13 ms·

A man who created a tiny country he can no longer enter

198 points by ghosh 10y ago

vacri 10y ago
> But in the mind of Vit Jedlicka, its first president, it's the fulfilment of the libertarian dream - a land with no compulsory taxes, no gun control, with Bitcoins as currency. Too true: A country that sounds great on paper, but is really an infrastructure-free swamp that no-one actually wants to live in. It is indeed libertarianism at its finest!
- moyta 10y ago
  It is, I encourage Libertarians & Anarchists to go live their dreams, you can live in a community or lack thereof that shares your values, and if you are unwilling to live in a community that shares the values you advocate and support, you should seriously rethink your values. This is why I can't respect people like Peter Thiel, he would rather take all the benefits he can accrue from a society he so loathes, but he refuses to live in any of the Libertarian communities that exist. What kind of person can't even stand up for their core beliefs? An unrespectable pile in my experience. I know I will get downvoted for this comment, and I encourage you to respond.
  - thomasfoster96 10y ago
    I'm no fan of Peter Thiel's politics, but where are these libertarian communities you speak of [1]? I can't think of any libertarian government that currently has power any where. [1] I'm excluding anarchist communities.
    - pluma 10y ago
      Maybe someone should spread the rumor that Liberia is the ultimate Libertarian paradise (I mean, it's in the name and the flag looks similar enough to the US).
    - _andromeda_ 10y ago
      Indeed there are none. If there were, I'd gladly move there. One of the biggest challenges that arises when the concept of true libertarian societies comes up is how the democratic governments of the world would respond. I think they'd be overly envious and embargo the libertarian societies. Of course, the democracies would try to justify this by arguing that, 'If you want to isolate yourself from us, then don't even bother trading with us'. However, this argument totally misses the point; secession and libertarianism don't advocate for protectionism, only free trade. Nonetheless, I suspect there'll be a wave of secessionist movements that will take over the world in the 21st century. This is the only hope (or is it Hoppe) that anarcho-capitalism has.
      - wav-part 10y ago
        Thats why I think an association of corporations with huge trading power will be the first one to successfully pull this off.
        _andromeda_ 10y ago
        Yes,that would work but only if the 'Liberlands' aren't set up as tax havens. Doing this would only antagonize the democracies.
        wav-part 10y ago
        Governments see tax heaven everywhere. In the governments eye, they dont tax you 40% - they let you keep 60%. So any drop in tax revenue would certainly antagonize them. Thats why I said the trading power is neccessery for governments to stomach the harsh reality : They get power from the commerce not the other way around.
      - vacri 10y ago
        What the? Democratic nations aren't jealous teenagers. If they envy your living standards, they try to trade with you, not embargo you. Unless there's a lot of human rights violations going on (eg north korea, apartheid-era south africa), democratic nations are up for trade. The libertarian echo chamber produces some truly bizarre ideas.
  - hueving 10y ago
    In the US, you are pathetic if you just leave rather than fight for your values. There is a point in having free speech and elected representatives.
    - moyta 10y ago
      Then get out in the streets and protest and organize a movement. This isn't rocket science, if Trump, Obama, Bernie, MLK, etc can do it, Peter Thiel can sure do it. Kicking back in your armchair and doing jack isn't a plan, it is defeat.
      - coldtea 10y ago
        He sponsored a politician who he believes (rightly or not) that can move things his way, and pressumably other efforts. Not everything is about protesting in the streets. Besides, protest against what? Tons of people that want to live in a different way that what you suggest? The only real way would be to convince them...
  - wav-part 10y ago
    To answer your question, Libertarians are self-interested people [1]. They would only move to a location that increase their purchasing power. Frankly I dont want a Libertarian US but 3189 micro countries each experimenting with different mixture of laws. May the best win. Everyone know big corporations are to be avoided but they fail to extend the argument to mega-states. [1] Like everyone else. Libertarians are just honest enough to admit it.
  - dmichulke 10y ago
    > you can live in a community or lack thereof that shares your values The thing is, as a Libertarian you literally can't. One principal idea is to live without coercion, but as long as you're part of a tax collecting state, you are to "share" part of the fruits of your labor with authorities you do not recognize or else... Secondly, the rights and laws (such as really free speech or free contracts) are overridden (e.g., by hate speech, minimum salary, anti-discrimination laws, ...), so there is no way you can meaningfully establish a libertarian society within a current nation state. Finally, there are other (possibly quasi-) monopolies (such as monopoly on violence, Taxi licenses ~ anti-Uber, Hotel Services ~ anti-AirBnB) that you cannot get rid of unless you get rid of the controlling entity. Note the difference to e.g. communist societies where you can just start sharing everything (much like you might already be doing within your family).
    - vacri 10y ago
      The monopoly on violence doesn't go away in libertarian-land, they just try to hide it. How to solve disputes? Courts. And if you don't submit to the court's will? Um... oh yeah, we need state "violence" after all, same as the democracies we mock.
