay for it.
Get ill and need medical services? Pay for it.
Need food because you don't have any? Pay for it.
Want to donate money to a charity to help the less fortunate? Pay for it.​

It's not some Utopian dream; it's just a different mechanism for organizing social services in a society.

 

[Evo]

Agreed. Minus "the chosen few."

Libertarians aren't stupid; I self-identify as one. It won't be a floating island of fat cats, and corporate big wigs. Who would clean the toilets? If the idea is successful (unlikely) then it will be a microcosm of the U.S. in the early 1900s with significantly higher technology and more effective medicine; for better or for worse.

Let's not lose scope here, libertarians are simply individuals who think issues of social and financial preference are best left to individuals to decide on, not their government. It's not going to be a lawless oil rig given over to the rogue with the most money or weapons. just imagine the United States where no one pays taxes, and instead pay for the services they use:

Drive on a road? Pay for it.
Call the police? Pay for it (unless a suspect is apprehended and found guilty).
Have a fire in your home and call the fire department? Pay for it.
Get ill and need medical services? Pay for it.
Need food because you don't have any? Pay for it.
Want to donate money to a charity to help the less fortunate? Pay for it.​

It's not some Utopian dream; it's just a different mechanism for organizing social services in a society.

What happens if you become disabled and can no longer pay for these services?

Is this society only for those with money? What do you do with members that get sick, are hurt or get old and all of their money is gone from paying for all of these uncapped services (I'm assuming there are no government subsidies?) Not everyone is going to be highly paid, right? You get paid according to your job? Do these people become fish food?

 

[rhody]

What happens if you become disabled and can no longer pay for these services?

Is this society only for those with money? What do you do with members that get sick, are hurt or get old and all of their money is gone from paying for all of these uncapped services (I'm assuming there are no government subsidies?) Not everyone is going to be highly paid, right? You get paid according to your job? Do these people become fish food?

Social Darwinism, survival of the fittest may work for some, elite, rich, highly educated, the entitled.

Thankfully, humans have mirror neurons (for empathy) in our brains, some more active than in others to keep things in check. Without these, Flex's hypothetical world could be possible. A more important question, could you witness suffering, depression and slow death, standing by doing nothing about it. I don't think I would like to be part of such a world, would you ?

Rhody...

 

[FlexGunship]

What happens if you become disabled and can no longer pay for these services?

Is this society only for those with money? What do you do with members that get sick, are hurt or get old and all of their money is gone from paying for all of these uncapped services (I'm assuming there are no government subsidies?) Not everyone is going to be highly paid, right? You get paid according to your job? Do these people become fish food?

Charities have always been around. And, in general, charities seem to be more efficient at distribution collected money than government bureaucracies on local levels (very different on federal levels like disaster relief). There's nothing shameful about receiving help from a charity when you need it. In that type of society (with highly-paid elites) could you imagine charities NOT flourishing? With such a thriving private sector individual contributions to charity would be astronomical. Could you sit by and watch people simply perish? What makes you think that if you made more money you would be MORE likely to watch people suffer?

Furthermore, there are many members of society that are considered disabled that are fully capable of working, and that may, in fact, desire to work but are discouraged from it so that they may receive their full compensation (my uncle was once like this).

Evo, I'm not saying it's perfect, and I'm not saying my rebuttal covers all cases. But there ARE alternatives.

 

[Evo]

Charities have always been around. And, in general, charities seem to be more efficient at distribution collected money than government bureaucracies on local levels (very different on federal levels like disaster relief). There's nothing shameful about receiving help from a charity when you need it. In that type of society (with highly-paid elites) could you imagine charities NOT flourishing? With such a thriving private sector individual contributions to charity would be astronomical. Could you sit by and watch people simply perish? What makes you think that if you made more money you would be MORE likely to watch people suffer?

Furthermore, there are many members of society that are considered disabled that are fully capable of working, and that may, in fact, desire to work but are discouraged from it so that they may receive their full compensation (my uncle was once like this).

Evo, I'm not saying it's perfect, and I'm not saying my rebuttal covers all cases. But there ARE alternatives.

I can imagine charities not flourishing in an "everyone for himself" type of society. Many rich people only donate to charities for the tax breaks. Without that needed tax shelter, there would not be much given to charity, IMO.

 

[FlexGunship]

I can imagine charities not flourishing in an "everyone for himself" type of society. Many rich people only donate to charities for the tax breaks. Without that needed tax shelter, there would not be much given to charity, IMO.

