Тег: citystaying

Charter cities will not help achieve a free society

Voluntarist

Not long ago, the libertarian community began actively discussing the “Prospera” project – a charter city in Honduras. The idea of charter cities in general is quite popular among libertarians, many of whom view the option of autonomous jurisdictions and free economic zones, carved out from the jurisdiction of a state, as a real possibility for achieving a free society.

Regardless of the dreams associated with ideas of this kind, they shatter in the same way that the idea of seasteading and the creation of jurisdictions outside state territories in general shatters (you can find more details on this in the material “Why you should not count on the creation of new jurisdictions in the ocean or space”). If violence is still a current tool for achieving goals and the newly minted jurisdiction has no means of deterring an external attack (let’s be honest: for a small charter city against a giant stationary bandit, the only deterrent weapon could be WMDs like viruses), then its autonomy is merely an unsupported handout from the master. Seriously, how can one even expect to create a free jurisdiction by the grace of a stationary bandit (the “state”)?

Of course, I do not dispute that at a certain point in time, there may be people in the government of a specific state who are absolutely not opposed to such initiatives and are willing to allocate territory for them on terms of maximum autonomy and the ability to independently manage internal affairs, even up to the creation of their own laws and law enforcement mechanisms. But such power, like any other power, cannot be eternal. In any case, sooner or later, changes will occur in the government, and where are the guarantees that the new power will not want to liquidate such autonomy, or at least begin to reduce it in small steps so as not to cause excessive discontent with abrupt decisions? For example, as the Chinese government did with Hong Kong? Agreements themselves, in this case, will not help; the government may simply not care about them. History already has hundreds and thousands of examples of free cities and broad autonomies of various kinds, and where are they all now—did agreements with the central government help them?

Of course, representatives of such an autonomy could create their own political force and use it to lobby their interests in the central government. However, in doing so, they only involve themselves in another struggle for power over the tool of state violence. And this is a movement in a direction completely opposite to achieving a free, non-violent society. Factually, this is the same as simply changing the power in order to forcibly impose one’s own norms on society—this cannot be linked to libertarianism in any way.

Hoping for the mercy of the master is a foolish venture. Without the elimination of violence as a phenomenon in general, or at least without the presence of deterrent weapons, an autonomy carved out by a stationary bandit is worth nothing and is backed by nothing. And if such means are available, then perhaps it makes more sense to exit the jurisdiction of the stationary bandit in some developed place, for example, within a large city, rather than on bare land where one would still have to spend billions of dollars creating infrastructure and attracting people?

Why you should not count on the creation of new jurisdictions in the ocean or space

Bitarch, Voluntarist

The idea of seasteading—creating contractual jurisdictions on floating platforms or artificial islands in international waters—seems like a quite interesting solution to the problem of having to submit to monopolistic and violent stationary bandits in the form of states. And the colonization of celestial bodies beyond Earth is a necessity without which humanity cannot survive in the long term. However, these options cannot be relied upon as a real possibility to escape the stationary bandit as long as they still exist and are capable and willing to use violence.

Remember: if you can get somewhere, then the stationary bandit can get there too. This has already been demonstrated by the examples of the Republic of Minerva, Liberland, and a floating platform near the shores of Thailand. In all these cases, the attempt to escape the state ended in its invasion. Additionally, various remote weapons can be used against you, such as missile strikes. This is the easiest way for authorities to get rid of a remote, disobedient jurisdiction without exposing themselves to any risks.

One should also not forget another fact. Creating jurisdictions remote from the rest of the world entails enormous costs; such jurisdictions are difficult to develop and are unattractive to many people due to the unavailability or high cost of many goods.

In order to protect themselves from the encroachments of stationary bandits, people who decide to leave their jurisdiction need certain means of deterrence and self-defense. Free people must be armed; furthermore, they must have the ability to threaten any potential aggressors with unacceptable damage. In modern conditions, the most accessible means of deterrence of this type could be samples of dangerous viruses—by threatening to release them, one could force state leaders to leave you alone. But regardless of which means of deterrence and self-defense is chosen, it is easiest to apply if one does not try to run as far as possible from the stationary bandit; otherwise, they will, again, be able to destroy you with remote weaponry without any risks to themselves. Let us also not forget the ethical point—viruses are indiscriminate WMDs capable of affecting the entire population of the planet, including those not involved in the government’s aggressive actions. The use of such weapons completely contradicts libertarian ethics, and without such weapons of deterrence, the stationary bandit will sooner or later reach your CJ, even if it is located on Mars. Such is realpolitik.

In the end, we have the following: a remote jurisdiction can certainly be reached for the purpose of subjugation, it can be quite easily destroyed remotely, and life in it is unattractive to most people. Considering all this, the most profitable strategy is to strive for the achievement of a free society where you are right now, or, if you still like the idea of settling previously unoccupied lands, you should choose among the most accessible, comfortable, and economically advantageous territorial plots, rather than among islands in the ocean or space objects. To secure your intentions, you need to use various means of deterrence and self-defense—then no one will be able to continue imposing their violent power on you. The creation of remote jurisdictions, for example in the oceans or space, is a task that can be undertaken after the possibility of current stationary bandits applying violence has been eliminated, so as not to fear invasion or remote destruction on their part.

Comment by Alexander Tatarkov:

If you blackmail the state with a viral attack in case of aggression, then it is logical to organize your stateless territory precisely in the capitals!

For example, declare a specific micro-district to be free.

The logic is this: they definitely will not bomb their own capital. Meanwhile, in case of aggression against the free territory by the state, it is much easier to poison their reservoirs.

As for the idea of moving to the end of the world, as Svetov propagated—the story of the “Order of the Solar Temple” is a typical example. It would seem that they didn’t harm the state, moved to a remote wilderness that you can’t find on maps, didn’t even refuse to pay taxes, and made no demands…

For the state, the very fact of their existence was grounds for a punitive operation. They need no other reasons!

P.S. We are not calling for the use of a virus; this is an idea by Alexander Rozov, which at least looks realistic compared to the naive dreams of seasteaders, even if it is extremely inhumane. We always advocate for the option of eradicating aggressive violence as such, then there will be no problem of creating a CJ!