What do you think of micronations?

Post Reply New Topic

I personally like the idea, and I am looking into the possibility of starting one. What do yous think?

Let's go!

I'm interested in starting a white supremacist CSA franchise in northern Cambodia. It's not so much that I agree with racial superiority myself. I don't agree with it at all. I just see it as something that could be hugely profitable, and I see the location as advantageous given its proximity to cheap/free labor and isolation from outside threat…at least until we can get it off the ground and can start buying up land parcels in strategic locations in the southern continental United States. I expect massive resistance when we go to that stage, so we're talking 3 to 4 decades at best, and I doubt I'll even live long enough to realize that goal. I'll have to leave that up to the stockholders.

I think it could potentially be an excellent testing ground for the best welfare program in the world. There'd be no money for sla...er, I mean, SERVANTS, but they'd be guaranteed sufficient food rations. They couldn't complain about not having jobs…you have a job opening the day you're born. The children get the best deal as there'd be no compulsory school attendance. Any factional or clique violence would be eliminated through the institutionalization of blood sport. I'm betting we can count on some trade deals with local governments/economies for cheap textile workers, and I'm thinking MAYBE institutionalizing human trafficking in exchange for weapons. MAYBE…we'll just have to see how that goes.

I dunno…what did you have in mind?

Not thinking of that per se hehe. I wa thinking of a panarchist republic with a small central government and capital, which would have no taxes, central bank, and silver and gold as the primary means to pay for registration fees (main form of income) . People could form governance orginizations around their beliefs, but in order to be official, they must be registered with the government. Basically, competitive governance. And as long as no ones life or property is harmed, everything is all good. We could sell boat registrations and corporate structures to incorporate businesses. I would be Controller of Subconsuls (the name for registered governance orginizarions) and a symbolic head of state similat to a president, named Chief Governence Agent. These would be voted on by either all the Subconsuls ( basically governments not attached to land and base don mutual aid an common need, rather than common territory) or by landed interest only. We would also have a commerce ambassador, and foreign affairs chief. And the capital city's name would be Atlas, for we cast off out chains today. This land would be rented out on 100 year leases by the first president and his successors. It would be like a bigger Monaco, but in on the ground floor.

Neither of you guys seem to be using the conventional idea of a micronation, though that's perhaps understandable, given that there isn't a standard, accepted definition.

Personally, I differentiate between a:
* Nation: a group of people with a shared cultural identity
* Government: a body set up by a group of people to co-ordinate the activities of said people, may or may not be controlled by a single nation, may or may not have territory
* Country: a territory settled by a single cultural group, may or may not be contiguous
* State: an organisation that claims to have the moral right to use violence against whoever it wishes, with no regard for law

A micronation usually possesses the first two and is very small, with less than a thousand participants - that is, it is a very small nation. It is possible to be a nation without a government, and it is possible to have a government without being a nation. What differentiates groups like Talossa from Tibet is simply a matter of degree, not form. A nation that is settled in a single territory makes that territory a country, which is why Greece was a country even when divided into city-states. It is possible for a micronation, if it gets large enough, to acquire territory and become a country.

As for the state, see my signature...

It depends what the objective is. I don't like the idea for starting nations for the sake of having a nation, or insidious self serving reasons like egotism or tax evasion.

If its to serve a legitimate cultural preservation or to protect an otherwise genuinely disenfranchised demographic i would on occasion support the idea as long as it doesnt oppress an indigenous population, Israel style.

For example I would personally like to see the creation of a micronation ruled specifically by autistics. If thats the kind of thing you had in mind, sign me up. Would be nice to have a little safe haven away from this crazy NT world.

I get the general idea of micronations, which in most cases are less accepted, or are often slapstick. But which are micronations like you said? Monaco? Sealand? Both? Neither? I guess not only do I want a pet project, but I want to hav eno income tax, and have a generally more anarcho capitalist enviroment, but not limited to that. Thus m ypanarchist ideas. The one problem of having physical panarchist is your need for government in order to have diplomatic and economic trade with other nations and peoples. Basically, there are certain things that agorism simply cant stop. Passports and zoning are one. For the rest, mutual aid socierties (subconsuls) can take care of any welfare or special services an individual wants.

The main point is to promote a certain form of governance, and prove that it could work. (Anarcho capitalism/panarchism)

This sounds very much like the premise of a fictional anarcho capitalist city-nation in a game i am designing. Almost all of the national infrastructure ends up being owned and controlled by a few oligarchs while the burgeoning workers of the city who constitute the vast majority are relegated to choking, filthy disease ridden shanty towns on the outskirts. Its pretty much hell on earth for nearly everyone that lives there.

My idea is not anarcho capitalist per se. It is where there are various forms of governance not based on land, but common interest (socialist/capitalist), can vie for citizens. But there would be a base government to make peace with other nations, keep peace in the subconsuls, and promote free trade with other nations.

the point is that trickledown economics is a lie, it doesnt work. Wealth doesn't trickle down, it precipitates near the top and prevents most people being able to access the benefit. This is demonstrably so in the US, as admininstration after administration reels back the size of government more and more wealth has accumulated at the top at the cost of everyone else. What you will see with a free market system that you propose is more of the same but fast tracked.

