Billionaire Funds Faux-Libertarian Island Creation

Correct me where I’m wrong, but isn’t funding the actual creation of the land on which the country is to start the very definition of big government? And, since the type of government is pre-determined rather than being voted into existence, isn’t it a totalitarian large government? I fail to see how these islands could in any way be considered libertarian.

Silicon Valley billionaire funding creation of artificial libertarian islands

Just goes to show that most of today’s self-proclaimed libertarians are most definitely not libertarians.

<aside>
Ditto for the Tea Party, but for different reasons. They are not libertarians. They are anarchists. Abolishing all levels of government is not libertarianism. It is anarchy.

Further, if they want to shrink government, long before they get to the chump change of abolishing public education and NASA, they should abolish the $3 trillion in spending on the 3 wars we don’t need to be in.
</aside>

I have no problem with libertarians of like mind with Robert A. Heinlein. I don’t agree with the late Mr. Heinlein’s views. But, they are views I can respect. This idiot creating islands and the tea baggers are people whose views are so self-inconsistent that I can’t even begin to give them even a modicum of respect.

As Jon Stewart said, “we still have traffic lights.” And, some of us would like to keep it that way.

About these ads

10 Responses to Billionaire Funds Faux-Libertarian Island Creation

  1. it’s not governing if you only provide land and then leave it to itself. the whole project is an experiment. the funding itself is neither libertarian nor is it “un”-libertarian.

    • I don’t agree. I think if you specify that it will be governed in a libertarian way, it is governing. They’re not just dumping people there and leaving them to govern themselves. They’re making a claim that these will be independent libertarian nations.

      • libertarians say they want as little governmental influence as possible. but that doesn’t mean there’s not going to be any governing.
        also there’s no link between funding the creation of the islands themselves and governing. you can’t govern anything that doesn’t exist yet.

      • True libertarians are few and far between. Today’s self-proclaimed libertarians want to completely defund the government. The result is anarchy. They don’t want to fund some of the most basic governmental services. They don’t want tax increases even when the costs of these most basic services have gone up. And, they are perfectly willing to let the whole fucking government default on its debt, leaving us with no faith and credit in the government or even the fiat currency with which we buy absolutely everything we do buy.

        Yes. They truly are anarchists.

        And, as for funding the creation of a country on land that does not exist, what could possibly be bigger government than that? Whoever funds the creation of these islands will determine everything, from who is allowed on the island to what the rules will be once people get there. This is the ultimate in large-scale (at least per capita) government as well as being a tightly run dictatorship.

        Stating up front that the islands will be run according to libertarian politics is most definitely governing, even if it’s just a rule that anarchy will reign supreme on these islands and no form of government will ever be allowed.

        Sorry, but your arguments are completely and utterly failing to convince me.

  2. There are no TRUE libertarians. there are various tendencies within the libertarian movement. and libertarians are not necessarily anarchists. some don’t want any goverment at all, and some only want as little government as possible. It is true that they want to stop funding governmental services because they want as little governmental influence as possible. and with very little taxes on the people and the enterprises, that’s possible. plus, with the abolition of the fiat money system, there would be no more inflation and no more unrepayable loans, no more bancrupt countries, because there would be only so much money without the possibility to just make more. also, financial crises would not have as great an impact as they have today.

    and to fund something does not directly mean you have rule over it. maybe it is just a project you want to support. a libertarian society lives from self-governing. the power lies entirely with the people. and you have to remember: essentially, it IS an experiment. that’s why the form of governement is predetermined. the idea behind it is to see if this form of government, if this form of state would work. as there is no possibility to do so in existing countries, another solution had to be found. and i think it’s an interesting idea.

  3. Laissez-faire says:

    You’re all wrong. The island is his property. That means, under libertarianism, he sets the rules. He can have any rules he wants and it’s still libertarian; just as I can say that anyone who wants to come into my house has to wear a silly hat.

    Private property. That is what libertarianism means. And if you don’t want to follow the owners rules – get the fuck off his land.

    Government is government because it tells people what to do with THEIR OWN property. The problem is not the specific laws, the problem is that the government has no RIGHT to command anyone.

  4. Laissez-faire says:

    If he wants to ban porn, require everyone to be Jewish and forbid firearm ownership IT’S STILL LIBERTARIAN. Because it’s HIS LAND.

    Why is this so hard for people to understand? Libertarianism isn’t about abstract left-wing bullshit like ‘freedom’. It’s about property rights. Libertarianism is about privatizing discrimination, i.e. freedom of association; not about tolerance.

  5. Laissez-faire,

    It’s hard to understand because you’ve never picked up a dictionary. Instead, you have defined the word to mean what you want it to mean.

    lib·er·tar·i·an
    noun
    1. a person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct.
    2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will ( distinguished from necessitarian).
    adjective
    3. advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.
    4. maintaining the doctrine of free will.

    So, sorry, but this asshole’s definition of libertarianism and your own are really not libertarian at all. Instead, they include the right to set up voluntary totalitarian societies that do not allow free will at all, other than the freedom to leave. Hardly libertarian for those who know what the word means.

    But, thanks for reading, thanks for playing, and feel free to try again now that you know the meaning of the word.

    • Laissez-faire says:

      Just another government-loving faggot is what you are.
      Real libertarians know that people have the right to enter into any agreements and abide by any rules they please, so long as it’s voluntary. You stupid shitstain subhuman.

      • Wow, It’s hard to argue with such obviously intelligent rhetoric.

        But, I guess I’ll just point out that you are not only proving that you have no idea what the word libertarian means but are now also engaging in willful ignorance for refusing to learn from a very non-controversial dictionary definition of a word you use to mistakenly identify yourself.

        If the man is setting up a society on his own land and is setting arbitrary rules by which all people must live, he is obviously a de facto totalitarian dictator over said land. And, since you are the one who loves him while I think he’s an asshole, you are the lover of this totalitarian government, not I.

        Sorry. But, it’s true.

        BTW, if one voluntarily gives up one’s rights to become a slave, one is still left with no rights. So too, if someone voluntarily goes to a totalitarian island, they are still a subject of a totalitarian regime no matter how or why they went there in the first place.

        As someone who presumably is opposed to government, the correct term for yourself is anarchist, not libertarian.

        I assume that since you hate government, you do not avail yourselves of such government provided services as the interstate highway system, state and local roads, protection from law enforcement officials, public water, public education, enforcement of your property rights on your private property, oil (subsidized by government at every step of the way from exploration through protection of shipping lanes to government roads to get the fuel to your house or local gas station), government run health clinics and hospitals, board certified physicians (good luck going to those with no government seal of approval), FDA approved food and drugs, air travel, seat belts, air bags, safe elevators, and numerous other services the government provides to give you a reasonably safe life that you could not have without their regulations and law enforcement personnel.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: