Free State Project

Interesting...

I salute Mr. Am for putting his time and effort (and probably some cold hard cash as well) into something most people only talk about.

"Who the Hell do you thik you are?"

Well said Mr. Farage

The Human Factor…

Possibly the biggest obstacle to the creation of New Atlantis is not the construction or the engineering that goes along with it, but is instead the opposition to any such undertaking by other states.

One only need examine the virtual freeze-out internationally of the relatively peaceful Republic of Somaliland in a part of the world known for its anarchy and violence to realize that the creation of new states is frowned upon in the extreme.

There are also the various other anti-man ideals to contend with. The UN who has overstepped its role as an arbitrator between nation states to don the mantle of global caretaker, claiming de-jure if not de-facto control of all oceans not controlled by specific national entities. The various environmental and ecological busybodies who would think nothing of rallying their illogical forces to put the existence of some marginal aquatic slug or coral over and above the right to life of any who choose to join in this venture.

In order to mitigate this opposition (and others) several things are required.

1. New Atlantis must be established outside of the exclusive economic zone of any nation.
2. The initial construction must be done quickly and in secret
3. We must strive to meet all the defined requirements of a sovereign state as soon as possible
4. We must be ready and willing to defend what we build

1. The discovery seamount chain is approximately 722km (390 nautical miles) from the nearest land (Gough Island) and as far as I can tell, quite outside of the claimed EEZ.

2. In order for some realistic claim to sovereignty actual physical inhabited space must exist. The often maligned micro-nation of Sealand demonstrates that “land” per se does not mean tera firma, only that there must be a space for people to claim. A boat will not suffice, an actual structure connected to the earth must be created. Luckily the seamount is within 6 feet of the surface at its highest point. This means that a large rock or some sort of man made structure can be put on the seamount to establish the “land” requirement. From that point the construction of the polder should be undertaken and progress as quickly as possible.

3. A Sovereign State is a state with a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. It is also normally understood to be a state which is not dependent on, or subject to any other power or state.

i. This definition poses certain problems for New Atlantis. First of all the requirement for a permanent population means that at least some of the settlers must immediately become citizens and NOT leave the site. I would imagine that creating a small self-sustaining habitat with the necessities for life, shelter, food and water would go a long way to proving and legitimizing any claim to the area.

ii. Defining the territory could be done with bouys and simple mapping of the seamount itself. This is work that would be required for building anyway. It would also include the establishment of our own EEZ and perhaps necessitate the establishment of a maritime patrol of the area we claim. It is important to note that the Discovery Seamount Chain is comprised of several tablemounts which would provide for future expansion.

iii. The requirement for a government is important and in order to make a reasonable claim to having one we would require a constitution, perhaps codified laws and the people to make it up. Now this doesn’t have to be anything more complex than you would see in a small incorporated village but it must exist and it must be in legitimate control of the use of retaliatory force. I would argue that this would call for people to swear some sort of oath of citizenship, formally acknowledging the state.

iv. The ability to enter into relations with other states might prove problematic but I think it could be overcome. The site is located off the coast of Africa and relatively near to some of the poorest nations on earth. If we were able to sign a contract with one of them for trade so we could buy our essential supplies from them then we will have fulfilled that requirement. Money talks and a state like Namibia needs all the foreign money it can get.

v. As for not being dependent on another state that goes back to the necessity for a self-sustained habitat. It also speaks to our next problem… defence.

4. The fate of the Republic of Minerva shows that in order to succeed we must be willing to fight. Now there isn’t a hope in hell that a group of private individuals will be able to militarily defeat a formed nation, but we have to think outside the box.
1. The first thing should be the use of the media. Once discovered we should begin an information campaign to humanize the settlers to make the people outside of New Atlantis care about this project. There are any of a number of ways of doing this but to speak to our core principles of freedom, liberty and self-determination would be best. We’d need a human face, perhaps a family to represent us to the world. This means we would have to have communications and the ability to reach in some way the web to make use of YouTube, Twitter, blogs, Reason TV, ARI(?) etc. This might mean that we would have support on dry land in some country that could upload and post things for us.
2. We would need to be armed and be willing to fight, all of which would have to be uploaded to the net as well so that people could see for themselves (and hopefully protest) the heavy handed response of world governments.
3. We would need some sort of maritime patrol as stated earlier. This could be as simple as a converted civilian ship to start, in much the same fashion as was done by many countries at the outbreak of WW1 & 2
4. A standing militia would be nice with uniforms and common weapons. All of this military stuff also boosts the legitimacy of our claim to nationhood as well.

Ayn Rand said "Civilization is the process of setting man free from men." well that is what this is all about. But I'm not so naive to believe that they are going to let us be free without a fight.

Well that’s all my ideas on this for now. I’ll write more later.

Seacrete/Biorock... Construction solution

Seacrete is the end product Electro-Accretion, a process similar to electroplating in which calcium carbonate is encouraged to accumulate on an electrified metal frame. The process essentially creates man-made Limestone. This end result leads to (at least) two possible uses.

The first is using the process to create solid sheets of calcium carbonate from 1/2 inch wire fencing or some similar frame. The sheets would then be used in construction of the polder and later shelters and other pieces of infrastructure.

Underwater construction of the polder then consists of building and anchoring a metal frame to the top of the seamount, and charging it with electricity. The electro-accretion then takes over and after a number of weeks a solid structure constructed of man-made limestone has replaced the flimsy wire frame. The best part of this is as long as the electrical charge is going into the frame the electro-accretion continues, making the structure stronger and stronger.

I think the polder construction could be completed in roughly this sequence.

1. The top of the seamount where the polder is going to rest is cleared down to the bedrock. All the debris is piled toward the center of the seamount.
   
2. Iron piles are driven into the top of the seamount - these piles will serve as anchors for the wire mesh and add to overall structural strength.
3. Wire mesh frames are assembled in sections on board a barge or similarly open decked boat. They are built so that the end result is a 3 sided box with the future "land side" left open. These are lowered over the piles and attached (wired) together.
4. The bottom of the wire structure is made to conform as tightly as possible to the seamount bedrock and is fastened to it on all 3 sides with metal fasteners, like cement nails driven directly into the rock. They are also wired to the piles.
   