To prevent mass poverty, capitalism needs at least a welfare institution or as the British conservative politician Disraeli put it " a safety net above which all may rise but below which none may fall". Even with this in place, it is a faulty cockstop on an unsustainable timebomb.

As for starting one, I'd quite like to start develop the Cererean Commonwealth beyond my own thoughts. The governing structure I have in mind is:


Executive
----------------
Leader: Princeps of Ceres (stylised as Prince, Princess, or Princeps according to preference). They hold the position until death, abdication, or removal (following a 2/3 vote of no confidence in both the Council and Senate, and a confirmation by the Supreme Court), upon which a new candidate is proposed by either the Council or the Senate, accepted by both, and confirmed by the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court and/or Council are unavailable due to an existence failure, they will be held to automatically accept the decision of the Senate.
Deputy: Regent of Ceres. They hold the responsibilities of the Princeps when they are unable to discharge them due to death (permanent or temporary). Removal is by the same mechanisms as for the Princeps, but a new candidate for the position can only be proposed by the Princeps upon the advice of the Council, passed by the Senate, and confirmed by the Supreme Court.
Cabinet: the Council. The members are appointed by the Princeps upon the advice of the other Council members, especially the one who is vacating their seat, passed by the Senate, and confirmed by the Supreme Court. They compose a mixture of experts in a particular field of governing, and those known for their wisdom in ruling who are trusted to advise the Princeps well. Positions can be created and destroyed only by the Senate, upon the request of the Princeps. The Princeps and Regent are automatically members of the Council, and there is no requirement for anyone but the Princeps to be in it.


Legislative
----------------
The Senate: elected by the people, using a proportional voting system (particulars not decided yet). Can propose and pass motions, to be acted upon by the executive. Brings the peoples grievances and ideas to the Princeps. Until such a time as the population becomes big enough to require such a system, all citizens are part of the Senate. Indeed, a direct democracy may be instituted, if the lightspeed lag is not insurmountable.


Judicial
---------------
The Supreme Court: candidates are proposed by the Princeps on the advice of the Council, passed by the Senate, and confirmed by the existing membership. Candidates must have experience in the lower courts, unless there are none available with such experience. Not all members will sit on cases; the remaining members will observe and ensure the judgement is fair, and free from corruption. As with the council, the creation and destruction of seats can be proposed by the Princeps, who holds a seat ex officio, though ordinarily cannot sit on cases, with the power to create and destroy seats being held by the Senate upon instigation by the Princeps.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So there you have it, my model of governance. The minimum it needs to exist is a single member, the Princeps, who by virtue of being a citizen is also a member of the Senate, as well as being a special member of the Supreme Court. The system is set up such that it will be able to deal with almost total destruction - as long as there is a citizen, it can be regenerated.

But it is not about trickle down, it is a matter of right and wron gto me. But as far as welfare, I am not against that, but that is not the role of ,y central government. That os hwere people can choose governance agents, whether anarcho socialism or capitalism. I actually want voluntary collectivism, and tha tis where competitive governance comes in. Check wikipedia for panarchism.

i think a theme here is that people who start a country want to do so to 'field test' their own political ideology.

The difficulty is finding enough people who agree with your ideology to make it feasible. Moreover political views and religion are in themselves pretty bad reasons for starting a country.

I would like an autistic micronation, but one with equal, democratic plurality that could elect almost any ideology.

Not me. I wanna be rich!! !

Cambodia would be a "field test…" What I would do is shop the concept out to other potential investors. They would be responsible for governance and infrastructure, but all CSA-Cambodia merchandise, supplies, and equipment (and currency) would have to be licensed through my organization, which would function as the parent company.

Forget micro-nations. Mine would be a McNation. Or maybe an iRepublic. They would be themed, of course. I'd start mine out as sort of international resort for disaffected rednecks as I think they would adjust quickly to the northern Cambodian climate. We'd start with maybe 34 charter families, do something like on a time-share basis, and then start working our way towards a "full citizenship" permanent residence model. We'll bring in legit businesses next, not just a tourist trap, and it should largely become self-sustaining from that point forward. Eventually we'll "adopt" some starving orphans from 3rd world countries for free labor (though they ultimately win, comparatively speaking), before we launch our human trafficking/sex tourism campaign. (Don't worry, they're all over 18 and disease-free. TRUST US!) I believe the bulk of the income will come from that along with agricultural products, especially textiles and grain.

I haven't figured out how to combat the negative (and UNJUSTIFIED) human rights image we'll have for a while…but hey, why not? The bigger the risk, the bigger the profit.

Where and how do you create a micronation?

And what makes you think that you would be recognised by other nations.

Exactly; outside of areas such as the Arctic and Antarctica there isn't a square inch of land that isn't "owned" or otherwise under the control of an existing nation. It isn't like you can just declare your own property to be a new nation... and expect it to be recognised as such.