      - dmichulke 10y ago
        Yes and no. Yes we need courts and no, we can choose them (unlike now). Same for enforcement. Violence yes, monopoly no.
        grzm 10y ago
        Re: choosing courts. Depends on the jurisdiction, doesn't it? In some jurisdictions, judges are elected. In others they're appointed by representatives who are elected. At least I believe those are the common cases in democracies. (And there's another couple of assumptions.) Or am I misunderstanding? Wouldn't be the first time.
        dmichulke 10y ago
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >This is why I can't respect people like Peter Thiel, he would rather take all the benefits he can accrue from a society he so loathes, but he refuses to live in any of the Libertarian communities that exist. What kind of person can't even stand up for their core beliefs? A pragmatic, as opposed to batshit-crazy, person? Standing up for what you believe the country/society in general should be run is not the same as creating some bizarro micro-community that is not an actual country and living there... The same reason why people e.g. against racism don't go live on made-up non-racism communities, but try to make the community they live in less/no racist.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - _andromeda_ 10y ago
      First of all, you're right about trying to correct the wrongs in the society you live in - as Thiel had done. I do however disagree that creating new sovereign territories is bizarre and unwarranted. Thiel himself has partnered with Milton Friedman's grandson to establish the sea steading institute which is very commendable. There is a real danger of the whole world turning socialist and communist before the inevitable collapse on it's own weight. Where would you run to if government turned against you? Where would you run if you were Snowden? If you look at the EU and UN, these are just signs of what's to come; one wolrd government that eventually collapses due to inherent inefficiencies. I for one am really glad Brexit happened. More territories need to follow the same route.
thomasfoster96 10y ago
The bigger story here seems to be that Croatia is treating the territory of Liberland as its own. I wonder what that means for Balkan relations? Has Croatia now accepted the revised borders? Edit: Actually Wikipedia says that Croatia's position is that the land belongs to either Serbia or themselves, to the exclusion of any third party. Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatia%E2%80%93Serbia_border_dispute https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatia%E2%80%93Serbia_borde...
- temp 10y ago
  >The bigger story here seems to be that Croatia is treating the territory of Liberland as its own That's not a big story at all. Ever since around early 2000s the deal between Croatian and Serbian governments was to treat it that way until the borded dispute was resolved. Vit forgot to read up on a lot of stuff before going on this adventure.
  - thomasfoster96 10y ago
    > That's not a big story at all. I should have looked at Wikipedia first :) Although I do find the arrangement quite odd - Egypt and Sudan don't have a similar arrangement?
walrus01 10y ago
For a recent (within the last 100 years) example of Terra Nullius, look at Svalbard and the Svalbard treaty. Any citizen of a signatory to the treaty is entitled to live there. In practice it's kind of hard to do, since there's not much economic activity up there and logistics/transport costs and energy costs makes everything very expensive. But theoretically an Afghan citizen could move to Svalbard freely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Treaty also, no, it does not have any armored polar bears.
- libeclipse 10y ago
  Aha, but are there witches?
  - ommunist 10y ago
    You are really free to check it out. There is definitely coal and iron ore there.
  - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
    There will be temporarily when I get the chance to vacation up there!
- rmc 10y ago
  Fun fact: In Svalbard it's common to see people entering a (the?) bank wearing a balaclava and carrying a gun. Balaclava for the cold, and gun for the polar bears.
  - semi-extrinsic 10y ago
    Shops, banks etc. have gun lockers just inside the door where you put your gun while shopping.
    - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
      Just don't tell the polar bears; supermarkets are basically polar bear sardine tins then.
xiphias 10y ago
They forgot the most important part, without which a country can't be created: the army that protects the borders
- LoSboccacc 10y ago
  Lichtenstain, the Vatican and San Marino disagree. Unless you count in fervent catholic bodies as an army
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    You forget the Vatican Swiss Guard.
  - pluma 10y ago
    San Marino has a military. Lichtenstein and the Vatican have contracts with other nations, effectively "renting" their protection. You don't need a standing army, but having military protection of some kind is vital to maintaining your sovereignty. All that aside, the only real way to have a nation is to have other nations acknowledge its existence. Good luck claiming sovereignty when not a single member of the UN is willing to say you exist.
    - runn1ng 10y ago
      > the only real way to have a nation is to have other nations acknowledge its existence I always think of Taiwan / Republic of China. While most countries don't officially acknowledge it (and, slightly amusingly, Taiwan doesn't officially acknowledge communist China), it is without a doubt its own country with its own military and democratic government, etc. But yeah the only reason is that there is water between China and Taiwan and China never bothered to attack.