5. The entire structure is then electrified by the use of Swellfuel's ingenious ocean wave energy converter. I've chosen these wave power devices because of their small size, their portability and their autonomous operation.
6. Once the process of electro-accretion has created a solid limestone structure out of the wire mesh frame a dredge is used to fill the 3 sided boxes. Seacrete sheets are attached to the piles on the land side as the frames are filled. Once the frames are filled up to sea level another layer of wire mesh is applied directly over the Seacrete sheets on the land side end. This too is electrified and soon becomes a solid sheet.
7. With the box closed on all sides more debris is dredged and deposited into the frame from the top. This is done until the material in the frame is compacted and solid
   

More to follow...

Ayaan Hirsi Ali - Hero

Pertinent Questions

AMAI, a "friend" of this blog asked these questions about the possibility of reclaiming a Seamount. Her scepticism is understandable and I'll do my best to explain.

How much space is needed?

I would ask a question in rebuttal... How many people would come? At the outset I honestly can not see more than a relative handful of true pioneers upping stakes and striking out to set up a colony in the middle of the ocean somewhere. Their requirements for space would be limited but those requirements would grow as the colony became established. From the information Steve found (and relayed in the comments here) a single square kilometer ought to be able to support about 250 people.

Keeping in mind that that is a self-sufficiency number not a construction number. Certainly during construction when all food and supplies are being brought to the site 250 people could live in much less space than 1 square kilometer. Like a single large-ish ship/working platform.

I'd also like to point out that that is using modern traditional farming methods, not something more space efficient like hydroponics.

How many people are needed at start-up?

I would like to say the more the merrier but that is not quite right. The correct answer right now is that I don't know. But if I had to guess I would say that there is probably a number that would give economy of scale between the goods that must be brought in to the site to support the workers and what must be brought in for the construction itself. I would put the number of workers (on site) somewhere between 50 and 100. Supported by half that number off site in more logistical roles, but as I said at this point that is speculation, pure and simple.

How many people are going to be able to join in later?

I have no clue but I am willing to bet that if Rome circa 44 BC had a population of over 1,000,000 then the possible population could be quite high. Of course the other question again, is how many would come?

What kinds & amounts of provisions are needed at start-up?

The basic necessities, food, water and shelter. Enough for the number of people working on the colony.

What is the safest way to obtain interim provisions?

By ship.

What kind of product/good/service can be produced/offered to earn money and to whom shall it be offered?

I honestly consider this to be somewhat of a red herring. What sort of product/good/service could be offered in Hong Kong or the Seychelles? What about the services offered in your local mall?

Off the top of my head I would say anything and everything from Secure Data Storage to Offshore Financial Services, Basalt Mining and processing to Aquaculture and traditional fishing.

All this you understand while construction continues ...

I disagree with this statement. While the initial construction is ongoing the necessities will have to be shipped in from elsewhere. It does not make any sort of sense to be trying to establish an agricultural base while the main focus is on reclaiming land from the ocean. Once a couple polder have been established then we can think about weaning ourselves off of foreign dependences, but until then, we must trade for what we need. No, this is not a cheap option.

The one question that AMAI didn't ask was how much it will cost? I believe that to be the biggest stumbling block. Aside from the fairy tale happenstance of Bill Gates donating a couple of million/billion dollars in seed money to the Colony, sadly, I don't have any possibility of trying this on my own. Although there are some thoughts on funding such a venture that I will explore in another post some time.

Design Continued

With the construction of successive seawall enclosures or polder (to use the Dutch word - thanks to Steve for reminding me of it) in a line and backing up the seaward polder with at least another row it becomes easy to see that at a certain point you would not have to settle for 1km square habitats, but instead could effectively wall off relatively large areas. The diagram below represents a total inside area of 100 square kilometers (each outer square representing a 1km square polder).

This design also lends itself nicely to the creation of neighbourhoods.

The drawing once again is a simplified plan, there is nothing saying that the plder would be uniform in shape or lined up with military precision. The shape would in fact probably be dictated by the ground, with the outer polder following the shallower portions of the top of the seamount where possible.

Of course the seamount presents a finite amount of space, and while initially the design might follow that model, if successful there would no doubt be a push to reclaim the entire usable surface of the seamount.

H/T again to Steve for his contributions on another means.

Design Considerations

I am going to preface this with a simple statement. I am not and do not pretend to be an engineer of any sort. What I know I have cobbled together from limited (though increasing) reading on various subjects concerning the building of breakwaters, dams and dikes and the forces that act upon those structures.

The single overriding factor in the construction of this sea wall to me has to be the force exerted on it by waves. If it were just a matter of water then one would only need to replicate any hydro electric dam or reservoir and call it a day. But the fact is that oceanic wind and water waves are a constant factor in erosion and a continuous pounding force on any fixed structure in the ocean.
This leads me to some conclusions.

1. You won't be able to just dump a bunch of fill on the top of a seamount and expect to have a permanent solid watertight structure like the libertarians did at Minerva Reef (which has since disappeared under the water again).
   
2. The structure needs to have an armoured shell on the seaward side. I believe due to the forces acting upon the structure that this armour should be monolithic, which is to say, continuous and unbroken. There are methods of armouring like tetrapods but I believe this type of reinforcement would take up more space and be more expensive in the long run that using a product like steel sheet piles. This armouring must also incorporate "toe protection" in order to not be undercut by the action of waves at the foot of the structure.
   
3. The structure needs to be constructed in such a way as to mitigate wave forces. There are many ways of doing this. First and foremost is the shape of the structure. A rounded form will prevent much of the direct pounding force of the waves, a sloped turtle like shape will allow waves to more gently roll up the sides of the seawall rather than slam into it as they would for a perpendicular wall. Other wave mitigation features include breakwaters built on the seaward side, driving wave break pilings (which force waves to "break" before reaching the actual structure) and incorporating random protuberances into the face of the structure itself to further break up incoming waves. I would suggest a combination of all three, using breakwaters to form suitable harbours on the seaward side of the structure as required and employing the others for the protection of the rest.
4. The larger and more robust the sea wall the safer the entire project will be. I'm imagining a seawall at least 50 meters wide before there is any sort of infrastructure. This isn't wasted space though, as I alluded, it could be used for harbours and ports to tie up ships, and ideally the space would be a sort of beach front during pleasant weather.
   
5. Using buildings lining the inside of the seawall to add mass and stability to the land side of the seawall would further increase the strength of the structure. It would also utilize space more efficiently allowing for the actual reclaimed land to be used for more productive efforts, like growing food and offering space to the colonists.

Based on these design requirements I have made a simple line drawing of how I envision the seawall looking in cross section.

New Atlantis - Part 1 - Why there?

Long before I read about the ancient city of Seuthopolis I though about the possibility of creating new land on the top of a Seamount by building a large dike and then pumping out all the water.

There are (in my opinion) several advantages to this idea over any other possibility to create a LFC society on this planet.

1. There is no one who can be said to "own" the property in question. Yes, the United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) do have provisions dealing with construction in international waters, but these are with regard to being "hazards to navigation" and, well a shallow Seamount is already a hazard to navigation. The construction of a visible structure would actually be less of a hazard to navigation.

The UN extends its greasy fingers in further under misguided nonsense about protecting fragile habitats, but I would argue that one single solitary Seamount measuring a total of 160 square kilometers is no loss in an ocean comprising 361.132 million sq km.

2. The remoteness of some of these Seamounts would enable building to begin and possibly go on for quite some time before the settlement would be "discovered" by the outside world. Yes, I know there are satellites in space that can read the newspaper lying on your front porch but the only reason they are zooming in is because there is a front porch there in the first place. How much time and at what sort of resolution do you think satellites spend scanning that 361 million square kilometers of ocean?

This also reduces significantly the possibility of Greenpeace or the Sea Sheppard society from instantly being aware of the destruction of the aforementioned "delicate ecosystem"*1.

3. The logistical effort and the necessity of creating such a huge structure would create an instant economy. Where there is work there is commerce, people trading value for value, people filling all the niches of a full blown market from the guy making and handing out sandwiches at the job site to the guy running the company hauling material from the mainland to the site itself.

4. The fact that the builders and settlers would be completely removed from any outside influences would be invaluable to the creation of and development of a truly LFC society.

The undertaking would be immense, it would include the development of the first truly objective code of law in the history of man. The creation of an explicitly laissez faire constitution and the separation of economics and state.

In my opinion this would be much easier and more likely to succeed without any external international pressure. With the world moving closer and closer to collectivism the freedom to develop outside of all that influence and those who would wield their considerable power against that ideal is of immeasurable value.

I'm sure there are some reasons I haven't thought of, but in my mind these would be the most important, especially the time and space to make it happen. When the USA won the War of Independence the world was a different place, it took weeks to cross the Atlantic. This simple fact allowed the Fathers of the American republic to develop their county in practical isolation, to come as close to the LFC ideal as was possible in their day and age.

That is the kind of isolation I wish for, for New Atlantis. The time and space to make a new start.

*1 - I should mention that in the design of the structure it would be beneficial for it to be constructed in such a way that it would encourage more aquaculture to live there. This could be achieved by having a non-uniform exterior on the sea-wall. This would encorage the growth of corals and provide habitat for fish and marine plant life. An irregular shell on the sea-wall also helps dissipate wave forces in the same way that Tetrapods do.

The Squater Method

In Atlas Shrugged the strikers gathered in the gulch for a month out of every year and then recharged with the knowledge that their ideal was possible and attainable they went back to their "lives"... actually scratch that... for that month they lived and for the other 11 they went back to existing.

So is that method possible? Could an area be found, that would offer a small number of gulchers a respite from the statists world?

I think that it is possible, not only that, I think that it is the most practical method of achieving some sort of liberty, albeit stolen liberty, in this age.

Let us say for the sake of argument that a location sufficiently remote and sufficiently large can be found. The question is could a group of strikers construct their own GG complete with infrastructure and industry (albeit on a small scale) right under the nose of big brother?

I think that this too is possible, at least in Canada.

My government does not spend a whole lot of time looking in at itself from a security point of view. Our resources are thin at best and mostly concentrated on in and near large population centers or upon our northern borders which other nations have shown a clear disdain for. The government isn't spending time examining central Ontario (or any other province) for squatters, it's got more important fish to fry. Truthfully I think the greatest risk of discovery would be by accident, a hunter or backpacker stumbling into town.

Having driven the trans Canada Highway (#2) north of Lake Superior I can vouch for it being as secluded a spot as you might hope to find, though still close enough to have somewhere to get the things that can't be produced in GG.

Would it be possible to operate such a place for a couple of weeks a year, a month perhaps?

Would it be possible for some of the strikers to be permanent residents, living in the gulch year round

Imagine, a community completely isolated and secret. Where Big Brother could be ignored and the community could be socially and philosophically correct. Where a man could live like he owned his life, not like he owed his life.

It would be an evasion of sorts I suppose, after all it would not be a real escape from the statist machine, and if discovered the strikers would or could be labelled squatters, perhaps charged with tax evasion or some other non-crime.

But wait...

If such a community could exist and operate free of any government aid, funds, infrastructure or interference for a number of years would it then be possible (upon discovery) to claim sovereignty based on those facts? Would it have a legitimate claim to sovereignty as a state?

The definition of a state is "a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory", would the community's successful claim on that definition in exclusion from other governmental control for a significant period be grounds for claiming de facto sovereignty?

Calling John...

You have had enough. Statists, illiberal liberals, non-objective law, printing press rights, constricted freedoms, censured property rights...

You have found your your Galt's gulch. It is isolated, it is unowned, it is far from major shipping lanes, it is not in a Hurricane zone.

But there are, um... challenges.

It lies beneath 21 to 100 feet of water in the middle of a very large body of water.