Do you give to charity? If you made more money than you do now, would you give less to charities? I think people tend to villainize the wealthy either because of pop culture representations or misunderstandings; where did the idea of "everyone for himself" come from? Remember back in '07, the UK launched a study to find out why wealthy Americans are so generous with their money. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Steve Jobs are some of the richest men in society, and they're also the largest suppliers of charitable contributions. Some even have their OWN charities.

Furthermore, I'm not sure that a libertarian society is only for the wealthy. That's either a misconception or an intentional misconstrual. Even by the harshest possible metric, anyone who is not reliant purely on the government (and therefore other individuals) stands to gain by this system.

EDIT: I might cautiously argue (very cautiously) that the current body of social legislation is tailored specifically to the lowest class of citizens. A libertarian body of social legislation simply wouldn't favor any class specifically. If I were to play devil's advocate, I would say the largest political lobby in America is that of the poor. Not oil. Not coal. Not tobacco. The poor.

A libertarian society wouldn't prioritize anyone. Neither would oil have subsidies nor lettuce pickers.

 

[rootX]

But there ARE alternatives.

Without clear cut description and well defined scope for your alternatives, there is no way I can argue for or against it.

I would say the largest political lobby in America is that of the poor. Not oil. Not coal. Not tobacco. The poor.

Evidence?

 

[Evo]

A libertarian society wouldn't prioritize anyone.

That's what I'm thinking, the sick, the injured and the elderly would be left to fend for themselves, if they have money, no problem, if they don't, problem.

Of course since there is no such place, what would happen is idle speculation, I was just going by your list.

 

[FlexGunship]

Evidence?

Tobacco has gotten about $200 million each year (recently; mostly for anti-smoking campaigns)
Coal gets about $19 billion each year (mostly to fund black lung medical programs)
Oil once got $65 billion, but averages about $35 billion each year (I have no idea why they get so much)
Welfare (alone) costs $122 billion each year; if you add in food subsidies (both agricultural and food stamps) that's a total of $201 billion every year
(Sources are www.sourcewatch.com[/url] and the GAO at http://www.gao.gov/recovery/bimonthly/overview/)

 

[FlexGunship]

That's what I'm thinking, the sick, the injured and the elderly would be left to fend for themselves, if they have money, no problem, if they don't, problem.

Of course since there is no such place, what would happen is idle speculation, I was just going by your list.

It's difficult to keep the thread of conversation alive when tiny smatterings of my posts get quoted. I recognize that you disagree with me Evo, but I believe I've addressed the "sick and injured." You might disagree (again) with the solution, but I don't have the same bleak and cynical view of mankind as you do. In a healthy society, there's no reason to believe that humans suddenly become selfish. The wealthiest of us are incredibly generous with their money, and the thread of this discussion seems to suggest that only wealthy people would be interested in a haven of social and financial freedom.

This conversation gets very frustrating for me. I'm not rich; not by ANY stretch. But I'd love to live in a place where people have to pay for the social services they use so flippantly; often with an air of disdain for how crude or paltry the assistance is that they receive.

Have you ever seen a mother trying to buy energy drinks with food stamps? I have. And I watched her flip out on the cashier when she told her she needed to purchase them separately. Here is a woman receiving money to help feed herself (and her children) from me, and the people around her. And she has the sheer disrespect to use that money for nutritionally-null food IN FRONT OF THE PEOPLE HELPING HER. It's like a spit in the face.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It's difficult to keep the thread of conversation alive when tiny smatterings of my posts get quoted. I recognize that you disagree with me Evo, but I believe I've addressed the "sick and injured." You might disagree (again) with the solution, but I don't have the same bleak and cynical view of mankind as you do. In a healthy society, there's no reason to believe that humans suddenly become selfish. The wealthiest of us are incredibly generous with their money, and the thread of this discussion seems to suggest that only wealthy people would be interested in a haven of social and financial freedom.

I'd love this to be true but I don't think it is. Without mandatory taxes and social welfare far less money would be given to those in need. Charities cannot be relied on to take care of people because the revenue they receive is not secure, can come with strings and is funnelled into one direction.

This conversation gets very frustrating for me. I'm not rich; not by ANY stretch. But I'd love to live in a place where people have to pay for the social services they use so flippantly; often with an air of disdain for how crude or paltry the assistance is that they receive.

Have you ever seen a mother trying to buy energy drinks with food stamps? I have. And I watched her flip out on the cashier when she told her she needed to purchase them separately. Here is a woman receiving money to help feed herself (and her children) from me, and the people around her. And she has the sheer disrespect to use that money for nutritionally-null food IN FRONT OF THE PEOPLE HELPING HER. It's like a spit in the face.