      - jamiek88 10y ago
        The onky reason Taiwan is there is that it has US support for it's existence.
    - 10y ago
scirocco 10y ago
Makes me think about Ladonia in southern Sweden. Painter built a tower by using wood lying around on the beach, and proclaimed the 1 km2 area the name of Ladonia. Local authorities see it as a crime due to the area being a nature reserve and had plans of taking it down, but at the same time they can't say no to the increasing amount of tourists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladonia_(micronation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladonia_(micronation)
- nissehulth 10y ago
  The two stories are similar in that both founders seem mostly interested in getting publicity for themselves. Neither project is a real attempt to create a new state.
maybeiambatman 10y ago
This is so crazy. Just out of curiosity, is there a list of places around the world which are claim-able yet still unclaimed?
- no_protocol 10y ago
  I think this Wikipedia article covers most of that situation in a quick-to-read format: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_nullius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_nullius There are some other articles out there describing these areas, but I can't recall where to find them.
- speeder 10y ago
  The only other place, that is actually colonizable is Bir Tawil, but the land there is so terrible, but so terrible, that noone actually made a serious attempt (a bunch of people made bogus claims, for example one guy proclaimed himself king, just so his daughter could be a princess). Even for desert standards, Bir Tawil is desolate, and it has no decent natural resources, so literally noone wants it.
  - jsankey 10y ago
    The reason Bir Tawil is unwanted is more subtle: claiming it would discredit a claim made to the more desirable neighbouring region: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hala%27ib_Triangle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hala%27ib_Triangle
    - speeder 10y ago
      I am talking about people like the guy in the article... not the countries that created the situation.
      - jsankey 10y ago
        I see, I did misinterpret your point somewhat. The situation is still relevant to individual would be claimants, though. Even though Egypt and Sudan don't want to claim the region I don't think they're too keen on random third parties staking a claim either. You'd be surrounded unfriendly governments.
samdung 10y ago
Came across Liberland about a year ago and filled a citizenship form on their site (https://liberland.org/ https://liberland.org/) out of curiosity. I occasionally get their newsletter. Altogether i find this a an occasional and nice distraction from my work. Maybe this is how all countries came into existence.
- h4nkoslo 10y ago
  Any country you can name came into existence when a collection of warlords established it by force. Ironically, you would expect libertarians to know this better than others.
  - vacri 10y ago
    The Vatican City came into existence because Mussolini, a warlord, specifically did not want to move against the pope, and the VC was born out of a sort of gentleman's agreement: you don't denounce me, and you get your own country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City#Lateran_treaties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City#Lateran_treaties
    - martey 10y ago
      I think it's extremely unlikely that Vatican City would be independent except for the previous existence of the Papal States and the way that they were incorporated into Italy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_in_the_Vatican https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_in_the_Vatican https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Question
  - wallace_f 10y ago
    NZ came into existence relatively peacefully. It was not predominately created by force.
    - martey 10y ago
      I am not sure when you consider New Zealand to have "come into existence", but wouldn't the Musket Wars and the New Zealand Wars contradict this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Wars
frozenport 10y ago
Obviously its not a real state because it doesn't have a `Monopoly on violence`.
- coldtea 10y ago
  Obviously, and non ironically, yes. Seeing that what makes a state a state, is the ability to keep others who want to run it/claim it for themselves, outside which takes (among other things) violence.
  - ommunist 10y ago
    Yeah! Basically these days you need a nuke and to demonstrate that you are ready to use it.
    - jandrese 10y ago
      Not necessarily a nuke, but you need an army or friends with armies otherwise someone else is going to march their army in and take your land.
shp0ngle 10y ago
From what I know about this guy's project, he is more concerned about PR, going around taking money and talking at circlefriendly libertarian conferences than actually doing anything meaningful. Last I heard him talk at one conference, he was talking about making a Liberland app, that's Uber, AirBnB and ebay in one app, using smart contracts on blockchain. And it somehow connects to Liberland. So yep, I don't see this as a serious attempt. Edit: here is the app, I have no idea what is it actually doing. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=cz.liberland.services&referrer=utm_source%3Dgoogle%26utm_medium%3Dorganic%26utm_term%3Dliberland+mobile+app&pcampaignid=APPU_1_eXcpWLTeG6zKgAacmo7IDQ https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=cz.liberland.s...
- madaxe_again 10y ago