The only resources you can reasonably count on in situ are basaltic rock, sand, coral, other sediments (24inches deep on average) and sea weed. Everything else must be brought to the site.

Here is your challenge John, if I can call you that. Design a structure of any type that will support your gulches infrastructure. Whether it is supported on stilts, floats or consists of a solid structure mounted below the water.

Make it modular and scalable your start point may be a temporary solution to be followed by another more permanent and comfortable design

Money is of course an object, cheaper is better but we are not expecting free or even cheap.

The time is now...

The Failed States

This brochure from the Bertelsmann Transformation Index (BTI) contains a lot of useful information on failed states and what the international community is looking for by way of an improvement in that condition and by extrapolation what we would be looking for in choosing a failed state.

This is written from the statist point of view as it lists governmental "social programs" as one of the main indicators of a functioning state.

It's an interesting thought that if a LFC state was established, that no matter how well it performed economically and with regard to individual rights and liberty, organizations such as this one would penalize it for not "providing" social programs for its people. Not that it would matter... It's just an interesting observation. Sometimes it seems that the priorities and thoughts of most of the world are upside down.

The other main indicator cited in the pamphlet was a states ability to establish its monopoly on the use of force, that at least is not in dispute.

Change #3

I've been busy lately with home and work and, well living my life so I've reached a decision that I am not going to follow my initial plan of examining each and every aspect of possible locations. It's too much work for one person and no one else seems interested in volunteering to ease the workload by offering any information/articles.

So instead I am going to go back to posting on whatever catches my attention and hope that all the information/opinion that I provide is at least a little useful.

Cheers,

Zip/Martin

Country Study: Somalia...

On the 2008 Failed States Index Somalia has "the unenviable distinction of being the state most at risk of failure" scoring 5 'perfect' 10's out of the lists 12 indicators - where the lower the score the more stable the country. Somalia's 'lowest (read best) indicator is a 7.5 out of 10 for "Uneven Development".

This dubious honour combined with the potential of the country (a prime location and relatively abundant resources) makes Somalia a fine candidate for the Failed State Model.

I am going to collect and post as much relevant data as I can find. All of it will be unclassified reporting from various sources on the net. I'm going to try to keep to recognized valid sources as much as possible.

Planning: Step1.

Demographic Information

· Population density - Population density for the country is established at approximately 13 persons per sq/km*, but this factoid is not suitable for our purposes, after all the intent is not (initially at least) to take over the entire nation, but to occupy a small part of it.

The fact that this occupation will out of necessity be a covert operation means we must seek out less populated, more isolated locations within the host territory. Digging a little deeper into the WWW we come up with this map.**

**Although the data is dated from 1995 due to the nature of the territory it is the most recent estimate that I have found. Somalia had one formal census in it's entire history in 1975 and has not had another since. Even the numbers from that census are not all that reliable due to the high number of nomadic tribesmen in the country.

The colours which are of the most interest to us are white and the palest blue. This seems to indicate that there are numerous locations within the geographical boundaries of the failed state that would suit our purposes. This is obviously the first brush stroke of our planning though, and those prospects will be limited soon enough, but for now the map is an excellent resource.

In the next post I will examine in broad terms the ethnic groups within the territory.

Your comments and observations are, as always appreciated and requested...

A Quick Thought

I'm not sure I've made this clear but if you know of someone (an O'ist or student thereof) who would be interested in participating here just let me know and I'll add them.

I'll trust your judgment...

P.S. I don't want this to be a one man show, I'm a busy guy after all. So if you have a Gulching related thought or post send it to me at martinandreasgasser@hotmail.com and I'll post it under your name.

Cheers,

Martin

Phase 1- Planning: Knowledge is power

Knowledge is power

Before anything is done all possible information should be gathered and correlated. Planning for the potential colony must be conducted rationally and should include following factors.

1. Demographic Information

· Population density

· Ethnicity

· Nationalism/Tribalism/Religiosity

· Wealth

· Education

2. Resources – both proven and suspected

· What

· How much

· Value

· Accessibility

· Current industries

· Is the area generally capable of self sustaining production? *

*NB* the colony will most likely have to begin secretly and afterward may have to operate without overt external support for quite some time to get politically/ economically established or it may be blockaded politically or militarily by the established State or regional players.

3. Access

· Bordering States?

· Landlocked or Ocean accessible?

· Transportation Routes?

· How isolated is it?

· Trade markets?

4. Security

· Is it defensible

· Regional stability

· Realistic assessment of OPFOR Capabilities

· Preexisting conflicts

5. Climate

*Please make suggestions in the comments and I'll add them as required...

The Failed State Scenario:

One of the possible scenarios for a LFC nation is to constitute it within a failed state. The rationale being that the failed state may not have the military or governmental resources to devote to controlling their nominal territory. The apparatus of the state would be weak if not non-existent and should the LFC colony be discovered the state as such might have neither the ability or the resources to carry out the outright destruction the upstart state.

The best plans are often the simplest so this action will be conducted in 4 Phases

Phase 1 – Planning

Phase 2 – Reconnaissance

Phase 3 – Occupation & Establishment

Phase 4 – Colonization

Welcome to Galt's Gulch

“Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps, down new roads, armed with nothing but their own vision.”

Ayn Rand

If you find yourself here then it is by design, which is to say you that you have been invited to participate in, and be a part of a unique exercise among Objectivists.

While most Objectivists agree that bringing about philosophical change within the nations we currently inhabit is the way forward there are some for whom a concrete example of laissez faire capitalism (LFC) is the preferred course of action.

This preference is in no way opposed to or hostile to the current intellectual activism of any Objectivist groups or individuals but is seen as a complimentary action which will help expose a greater number of individuals and groups to the ideas and ideal of Objectivism, which is to say the practical application of true laissez faire capitalism.

This blog is the first step toward the actual realization of a LFC state. In it we will explore options for the establishment of the LFC state, plan and cost the vital requirements necessary to undertake those options, develop practical governmental models based on Objectivist political theory, and develop theoretical models for private sector control of services currently provided by governments in western democracies.

Welcome to Galt's Gulch.

Open Skies...

America's First Private commercial Airport...

No seriously, it's the first.

Track Walking - #2

I'm going to be absent for a few days, (I am going north to pick up my oldest Daughter from University) so while I'm gone I'd like to open up the floor to anyone with a burning question or who wants to post a suggestion or solution to the invasion of the welfare state in our business and our lives.

Got a suggestion for the Blog, I'd love to hear it.

Want to post a possible solution to public education, go for it.

Not that I'm expecting a sudden population explosion here in the Undiscovered Country, but please keep it civil.

Cheers,
Zip

Financing A Proper Government - Legal Costs

Courts in a properly governed LFC state would only prosecute 1 crime, the initiation of force. Gone are the state contrived, victimless crimes that clog up our courts like drug use, drunkenness and speeding tickets (though the Road companies would likely have contractual stipulations about such things). As a result the sheer volume of cases being seen by the courts would be drastically reduced as would the cost of running the judicial system.

Although the crime of initiating force deals with exactly that, there is a definite delineation between physical force (and the threat of it) and non-physical force. In order to be clear I will refer to these as Physical and Property crimes respectively. Physical crimes like assault, murder, robbery, extortion and the attempt thereof have at their base either actual physical harm, or the promise of physical harm. Whereas property crimes like fraud, theft (dealing with property not in the direct possession of another person as opposed to robbery), embezzlement and so forth do not have a physical aspect.

At this point I do not propose an overhaul of the justice system, (though certainly punishments ought to be more objective and less arbitrary than they are) what I would like to do is create a system that recoups much of its own costs. The thought that leaps to mind almost immediately is that if the court is relying on money recouped from the criminals for its own continued operation then that creates a situation where there is an incentive to convict and the impartiality of the court could be compromised, and that is true. Our legal system is supposed to be based on the idea that one is innocent until proven guilty. A judge has no incentive to prove guilt or innocence and that is the way it should remain. For as this story shows, if you monetise and incentivize the legal system judges can prove to be the real criminals.

So the decision of criminality must remain separate from the financial recovery of costs that accompany a legal punishment. With this in mind I propose that a financial audit be conducted for each legal case and that it be done by an independent 3^rd party whose payment is unrelated to the financial recovery.

The system could be designed so that it objectively determines the actual cost incurred by each party (prosecution and defence) and determines the financial responsibility based on an objective set of rules and regulations as well as the courts findings.

I do not think that this would necessarily mean that the guilty would automatically be charged for all the costs incurred. For example, if the prosecution in a murder trial spent thousands of dollars tracking down a false lead that had nothing to do with the actual crime then the defence should not be liable for that cost.

There may be another benefit of this plan in that taking another person to court could mean significant financial cost should a case be deemed to have no warrant, or the ruling is unfavourable. I wonder how many small claims and civil disputes would be handled by rational people on their own without the law being involved if the cost of the trip to court was objectively determined?

Financing A Proper Government - Lotteries

Now this may seem as a little bit of a strange way of generating revenue for a government but it has been done in Europe. In the UK the national Lottery Funds such things as "heritage" programs, and while certainly not a legitimate function of government is does demonstrate the utility of this method.

The question is how much utility?

In fiscal year 04 U.S. lotteries turned over $14.5 billion ($US) to their beneficiaries. * Since their creation Lotteries in the US have generated $234.089 Billion dollars. * Now obviously this is a total from all the lotteries played, and there is no reason to believe that independent, private interests would not still use lotteries to generate money for their causes, but that is not to say that a voluntarily funded government could not use the same vehicle to money.

Of course the government lottery would have to be run by a private company (to keep the government out of the business of business) but that is a much easier way to do it anyway. Why have all the bureaucracy when you can pay someone else to manage it?

It's impossible to determine how much revenue the government would realize through a program like this but if it is even equal to 1% of the total that is still a sum of $145,000,000 a year (using the 2006 figures). Just in case you were wondering that is more than enough to fund the Supreme Court ($.088b) of the US with enough left over for the Congressional Budget Office ($.043) *

Over time the amount becomes quite impressive. Since the New Hampshire Lottery was formed in 1964 it has raised more than $200 billion for government programs in North America.

Track Walking - Where is your Galt's gulch?

I've got an Exam this week so posting might take a back seat for a couple of days. So to fill the time, I'll ask this question.

Where is your Galt's gulch?

If you were to set up a LFC state anywhere in the world today, as it is today where would you look to do that? Would it be in a failed state, an isolated wilderness, the ocean or some other place?

Financing A Proper Government - Contingency Financing

Contingency financing is not like the other methods of financing I've covered, it is more of a method of ensuring accountability and limiting waste than of raising revenue.

Way back when, before the government figured that it was its right and responsibility to forcibly take our money to pay for things that we needed things were done differently. When the local Fire Department needed a new firetruck they raised the money by selling the idea to the public they protected.

There would be bake sales, and community events held to raise funds. Volunteers would set up stands in front of the grocery stores to ask for donations, all working toward the goal of raising enough money to buy that nice new firetruck. If a citizen though it was a good idea for the town to buy a new truck then he opened his wallet and helped out, if he didn't... he didn't.

So what if this principal was applied to government spending? If the government of Laissezfaireland decides that it's time to buy that nice shiny new Aircraft Carrier it's always wanted. Why should they not go to the people to see they want to finance it through their donations?

Now I'm not suggesting that the government hold a bake sale or anything so hokey, but if a political fundraising dinner can sell out a 500 seat hall at $2000.00 a plate then certainly there is some utility here.

Remember all those private donations? Well, I would imagine that any time a citizen made a donation to the government he could be presented with a list of things the government was trying to raise money for. So with this wishlist in hand he would check off the item or items he wanted to fund. He could also check off to have the money returned to him should the item not get the necessary funding or that it should go to another item or perhaps into the general operating budget.

So a citizen could place a condition to his/her donation that says "This donation is to go toward a new aircraft carrier, or become part of the general fund" - or - "This donation is to go toward a new aircraft carrier, or be returned to me" - or - "This donation is to go toward a new aircraft carrier, or toward the Justice system". This type of contingency funding would show government exactly what it is that the citizens value, what they are willing and unwilling to fund.