That is stupid but anecdotes like that do not really represent those in need of financial aid. I'm also not rich (except by the measure of being amongst the poorest in a developed nation and therefore very rich relative to most of the planet) but I would take an opposite view to you. I would like to see many public services free to the public with lot's of aid to those in need. This is contingent on well structured aid that takes care of people in trouble by both giving them money/food stamps etc and leading them down an avenue that will result in them being able to get a job again.

 

[FlexGunship]

That is stupid but anecdotes like that do not really represent those in need of financial aid. I'm also not rich (except by the measure of being amongst the poorest in a developed nation and therefore very rich relative to most of the planet) but I would take an opposite view to you. I would like to see many public services free to the public with lot's of aid to those in need. This is contingent on well structured aid that takes care of people in trouble by both giving them money/food stamps etc and leading them down an avenue that will result in them being able to get a job again.

In my, albeit limited, experience this is never how aid works. Or at least it's certainly not the predominant way. The problem is not the particulars of the system, but rather the system itself. It's one thing to help someone back on to the bottom rung of the ladder, but quite another to hoist them up and hold them on the fourth rung while they eat McDonald's's food (I never know how to put a possessive on McDonald's Restaurant's food. The name is already possessive How do you denote food that belongs to a name that is possessive?).

If at anytime you remove that support, they are sure to fall back off. No one on aid is thinking of how they can live without aid. No one is setting up budgets for when the welfare checks stop coming.

Now to bring this around to the original topic: IT'S A LIBERTARIAN EXPERIMENT, not a human chattel experiment. I say let it go, and let's all watch. I'd bet that the "island" becomes a very successful "nation" and eventually anyone self-reliant enough will want to emigrate there. For self-makers it'll be the new promised land. Hard working immigrants will arrive in droves, ready to wash toilets and hopefully work their way up the CEO of a multi-national corporation. In my opinion, it'll hardly become the hell hole that is being described here.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

In my, albeit limited, experience this is never how aid works. Or at least it's certainly not the predominant way. The problem is not the particulars of the system, but rather the system itself. It's one thing to help someone back on to the bottom rung of the ladder, but quite another to hoist them up and hold them on the fourth rung while they eat McDonald's's food (I never know how to put a possessive on McDonald's Restaurant's food. The name is already possessive How do you denote food that belongs to a name that is possessive?).

If at anytime you remove that support, they are sure to fall back off. No one on aid is thinking of how they can live without aid. No one is setting up budgets for when the welfare checks stop coming.

I would agree that this is a fundamental problem albiet one that isn't true of all cases (It's not evidence but the majority of people I've known who have accepted welfare have done it for good reasons and stopped once they got a job). However I still agree in the principle, the practice needs to be refined.

Now to bring this around to the original topic: IT'S A LIBERTARIAN EXPERIMENT, not a human chattel experiment. I say let it go, and let's all watch. I'd bet that the "island" becomes a very successful "nation" and eventually anyone self-reliant enough will want to emigrate there. For self-makers it'll be the new promised land. Hard working immigrants will arrive in droves, ready to wash toilets and hopefully work their way up the CEO of a multi-national corporation. In my opinion, it'll hardly become the hell hole that is being described here.

I'm quite opposed to libertarianism both practically and ethically however I would love to see how a libertarian experiment works. So long as immigration and emigration was not restricted (i.e you come only by your own consent and leave via the same). I suspect that it would not be a powerful nation but we can argue about that until the cows come home. It would be more interesting to see it from afar.

Having said that it brings up an interesting idea. How about state funding of several of these islands as experimental nations? I.e. they are build part with private part with public funding and then left to run. You could have a wide variety of islands running different social/political/economic systems that aren't seen anywhere in the world. They'd be like interesting test tube nations, if something works you can look to take it for your own country.

 

[FlexGunship]

Having said that it brings up an interesting idea. How about state funding of several of these islands as experimental nations? I.e. they are build part with private part with public funding and then left to run. You could have a wide variety of islands running different social/political/economic systems that aren't seen anywhere in the world. They'd be like interesting test tube nations, if something works you can look to take it for your own country.

As long as they have clean bathrooms, I'm there.

 

[FlexGunship]

I'm quite opposed to libertarianism both practically and ethically [...]

As a side note; libertarianism is as diverse a concept as socialism. There are just as many people (maybe more?) that have a knee-jerk revulsion when they hear the word "socialism." However, the well-informed among the political populous know the word represents a diverse set of ideas: some favorable, and others not.

Socialism is the idea that society should rely on individuals. Libertarianism is the idea that individuals should rely on individuals.

You are free to mix and match working ideas from each group to create a democratic government (or maybe something else?).

 

[Ryan_m_b]

You are free to mix and match working ideas from each group to create a democratic government (or maybe something else?).

This I definitely applaud, no system we've yet devised is good enough IMO and there's a disturbing lack of willingness to come up with something new. All I ever hear about is discussion of what we've done in the past, perhaps that's just me though.

 

[FlexGunship]

This I definitely applaud, no system we've yet devised is good enough IMO and there's a disturbing lack of willingness to come up with something new. All I ever hear about is discussion of what we've done in the past, perhaps that's just me though.

I think this stems from the idea that you can only ADD laws to the existing body of legislature. The concept of expiration or repealtion (this might be a word) seems foreign or silly to law markers.

This is one of the reasons why I (personally) like the idea of a libertarian society. It's a fresh start with no silly laws on the books (like subsidizing corn to make it cheaper to buy, and then subsequently taxing it when it's in soda to make it more expensive... given that both the subsidy and the tax require taking money from the public). Surely, over time, it will grow into a society just like the States with more laws than it can reasonably enforce.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I think this stems from the idea that you can only ADD laws to the existing body of legislature. The concept of expiration or repealtion (this might be a word) seems foreign or silly to law markers.

This is one of the reasons why I (personally) like the idea of a libertarian society. It's a fresh start with no silly laws on the books (like subsidizing corn to make it cheaper to buy, and then subsequently taxing it when it's in soda to make it more expensive... given that both the subsidy and the tax require taking money from the public). Surely, over time, it will grow into a society just like the States with more laws than it can reasonably enforce.

Hmmm I should have clarified earlier that what I am opposed to is only parts of the philosophy behind libertarianism but mostly I'm opposed to the ways I usually see it invoked. I agree with liberal ideas to an extent but the hands-off approach is not something I advocate. You're right in saying that it's much harder to change a system once it is implemented, this is why experimental mini-nations would be useful. It would provide a decent platform for exploration of different models and could provide well-rounded approaches that could be adopted if/when the larger nation decides a big change is needed. Problems with complete overhaul are 1) not knowing how and what to change and in what order 2) not having a clear final goal. If a mini-nation has a fully functional model that the macro-nation wants to adopt that's problem two out of the way straight off. That makes it easier to work through problem one.

 

[daveb]

As a side note; libertarianism is as diverse a concept as socialism. There are just as many people (maybe more?) that have a knee-jerk revulsion when they hear the word "socialism." However, the well-informed among the political populous know the word represents a diverse set of ideas: some favorable, and others not.

Absolutely brilliant!! Too few people realize this. While I'm an unabashed socialist in some instances, I'm also an unabashed libertarian in others (especially when it comes to 1st Amendment issues). The field of beliefs on both sides is very diverse.

 

[Evo]

Absolutely brilliant!! Too few people realize this. While I'm an unabashed socialist in some instances, I'm also an unabashed libertarian in others (especially when it comes to 1st Amendment issues). The field of beliefs on both sides is very diverse.

I hope you guys get your islands soon!

 

[FlexGunship]

I hope you guys get your islands soon!

Hypothetically; let's say the islands work incredibly well. Residents are happy, self-sufficient, and launch the leading education programs in the world. Those on the bottom tier of their society are at the mercy of charities which are often well funded but may experience sudden (but temporary!) shortfalls (and thus must hand out store-brand soup instead of Campbell's at the soup kitchens) which are usually remedied by fundraising efforts.

Would you rethink your position?

Would you come live with me on my libertarian island and volunteer at the homeless shelter with me?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

All those communes that came together and fell apart didn't make much sense, but at least they did make sense on one level, you can't have a commune without at least two people coming together to make it. People coming together to make a libertarian community doesn't even make even that much sense.

I told my wife that from now on we're going on the libertarian scheme. Free this, free that, yadda yadda yadda. When I got to the free love part, she put the kibosh on the whole plan. I think she's a closet communist.

 

[FlexGunship]

People coming together to make a libertarian community doesn't even make even that much sense.

See, I take issue with this idea. There's nothing implicitly less "friendly" about a libertarian. They're not evil money grubbers. They just don't want a government telling them how to act or how to spend their money.

I already said that I self-identify as a libertarian, and yet I freely give to select charities EVERY SINGLE MONTH. People are not innately evil, but they do have an innate desire to control one-another when forced into tribes. If you remove that motivating factor from a society, you're LESS likely to see corruption, not more.

I'm very generous with my money and my time when I'm not forced to be. Isn't that true of everyone?

EDIT: Full disclosure: my housekeeper relies on a libertarian lifestyle to live, right now. I pay her to come over once a week and tidy up while I'm at work. I can't afford to pay her much, but she relies on the money to help feed her daughter. I'm risking a lot by saying that I don't withhold taxes from her meager paycheck and she doesn't report the income. She has a job as a para-professional at a high school helping troubled teens learn math and running the drama club. The extra $40/week she gets from me helps her quite a bit.

As a contrast, a "maid" from a local service costs $75/hour and they only make about $15/hour. Where's all that money going? My housekeeper and I are both getting a good deal because there are no regulations between her providing the service and me receiving it.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

They just don't want a government telling them how to act or how to spend their money.

Then why would they want a community telling them how to act or how to spend their money?

 

[FlexGunship]

Then why would they want a community telling them how to act or how to spend their money?

They wouldn't. I don't understand the juxtaposition.

 

[Evo]

Hypothetically; let's say the islands work incredibly well. Residents are happy, self-sufficient, and launch the leading education programs in the world. Those on the bottom tier of their society are at the mercy of charities which are often well funded but may experience sudden (but temporary!) shortfalls (and thus must hand out store-brand soup instead of Campbell's at the soup kitchens) which are usually remedied by fundraising efforts.

Would you rethink your position?

Would you come live with me on my libertarian island and volunteer at the homeless shelter with me?

Nope.

 

[FlexGunship]

Nope.

"The most fatal illusion is the settled point of view. Since life is growth and motion, a fixed point of view kills anybody who has one."
— Brooks Atkinson

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

They wouldn't.

That's exactly what I said in my first post that you took issue with.

 

[FlexGunship]

People coming together to make a libertarian community doesn't even make even that much sense.

See, I take issue with this idea. [...] They just don't want a government telling them how to act or how to spend their money.

Then why would they want a community telling them how to act or how to spend their money?

They wouldn't.

That's exactly what I said in my first post that you took issue with.

I took issue with the idea that libertarians couldn't come together to form a community. They surely would. They just wouldn't want their neighbors deciding how to spend their money for them or how to behave. The ideas are NOT mutually exclusive.

EDIT: For clarification...

I live in a condo community with certain bylaws. I bought into them willingly when I purchased my property. I don't agree with all of them, but the price of the property was low enough so as to entice me to purchase anyway. That was a purely capitalistic decision. I don't complain about it other than casually (i.e. I wish I could work on my car in my parking space). As a result, we all have maintenance costs which are lower than if we purchased them separately.

I have to pay a condo fee, too. Some of which is used for frivolous nonsense (like flowers outside my door). If I wanted flowers, I would plant them. If I wanted to save the money, I wouldn't. But, again, I bought into this premise willingly. As a result, we all get flowers cheaper than if we purchased them individually.

I chose which condo community to move into. I also chose a condo over a house. Or even a mobile home (which I also looked into). I could've chosen any of those alternatives, or tried to find a condo community where they didn't purchase flowers compulsorily. I had the option. In fact, even now, as a member of the condo board, I could strongly oppose funding the next round of flowers, but with so many empty units, it's important for us to keep the place looking nice so as to entice new buyers so they, too, can pay condo fees.

I would imagine a libertarian community functioning very similarly. Perhaps even sharing in an insurance pool to help reduce costs. Or buying into a law enforcement pool. The point is that you have A CHOICE! That there are options. That competition helps to ensure that each competitor is vying to offer the best services at the lowest cost.

Would you purchase services from a police force which was convicted of beating an innocent black man? I wouldn't, but the folks in L.A. don't have a choice... at all. The money is taken from them ereptio and given to that same police force.

My local fire department is incompetent. They've proven it over and over again. I wish I could give my property tax money to a different fire department. But I can't. In fact, if I try to withhold those funds, I can go to jail!​

Can you see the difference between a libertarian democracy (as modeled loosely by a condo community), versus a... social democracy? (as modeled loosely by a condo community)? My neighbors aren't telling me how to spend my money; I decided that already.

That being said, I'll stay in the States. I have no plans to move elsewhere in the world. In fact, I would be unlikely to move to one of these libertarian islands. I'm just trying to illustrate the difference.

 

[skippy1729]

I'm a firm believer in democracy. Not less government, not more government. Democracy. When you look at surveys, you realize that most people are actually very reasonable. If there were more direct voting on issues and less power held by special interests this country could truly be a beacon of light rather than just a rich and powerful state.

Check out americanselect.org. I saw it on the Colbert Report. People directly nominating presidential candidates rather than parties doing it. This is the kind of thing that excites me (well this and physics).

Unrestricted democracy is inherently evil. The individual has no rights other than those granted to him by the majority.

Real world example:

Islamic Democracy: On April Fools Day 1979 the people of Iran freely and democratically established an Islamic Republic. Womens rights, gay rights, free elections are now history in Iran.

Skippy