  Totally. If he were serious about his libertarian ideals he'd bear arms against the police and declare war between his state and his neighbours - or is he waiting for a pro bono pmc to do it for him, in true quasi-libertarian-but-actually-fascist style?
  - muninn_ 10y ago
    So you can only be serious about political ideas if you start shooting cops? Nonsense.
    - madaxe_again 10y ago
      Why? One of the pillars of statehood is self defence. His political ideal is founding a state, not promulgating an ideology. To be clear I'm not suggesting that he should, but if he wishes to found a libertarian state, that would be the correct step. Can you think of any state that had a non-violent birth?
      - soneca 10y ago
        Brazil became independent without a war.
dandare 10y ago
I for one don't see a point in these micro countries - they are philosophically inconsistent, nothing more than a make believe game for adults. What if I came to said Liberland and claimed one of the corners of the island for myself?
max_ 10y ago
Just applied for the citizen application form :) http://liberland.org/en/request/ http://liberland.org/en/request/
drej 10y ago
I've been following this for a while now - I actually met this guy in a pub a few years ago, a friendly chap. While I don't subscribe to his ideology, I do wish him luck. As long as they are not harming anyone, I encourage people to push the limits of all sorts of established ideas, including big things like starting a country. I'm still not sure - and nobody is I guess - if it's sincere, a PR stunt, or a scam, I guess it will take a while longer for us to find out. In the meantime, let's hope it's resolved in a friendly and peaceful manner and all the best to his new family (both literally and figuratively).
ommunist 10y ago
This is really interesting and reminds me of legal grounds for Lacota Republic in the middle of the US. Lacotas insist that white people did not fulfilled the contract that was with their forefathers, so Lacota current lands use legislation framework is void. However, Lacotas do not have enough nukes to enforce the consequences of white people misbehaviour, so the illegal use of their lands by the self-proclaimed "The United States" continues.
pif 10y ago
> a land with no compulsory taxes, no gun control, with Bitcoins as currency. There's a name for this: "wildlife". Humanity knows it very well. We escaped it as soon as possible.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
igor_varga 10y ago
As someone who grew up and lived very close to that area I find this free-state territorial claim attempt deeply disturbing and here are some reasons for that. Probably most important is psychological one since there was a war and violent clash between disputed sides in the 1990s and that land was claimed in very similar manner like this guy is attempting now. Coming there with such claims is very wrong and locals and authorities from both sides will be irritated by such attempts. This guy's sad interpretation of current dispute situation would be something like: there is a free piece of land and everyone is invited to claim it. That is far away from reality. There is a dispute about that area but that doesn't mean that it doesn't belong to anyone and that it is not controlled. At the moment land part access is controlled by Croatian police and river access by both sides. Legally that land still belongs to Serbia and that comes from last legal border agreement between two sides which is constitution document of Yugoslavia dating from 1974. Borders between countries were defined back then very precisely but that document is subject of dispute from 1990s till now. Dispute and border changes were caused by war, politics and riverbed changes. Both river and land were used for years by locals as a result of agreement between disputed sides in order enable local population to access that area without too much hassle by the border police. Now, thanks to this idiot, locals are banned from using it any more. Besides collecting a lot of money for his agenda from similar people like him around the world, that is the only concrete result of his actions.
- jdmichal 10y ago
  > Legally that land still belongs to Serbia and that comes from last legal border agreement between two sides which is constitution document of Yugoslavia dating from 1974. That was my initial thought also. One side proposed a new border, and the other side didn't accept. That does not mean it's free land; that means that the status quo continues. It seems to me the moral equivalent of offering $1 for a house, being rejected, then thereby claiming it's free for the taking...
- paxcoder 10y ago
  The BBC article claims Croatia doesn't want the land because claiming it would validate Serbia's interpretation of the borders leaving Croatia with less land over all. I can't find the relevance of years 1974 and 1990 in the wikipedia article[1]. The article describes a long-standing dispute last addressed in 1948. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatia–Serbia_border_dispute#Start_Of_The_Dispute https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatia–Serbia_border_disput...
Unbeliever69 10y ago
Let us not forget Ziqistan! http://www.zaqart.com/zaqistan/zaqistan.shtml http://www.zaqart.com/zaqistan/zaqistan.shtml
donretag 10y ago
"he can build a temporary settlement on houseboats on the Danube" Reminds me of the movie "Crna Macka, Beli Macor (Black Cat, White Cat)"
gravypod 10y ago
This guy very much reminds me of Dave from the Republic of Dave in Fallout 3. A little quarky but he thinks he can do it. It's interesting to see if he can do this as it would set an interesting geopolitical precedent for the area.
unicornporn 10y ago
Related: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladonia_(micronation) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladonia_(micronation)