An added bonus of contingency financing would be that if a pacifist was morally opposed to donating his money to the military then he could stipulate that his donation only be spent on the Justice system or administration.

What possible mechanism could ensure accountability in government spending better than the individual having a say of where his money is spent?

Financing A Proper Government - Contract Insurance

Today every financial transaction in which credit is accepted is enforced by the government. This is to say, that when you decide to buy anything from a chocolate bar on your debit card to signing for a mortgage you are entering into a contractual agreement to pay that amount.

Currently all such transactions are enforced by the government “for free” (we know it isn’t free it’s our taxes paying for it) but what if that protection was converted from a hidden charge in taxes to an overt transparent fee?

So when I go the store and buy my chocolate bar for $1.00 and instead of paying cash I decide to use debit card a small fee of 1 or 2 % is added onto the actual amount and that percentage represents the government’s duty to enforce my compliance with the terms under which I just used the credit system. If I had decided to use the dollar in my pocket the Chocolate bar would only have cost a dollar, not a dollar and one cent.

Just thinking of myself, that simple transparent process would generate quite a healthy revenue stream. I would say that on average I use my debit card about 20 times a month and always for more than a $1.00 transaction. For arguments sake I’ll average the amount spent per transaction at $50.00 x 20 = $1000.00, 1% of which is $10.00. Per year the total is $120.00. This amount, taken as an average for the USA (using the same figures I used to determine the number of people contributing to private donations) with 155 million persons accruing this level of charges per year would generate $18,600,000,000.*

To show that the above estimate is on the low side, this site says “U.S.-based financial institutions relied on Visa's processing system, VisaNet, to facilitate $1.6 trillion in transactions”. At 1% that is 16 billion dollars in revenue, and that is only from 1 Credit card.

Now most transactions carried out by individuals are small change when compared to business transactions. The same 1% applied against a multi-million or muti-billion dollar business contract would create an enormous sum per year. How many credit transactions are conducted by all the business’ in the USA every year? I can not find any specific data on this but this table provided by the US census Bureau gives an indication of the amount of revenue that business could generate for government. The total of all the figures listed for “Sales, shipments, receipts, revenue or business done” equals $99,732,837,593,000. If even one tenth of that amount was deemed to be from credit transactions, at 1% the total revenue would equal over $99 billion dollars per year.

It is important to note that this amount is an estimate only and does not take into account anything other than credit transactions by business’.

Business acquisitions, mergers, takeovers and the like would generate trillions more dollars per year which could be similarly protected by the government. It is important to note that any of these transactions could be conducted without paying to have them insured, but then the participants in the agreements would not enjoy the automatic protection of the government, having agreed of their own free will not to pay for the service.

This is not to say that one of the companies could not go to the government to have the law enforced if their agreement is broken. It would just mean that they would have to pay the total cost of any investigation and all the resources used by the government in investigating and prosecuting their case. When large breach of contract cases often take years to investigate and bring to court and are then followed by numerous appeals it is easy to see that a company would probably prefer to pay the insurance.

* The assumption being taken as a working principal is that banks, credit companies and other parties lending credit would demand their customers pay the fee in order that the credit company have legal recourse to recoup losses from defaulters.

Patents & Trademarks

A patent is legal protection of an individuals, or corporation’s inventions. In the US patents even cover “research, except "purely philosophical" inquiry”. Patents normally have a set period of time (20 years) in which they are in force, but this period can be extended by the creator/s paying a maintenance fee. [source]

The US Patent Office issued 484,955 patents in 2007 according to this document. When it comes to fees for patents it is not as simple as you might think. On page 2 of the document referenced above is a list of the fees applicable to patents. To simplify my calculations I will use the “Basic Filing Fee – Utility Application” amount to determine the revenue from Patents, which works out to $412,211,750

Trademarks are another legal protection of property (usually intellectual), this time covering products or services originating from a unique source and to distinguish the property from other sources. Trademarks do not have to be registered and can still be prosecuted by law when not registered but may only be protectable within a certain geographical area.

According to this document in 2002 the US registered 469,000 trademarks. There are three different fee amounts listed which average $342.00 for total estimated revenue of $160,398,000.

I’m sure there are some other contractual agreements that the government ought to have a hand in but it would be far too much to spell out each of them to provide an example here. Needless to say that just from these few examples I estimate revenue of $118,905,447,343 and the actual amount would probably be far in excess of that sum.

For those that have been keeping track, of our original estimated budget requirement of $550.611,000,000 we have so far eliminated $273,921,655,346 leaving us with $276,689,344,654. We are over half way to our goal of proving that a government can be financed completely through voluntary donations, legitimate fees and service charges.

Financing A Proper Government - Service Fees

The LFC state will have certain legal functions for which it must provide services. I’m talking about things like issuing passports, registering ownership of real estate, registering business names, copyrights and patents and so on. Now being that the state as a paid servant is the ideal of LFC then individuals would pay up front for these services.

However, instead of the government growing a bureaucracy of its own to provide these services what if it licensed private administration companies to act as agents on the its behalf? So rather than going to the government run and operated Passport Office you went to “Al’s Administration” and paid the good folks at Al’s for your passport.

To you the change is seamless; you fill out your forms, pay your money and get your passport just like normal. “Al’s Administration” on the other hand has to operate in compliance with the applicable government regulations and procedures and pay a fee in order to be licensed to issue passports for the Government of Laissezfaireland. This system could be applied to Passports, Real Estate registration, drivers licences, marriage certificates and other similar consumer services*.

How much money could be generated through service fees? Obviously that would depend on the system the government decides to use (one flat fee for a yearly license to the “administration business” or a percentage per transaction) and how much that fee is.

Well since I began talking about Passports in 2008 the US government issued 16,208,003 passports. If the Government asked for a set fee of one dollar per transaction that is over 16 million dollars from a single legal and necessary function of government. Imagine how much revenue there would be if all necessary transactions between government and the citizen earned a dollar toward providing the funding for a proper government.

The beauty of it all is that it would create a competitive marketplace, generate jobs and that competition would lead invariably to streamlined processes and all of this is done without creating a bureaucracy, as a matter of fact it is done BECAUSE there is no bureaucracy. Ignore the monetary aspect for a moment and think of it… Transparent, accountable, reasonable and accessible government services provided by private business…

*Registering a patent and or a copyright could be done the same way as buying a passport but protecting those things is a responsibility of law and I believe would fall under the next revenue stream… contract insurance.

Loosing The Information War

I know Rand believed that Politics was the last branch of Philosophy to pursue if one wanted to bring bout lasting change within a society but as far as spreading the ideals of a philosophy goes I can't help but think that decision was shortsighted.

In the US in the 1940's Leonard Read began calling himself a Libertarian and later in 1955 another early Libertarian named Dean Russel suggested that the movement call itself by that name. But Rand wrote "We The Living" in 1936 so obviously her development of the philosophy of Objectivism began well before that. Why has Libertarinism outpaced Objectivism in the public sphere?

The Objectivist reason for putting aside political machinations has always been that in order for there to be real change that individuals within society must integrate the reason and meaning of the philosophy in order for any change to be lasting or for it to work. There is a great article on of all things the video game "BIOSHOCK" that explains this thinking well. The long and the short of it is that the game is set in a future where apparently Objectivist principals have been forced upon a society that has not integrated the tenants of the philosophy into their lives and the ensuing mayhem (in the game) can be traced back to that fault.

I, personally agree with that assessment and the horrible outcome such a radical shift would create. The thing is that we Objectivists are a rational lot. We would no more advocate the immediate and complete imposition of laissez faire capitalism on a nation addicted to the welfare state and all it's "freebies", than we would suggest that a four year-old (a being capable of self-directed action) should be left alone to do as it wishes.

The logical course of action would be to incrementally dismantle the welfare state, not to abolish it at the start. All the while the political leaders, activists and public supporters, who would be knowledgeable and respected Objectivists would be active in the public, expressing the philosophy at the root of their politics to individuals and business. This would spread the ideas behind the politics, the philosophy behind the public facade.

The two main political ideals in the west today are conservatism and liberalism but I would bet that of all those who call themselves "Conservatives" or "Liberals" only a small fraction agree on every point of politics or philosophy encapsulated in those words. In a way the Liberal and Conservative politicians of today are doing already what I imagine the Objectivist Politicians of tomorrow should do.

Objectivism and Libertarinaism have taken two different paths, a public, dare I say populist one and an academic, private one. How have they fared in spreading the ideals behind the politics?

Libertarinism as a political ideal is taught at university's all over the world. Libertarinism has achieved almost a third party status in American politics, no small feat for a practical political ideology less than 100 years old. If you tell a reasonably political person that you are a Libertarian he/she will know what that means, will recognize the basic ideals behind that system.

Objectivism, politically is an unknown, now that isn't such a bad thing when you realize that an "Objectivist" Party is a misnomer (because the word refers to all the ideals of the Philosophy not just the political branch) but the Political ideals, by whatever name they happen to become known by (Capitalist Party, Individualist Party) are also politically virtually unknown and therein lies the problem.

Political ideals spread philosophical ideals. Retuning to the popular political ideologies, the so-called Neo-Conservatives in US politics today are largely concerned with imposing morality. The political ideal of Conservatism is spreading the philosophy and ideals of the Christian religion. Liberals in their quest for what they consider a "just society" are similarly spreading the philosophy of socialism.

When the voter steps into the booth, he/she may not believe all that is held within the philosophy of the political party but he has been exposed to it. A large portion of that philosophy has already become a part of his thinking process, his exposure to it has started him thinking about it. When the Liberal leaning Joe-six-pack hears someone comment on "excessive wealth" philosophically he has been prepared by the political machine to accept that there is such a thing. When Conservative Billy-Bob reads in the newspaper how teen pregnancy is on the rise he has been politically indoctrinated to blame that loose morality on the modern world and perhaps secular multiculturalism.

This is the advantage that Libertarianism has gained over Objectivism. In spite of the fact that Libertarianism as a political ideology is a mixed bag of Anarchists, classic liberals, Anarcho-capitalists and other radical and fringe elements, by seeking to be a political ideal it has been able to move into the mainstream, not just of politics but of ideas and ideals.

In modern warfare there is a thing called the information war. It encapsulates not only gathering information but disseminating it. Objectivism is loosing the information war.

As I sit here and type this post, the spell checkers in my computer's operating system, on my browser and in the "Blogger" program on this site don't even recognize the word Objectivism, but it does Libertarianism...

Financing A Proper Government - Donations

Private and Corporate Donations:

Today almost 50% (or more) of my hard earned money goes to taxes, be it income tax, sales tax, prohibitive taxes (like on alcohol), land tax, transfer taxes… There are so many and while I could go on, Kelly at “Rant from the Rock” made a list already so I’ll let her help me out with her post… How Much Do You Really Pay In Taxes?

And that is just the “taxation” part, what about all those inefficient bureaucratic “services” that governments at all levels currently provide? How much savings would we see there with market competition and its focus on efficiency replacing monopoly and dogged bureaucracy?

So... In a LFC society I keep ALL of the money I make. What is that worth to me?

Thinking logically I would recognize one thing right off the bat. The lack of taxation in Laissezfaireland means I have 100% of my pay while my counterpart in Welfarestateland is legally robbed of 50% of his. That freedom from state imposed robbery would be quite valuable to me. As a corollary I would also recognize that the only way that I am going to be able to continue to keep all my own money and use it as I see fit is if Laissezfaireland is properly funded and able to defend my rights.

With this fact staring me right in the face I would certainly donate a portion of my disposable income to the maintenance of the state that protects my rights.

Well how much would I be willing to donate?

That would be a personal choice, and individuals would decide when and how on their own, but if each employed person contributed just $1000 the amount generated (using US data from 2005, - median income - 155 million persons over the age of 15 who worked = $28,567.) would be $155,000,000,000. So, with a very small average donation one fifth of the annual operating costs are paid… This does not include any corporate donations and the same logical chain of thought would apply to them.

Now some will likely give more, some unfortunately will give less and a few who are able will shortsightedly give none. The point being that just one of the seven alternatives I had for taxation has already been shown to have the possibility of paying one fifth of the required budget…

NB: For what it’s worth, if I were donating the amount would be much higher than $1000.00, after all that freedom, that proper application of the right to property just doubled my take home pay, saving me about $50,000.00 in a single year.

What would you save?

What would you give?

Financing A Proper Government

This is one of, if not the biggest question facing a LFC country, in that Objectivists believe that taxation is force and therefore immoral. So without the force of taxation how is a nation to fund its proper functions?

There are three proper functions of government. They all help to ensure the protection of individual rights by providing for the defence of the nation and its citizens, by providing police services and by funding the judicial system.

But in a populous, modern and prosperous country the amount of money required to provide even those few services is staggering.

Because of the federal system, and because of administrative and bureaucratic divisions it is almost impossible to calculate the exact cost of spending that an Objectivist would consider the proper obligation of government. However, thanks to this page (http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/) we can make a rough guess. By adding the cost of the Department of Justice ($22.291b), the Department of Defence ($515.440b), The Executive Office of the President ($.365b), The Legislative Branch ($5.132b) and the Judicial Branch ($7.383b) I have come up with a grand total of $550.611billion

Now this figure includes a lot of what I would consider to be waste or things that are not the responsibility of government, but it also does not include the cost of police services. For that reason I will call it even because I am trying to prove that voluntary and administrative methods could be utilized to generate the operating budget for a LFC state.

Right now we have taxes. So many and so varied are they that many people can not even tell you how many there are. The US Tax code is 44000 pages long. It is so convoluted and complicated that entire industries have sprung up in its service. Many people, especially those in government will tell you that it is necessary to have this system to fund the government, to help the poor, to be equitable and to have progressive in taxation… Because, Surely you recognize progressive taxation as being the fairest method of taxation…

And so it is that invariably when people argue for taxation they refer back to taxation and its structure as a reason for taxation and the structure of it. Never do they question if another alternative is possible. The secret, the thing that those in control now do not want you to know or realize is that there are many possibilities many alternatives to the forceful appropriation of the property of citizens.

In a LFC nation I personally believe that as many as are practical could/would be used in collectively to fund a LFC nation. The possibilities include private donations, service fees, contract insurance, contingency funding, lotteries, punitive damages assessed against rights violators and contractual agreements just for starters.

I will post on each of these methods in turn but before get into that there is something that I believe needs to be clarified.

Rights are the prime mover in a properly governed nation. The state exists ONLY to protect individual rights. It can have no desires or needs beyond that function. So when talking about funding government it is improper to suggest that the government allows people to retain their earned money, it is theirs by right, not by grant. That is what is meant by the right of property, and that right is what makes taxation immoral and I would say that it would be constitutionally prohibited in a LFC nation.

TO BE CONTINUED…

Sovereign Man, Servant State.

States are a construct of man, they can not exist except in the presence of men and the rule of law, they are a creation of men, ensured by men.

But every day the rights of men are confounded by the constructs of their states. Political scientists talk about the “Sovereign State”, which is to say the Westphalian model, under which States were given the status formerly held by nobility, that of a sovereign. When the Westphalian state reached its apogee in the late 19th century, as the illegitimate child of that original unlawful hierarchy, the only thing that had changed was who/what wore the robe of regent. States have become our hereditary nobility so today individuals find the boot on their throat does not belong to an Emperor, King or Queen, but to the state, their sovereign state…

The Westphalian concept takes the individual and places him subservient to the state, for the state has sovereignty and men merely have rights, as granted, when granted, (it seems) by the state. That political aberration makes the sculpture its own creator and forgets the artist entirely.

But that perversion is impossible, states are not conscious, nations do not create! The state is the employee of the people or at least that was the intent. That was the noble thought implicit in the US constitution, but what people in democracies all over the world have done by default, design or dread is sanction their own replacement. We’ve created the sovereign state and made servants of men.

How did this happen?

Incrementally.

Government to be controlled must be limited, it must have a single solitary function to protect the individual rights, life, liberty and property. But the instant government is permitted to stray, to expand that duty one iota to any other social assurance or general welfare, no matter how noble the intent or how pure the cause, the free man starts laying the foundation of his own prison.

Who let this happen?

All of us.

If you have ever said, in response to some personal outrage, that “there ought to be a law” , you are responsible. If you’ve ever looked to the big hand of government instead of looking to your own flesh and will, you are the cause. If you have ever followed the surge of the mob, the call of the collective and derided “the other” you are to blame. But more, if you’ve ever stood silent and watched it all… you are the problem still.

We need to remake the system. I don’t want to live as a servant in a sovereign state. I want us all to be sovereign in a state that serves, and that is the ideal that should have been.

First Things… Well not Exactly First but Close

If I were to have a grand design for this blog it would be to explore the political branch of the Objectivist philosophy. Though I might deviate from time to time, this focus and the practical application of Objectivism in the setting of a nation properly formed and governed is my intent.

This has always been the intent, but as I think of posts and topics and as I write I am brought back to earth by things I recognize as true and understand but which, to a newcomer could seem to be at best an assumption, at worst a subjective contrivance.

Now it is not my intent to go back to irreducible primaries each and every time I post so I would like to direct any newcomers to a couple of sites that can/do go into great lengths on the basics of all the branches of Objectivist philosophy.

I’ve found all of these links to be useful and informative and I hope they help…

Ayn Rand Institute – register for free for more access…
Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights
Ayn Rand Lexicon
Objectivism Online – for a more informal venue (blogs, forum, chat)

Of course none of these can stand alone without the literary works of Ms Rand herself, both her fiction and non-fiction is amazing. I’d recommend starting with The Virtue of Selfishness and Atlas Shrugged.

I hope this helps.