> Hi there friends . Our country is a new establishment . Many people are asking me for citizenship. Our country is so small only 3.000-4.000 people accepted. We are expanding to fill the Danube. Please; Syrian, Kurds, Arabs, Russians and Chinese are not write me. Because we will not accept them.
A good start for a country called Liberland, I expect that it is just a trollish post
If you take people who feel so strongly against libertarianism, the country won't remain libertarian for long. Of course, it means the person is charge is shaping his society, which is non-libertarian, but it's a sort of trade off.
There's nothing to say that a communist or a nazi is going to do anything to take down Liberland. Isn't excluding someone for their beliefs a thought-crime kind of situation?
I see no possible way kicking people out for thinking stuff is compatible with libertarian freedom-based ideas. Do they break libertarian law? Exile them. Do they talk about breaking libertarian law, or changing the laws there to reflect what they want? On what basis can you exclude someone for talking?
Nonsense. A pure voluntaryist country would be a great place to start a commune. You'd just need some seed capital to buy the land, and then you could live in a moneyless society free from wage-labor and other capitalist practices.
It will not last, as kibbutzes (examples of such communes) did not last in Israel. Ayn Rand has illustrated why in her book "Atlas Shrugged" with the example of Starnesville.
The reason is that people who are doing better than others (and who are forced by the communist _ideology_ to share so that everyone is equal), would leave the commune.
That is why North Korea and USSR kept their citizens inside the Iron Wall border. It "worked" only by forcing the able to their knees.
I see what you're trying to say, but at this point in history there is not a lot of intersection between "advocate for commune living" and "communist." Politics is an odd thing.
Well, if you take the maxim of propertarianism to its limit, then you should be able to exclude anyone for any reason. This is what people like, e.g. Hans Hermann-Hoppe advocate, with proposals of anarcho-capitalist societies that end up sounding like isolationist dystopias. His views on democracy are interesting, however.
Either that or I suppose not even libertarianism can trump Balkan relations.
In theory, but for an early country it's a long shot. With many races, you'd have to handle many different cultures and give out some of that freedom in exchange for equality.
The word 'liberal' in a European context ranges in meaning, and often encompasses many aspects of what those in the US would recognize as 'libertarian'. It just really depends on the context though. Depending on the country, 'liberalism' may be associated with center-left, center-right, or both (see UK LibDems as an example). In general, though, it is typically used in contrast to both right wing conservative parties and left wing social-democratic parties.
I surmise from the other posts in the thread that a troll signed up with the username "admin" and posted that; the post no longer appears to be extant. Note, of course, the disclaimer on top of the board:
> Purpose of this forum is to allow communication between registered users on Liberland.org. Liberland officials don't make statements in this forum. Entries pretending to be official statements are all fake.
I'm sure Descartes would rephrase his famous though to something like the above, had he been contemporaneous of us (and tweet it as well).
These Liberlandeers need to create a proper national football team first to be recognized. Being between Croatia and Serbia, they should have no problem in getting good players.
Almost all of these European micro-states have national football teams which compete. Even Gibraltar has a team now (their home games are in Portugal). Vaticano doesn't have a team though, and I don't remember seeing Monaco as well.
Both Vatican and Monaco technically have national football teams, but neither are FIFA members and thus don't participate in international tournaments.
true that Monaco doesn't have a national team, but there is a team bearing it's name and in the principality, AS Monaco, who plays in the Ligue 1 (and will be playing the 2nd leg of the quarter finals of the champions league against Juventus)
It looks like its success depends on Croatian attitude. Basically, Serbs believe that anything West of the Danube in that area is Croatia, whereas Croatians argue that borders are more complicated (apparently following the old path of the Danube, which has long changed). As part of the complication, this territory is left unclaimed by Croatia because, following the disputed border, it would be Serb; but Serbia doesn't care about it, because it's West of the Danube and they're happy sitting on the Eastern bank.
Basically, the minute Croatia accepted the current state of things (which they will probably have to do, once Serbia joins the EU), they would likely take over anything West of the Danube, ending "Liberland". As it is, they have to decide whether maintaining their (likely doomed) claims is worth accepting this "Liberland" entity trolling on their border.
I don't think it has "more merit", but pragmatically:
1) if Serbia joins the EU, borders disappear because of Schengen, it becomes a somewhat-academic debate, Serbia keeps control of the Eastern bank.
2) if Serbia does not join the EU, borders stay in place, no EU state is ever going to help Croatia go to war for a few square-km of Balkan swamps, Serbia keeps control of the Eastern bank.
From this point of view, the incentive for Croatia is to extoll the maximum amount of compensation it can as part of the EU membership process of Serbia, because it's unlikely it will ever get anything more.
Then again, this would assume rational actors, and the history of those lands is full of extremely irrational ones, so...
Rational actors do not need to resolve border disputes quickly.
For example, there has been a border dispute between Germany and the Netherlands for centuries about what part of the Ems-Dollart waterways belongs to whom. Even when, after World War Two, there was significant discussion about the border, resulting in small shifts of the border (http://archive.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/limitsinseas/i...), this didn't get resolved.
Your points are disingenuous and suggest that Serbia wins in any case while it lacks higher ground.
In case Serbia wants to join the EU they need a vote from Croatia too and this is a legitimate reason to block entry. In case it doesn't enter the EU it's just status quo before a way is found to settle the dispute, something that has been done in a lot of post-Yugoslav succession cases with success.
Thanks for the ad-hominem, but I honestly couldn't care less who "wins", I'm looking at the incentives purely as a third-party observer (well, as an EU citizen, I guess I have an interest in keeping the peace over there).