198 points by ghosh 10y ago

vacri 10y ago

> But in the mind of Vit Jedlicka, its first president, it's the fulfilment of the libertarian dream - a land with no compulsory taxes, no gun control, with Bitcoins as currency. Too true: A country that sounds great on paper, but is really an infrastructure-free swamp that no-one actually wants to live in. It is indeed libertarianism at its finest!

moyta 10y ago
It is, I encourage Libertarians & Anarchists to go live their dreams, you can live in a community or lack thereof that shares your values, and if you are unwilling to live in a community that shares the values you advocate and support, you should seriously rethink your values. This is why I can't respect people like Peter Thiel, he would rather take all the benefits he can accrue from a society he so loathes, but he refuses to live in any of the Libertarian communities that exist. What kind of person can't even stand up for their core beliefs? An unrespectable pile in my experience. I know I will get downvoted for this comment, and I encourage you to respond.
- thomasfoster96 10y ago
  I'm no fan of Peter Thiel's politics, but where are these libertarian communities you speak of [1]? I can't think of any libertarian government that currently has power any where. [1] I'm excluding anarchist communities.
  - pluma 10y ago
    Maybe someone should spread the rumor that Liberia is the ultimate Libertarian paradise (I mean, it's in the name and the flag looks similar enough to the US).
  - _andromeda_ 10y ago
    Indeed there are none. If there were, I'd gladly move there. One of the biggest challenges that arises when the concept of true libertarian societies comes up is how the democratic governments of the world would respond. I think they'd be overly envious and embargo the libertarian societies. Of course, the democracies would try to justify this by arguing that, 'If you want to isolate yourself from us, then don't even bother trading with us'. However, this argument totally misses the point; secession and libertarianism don't advocate for protectionism, only free trade. Nonetheless, I suspect there'll be a wave of secessionist movements that will take over the world in the 21st century. This is the only hope (or is it Hoppe) that anarcho-capitalism has.
    - wav-part 10y ago
      Thats why I think an association of corporations with huge trading power will be the first one to successfully pull this off.
      - _andromeda_ 10y ago
        Yes,that would work but only if the 'Liberlands' aren't set up as tax havens. Doing this would only antagonize the democracies.
        wav-part 10y ago
        Governments see tax heaven everywhere. In the governments eye, they dont tax you 40% - they let you keep 60%. So any drop in tax revenue would certainly antagonize them. Thats why I said the trading power is neccessery for governments to stomach the harsh reality : They get power from the commerce not the other way around.
    - vacri 10y ago
      What the? Democratic nations aren't jealous teenagers. If they envy your living standards, they try to trade with you, not embargo you. Unless there's a lot of human rights violations going on (eg north korea, apartheid-era south africa), democratic nations are up for trade. The libertarian echo chamber produces some truly bizarre ideas.
- hueving 10y ago
  In the US, you are pathetic if you just leave rather than fight for your values. There is a point in having free speech and elected representatives.
  - moyta 10y ago
    Then get out in the streets and protest and organize a movement. This isn't rocket science, if Trump, Obama, Bernie, MLK, etc can do it, Peter Thiel can sure do it. Kicking back in your armchair and doing jack isn't a plan, it is defeat.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      He sponsored a politician who he believes (rightly or not) that can move things his way, and pressumably other efforts. Not everything is about protesting in the streets. Besides, protest against what? Tons of people that want to live in a different way that what you suggest? The only real way would be to convince them...
- wav-part 10y ago
  To answer your question, Libertarians are self-interested people [1]. They would only move to a location that increase their purchasing power. Frankly I dont want a Libertarian US but 3189 micro countries each experimenting with different mixture of laws. May the best win. Everyone know big corporations are to be avoided but they fail to extend the argument to mega-states. [1] Like everyone else. Libertarians are just honest enough to admit it.
- dmichulke 10y ago
  > you can live in a community or lack thereof that shares your values The thing is, as a Libertarian you literally can't. One principal idea is to live without coercion, but as long as you're part of a tax collecting state, you are to "share" part of the fruits of your labor with authorities you do not recognize or else... Secondly, the rights and laws (such as really free speech or free contracts) are overridden (e.g., by hate speech, minimum salary, anti-discrimination laws, ...), so there is no way you can meaningfully establish a libertarian society within a current nation state. Finally, there are other (possibly quasi-) monopolies (such as monopoly on violence, Taxi licenses ~ anti-Uber, Hotel Services ~ anti-AirBnB) that you cannot get rid of unless you get rid of the controlling entity. Note the difference to e.g. communist societies where you can just start sharing everything (much like you might already be doing within your family).
  - vacri 10y ago
    The monopoly on violence doesn't go away in libertarian-land, they just try to hide it. How to solve disputes? Courts. And if you don't submit to the court's will? Um... oh yeah, we need state "violence" after all, same as the democracies we mock.
    - dmichulke 10y ago
      Yes and no. Yes we need courts and no, we can choose them (unlike now). Same for enforcement. Violence yes, monopoly no.
      - grzm 10y ago
        Re: choosing courts. Depends on the jurisdiction, doesn't it? In some jurisdictions, judges are elected. In others they're appointed by representatives who are elected. At least I believe those are the common cases in democracies. (And there's another couple of assumptions.) Or am I misunderstanding? Wouldn't be the first time.
        dmichulke 10y ago
- coldtea 10y ago
  >This is why I can't respect people like Peter Thiel, he would rather take all the benefits he can accrue from a society he so loathes, but he refuses to live in any of the Libertarian communities that exist. What kind of person can't even stand up for their core beliefs? A pragmatic, as opposed to batshit-crazy, person? Standing up for what you believe the country/society in general should be run is not the same as creating some bizarro micro-community that is not an actual country and living there... The same reason why people e.g. against racism don't go live on made-up non-racism communities, but try to make the community they live in less/no racist.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - _andromeda_ 10y ago
    First of all, you're right about trying to correct the wrongs in the society you live in - as Thiel had done. I do however disagree that creating new sovereign territories is bizarre and unwarranted. Thiel himself has partnered with Milton Friedman's grandson to establish the sea steading institute which is very commendable. There is a real danger of the whole world turning socialist and communist before the inevitable collapse on it's own weight. Where would you run to if government turned against you? Where would you run if you were Snowden? If you look at the EU and UN, these are just signs of what's to come; one wolrd government that eventually collapses due to inherent inefficiencies. I for one am really glad Brexit happened. More territories need to follow the same route.