> In case Serbia wants to join the EU they need a vote from Croatia too
Sure (well, until certain procedures become a matter of majority vote -- the EU is constantly changing, but I digress).
But let's be honest here: if everyone else wants Serbia in, they will lean on Croatia to make it happen; and a few square kms of swamps are not worth souring relationships with the likes of Germany. That's why I said Croatians will likely get as much compensation as they can, while they have the chance; after all, they are not going to take back those swamps with tanks anytime soon.
> In case it doesn't enter the EU it's just status quo
Yup, which is my scenario 2; and considering the status quo matches Serbian views, the only country with a problem remains Croatia. A rational actor would then pack it in, if maintaining a claim with very low chances made it not worth the trouble of dealing with a silly micronation on their doorstep. In fact, if I were Serbia I'd give Liberland all the help I get, trying to force Croatia to take charge of the area and add further legitimacy to the status quo.
"that innocent, teary-eyed look is just part of a disingenuous act"
Calling it an ad-hominem is certainly not off base. Due to some linguistic anomaly, a lot of people seem not to realize that this word has a significant component that indicts the character of its target. Sometimes it seems to be used in an ad-hominem manner, and sometimes it seems to be used in ignorance of that component of definition of the word. However, it's often impossible to tell with certainty whether the person is using the word to intentionally attack someone's character or not. In any case, using the word can be incendiary.
The word 'misleading' can generally be substituted in cases where one wishes to avoid the character attack.
Its a descriptor of character/attitude/motive, which is a feature of the person providing the argument in relation to the act of providing the argument, not a feature of the content of the argument.
"Disingenous" refers to the motive rather than the substance or content of the argument. If it is used as a reason (explicitly or implicitly) for dismissing an argument, it is an ad hominem (or, at a minimum, a closely related form of genetic fallacy.)
Hello Liberland, welcome to the 21st century, where you can't call yourself a sovereign nation until you get your own first level domain. (and even then...)
Start with prostitution, drugs, and alcohol, and you will see this country's neighbors come to an agreement on the exact location of their borders fairly quickly.
The one thing that project fails to see is that no small nation can be independent without full and unrestricted access to sea or at least proper airport.
Sounds like the idea was created by utopians or hobbyist rather than people that know anything about creating country. Or scammers, but hopefully thats not the case.
I didn't said it is impossible, I said it will not allow you to be truly independent.
San Marino - under Italian influence.
Liechtenstein - Germany.
Andorra - Spanish/French.
If you would do research on them you would see how many things they are not allowed to do by their neighbor. And how many things the country is forced to do.
If they would start making issues, they would be just destroyed by economical blockage.
MAJORITY of landlocked countries are dependent on others.
Only countries with established history and reputation can to some extent be independent, like Switzerland.
Its not hard to block the river, isn't it. That is why I said "unrestricted".
And if you think that international laws will prevent it, well Ukraine get rid of nuclear weapons and got GUARANTEES by Russia, US, China, France and few more countries they will protect it in case of any kind of aggression.
If you end up with a child you don't want, don't sweat! You can let him or her starve to death.
From the linked article:
"But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.[2] The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive."
I know you're being facetious, but you're already not compelled to feed a child, you can just drop him/her off at a police station or hospital.
Not that I don't think that article is full of crap. If we're going to apply property-based libertarian principles to the letter, then we need to talk about the months of imprisonment in a dark and confined area that the mother imposes on the child :P
I think you must have read the quoted passage but not internalised it, because it does actually say that there should be no law against killing your kid.
No, it does not say that. It says that you should not be compelled to feed your kid. If you read the passage in context, you'll find Rothbard is explicit that you cannot kill the kid, nor stop the kid from leaving if the kid is not happy with the support you are providing.
Of course as a practical matter, if the kid is young enough, or you live sufficiently far from other people, the kid cannot exercise its right to leave, and so effectively you can kill it by not providing food.
Are you seriously proposing that the primary reason that people invest in their children is that it is mandated by law?
I understand how people want to give the government credit for a lot of things, but are you really going to hand them credit for your own care for your children?
(I suspect this falls under the category of "being in such a hurry to say bad things about someone you disagree with that you don't stop to think the full implications of the insult through".)
Dragging out the most appalling random thing you can find from some loosely associated (or not) ideology is no way to have a conversation in good faith—it's a way to terminate such conversation. Hacker News is for conversation in good faith, so please don't do that.
(I'm not defending this project or its ideology, about which I know nothing. HN discourse needs to be free of bomb-throwing regardless of the target.)
Rothbard and other libertarians do not consider capitalism as a moral system, they consider it as an economic system that servers well a collective. As a result they make no attempts to justify it morally.
This country should be based on laissez-fair Capitalism, which is justified morally by Ayn Rand in her book "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal".
Honestly, I find a purely libertarian country to be an exciting and great project. Yet it may be too great to be achieved. With a territory of just 7 km^2 and with almost nothing at all already done (no people, no economy, no buildings, no services…) it pretty much seems as an utopic idea and like the country won't last too much. Just hope they get some progress soon…
hi im arab girl from jordan and i live in the gulf ,im a normal girl in a secularism mind ,educated my specialized is a pharm D pharmacis,, im a young creative ambitious women and we will invest on your country my doughtar has an amirican citizen ,,my husband is educated too,,he has MIS uni degree graduated from american university,,he is successful on his work,,we want to build your country with you,,and im not applied yet so i want to apply but i shocked when you say we dont want arab,,,so can i apply and accept me plz we are classy people
A good start for a country called Liberland, I expect that it is just a trollish post