thomasfoster96 10y ago

The bigger story here seems to be that Croatia is treating the territory of Liberland as its own. I wonder what that means for Balkan relations? Has Croatia now accepted the revised borders? Edit: Actually Wikipedia says that Croatia's position is that the land belongs to either Serbia or themselves, to the exclusion of any third party. Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatia%E2%80%93Serbia_border_dispute https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatia%E2%80%93Serbia_borde...

temp 10y ago
>The bigger story here seems to be that Croatia is treating the territory of Liberland as its own That's not a big story at all. Ever since around early 2000s the deal between Croatian and Serbian governments was to treat it that way until the borded dispute was resolved. Vit forgot to read up on a lot of stuff before going on this adventure.
- thomasfoster96 10y ago
  > That's not a big story at all. I should have looked at Wikipedia first :) Although I do find the arrangement quite odd - Egypt and Sudan don't have a similar arrangement?

walrus01 10y ago

For a recent (within the last 100 years) example of Terra Nullius, look at Svalbard and the Svalbard treaty. Any citizen of a signatory to the treaty is entitled to live there. In practice it's kind of hard to do, since there's not much economic activity up there and logistics/transport costs and energy costs makes everything very expensive. But theoretically an Afghan citizen could move to Svalbard freely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Treaty also, no, it does not have any armored polar bears.

libeclipse 10y ago
Aha, but are there witches?
- ommunist 10y ago
  You are really free to check it out. There is definitely coal and iron ore there.
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  There will be temporarily when I get the chance to vacation up there!
rmc 10y ago
Fun fact: In Svalbard it's common to see people entering a (the?) bank wearing a balaclava and carrying a gun. Balaclava for the cold, and gun for the polar bears.
- semi-extrinsic 10y ago
  Shops, banks etc. have gun lockers just inside the door where you put your gun while shopping.
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    Just don't tell the polar bears; supermarkets are basically polar bear sardine tins then.

xiphias 10y ago

They forgot the most important part, without which a country can't be created: the army that protects the borders

LoSboccacc 10y ago
Lichtenstain, the Vatican and San Marino disagree. Unless you count in fervent catholic bodies as an army
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  You forget the Vatican Swiss Guard.
- pluma 10y ago
  San Marino has a military. Lichtenstein and the Vatican have contracts with other nations, effectively "renting" their protection. You don't need a standing army, but having military protection of some kind is vital to maintaining your sovereignty. All that aside, the only real way to have a nation is to have other nations acknowledge its existence. Good luck claiming sovereignty when not a single member of the UN is willing to say you exist.
  - runn1ng 10y ago
    > the only real way to have a nation is to have other nations acknowledge its existence I always think of Taiwan / Republic of China. While most countries don't officially acknowledge it (and, slightly amusingly, Taiwan doesn't officially acknowledge communist China), it is without a doubt its own country with its own military and democratic government, etc. But yeah the only reason is that there is water between China and Taiwan and China never bothered to attack.
    - jamiek88 10y ago
      The onky reason Taiwan is there is that it has US support for it's existence.
  - 10y ago

scirocco 10y ago

Makes me think about Ladonia in southern Sweden. Painter built a tower by using wood lying around on the beach, and proclaimed the 1 km2 area the name of Ladonia. Local authorities see it as a crime due to the area being a nature reserve and had plans of taking it down, but at the same time they can't say no to the increasing amount of tourists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladonia_(micronation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladonia_(micronation)

nissehulth 10y ago
The two stories are similar in that both founders seem mostly interested in getting publicity for themselves. Neither project is a real attempt to create a new state.

maybeiambatman 10y ago

This is so crazy. Just out of curiosity, is there a list of places around the world which are claim-able yet still unclaimed?

no_protocol 10y ago
I think this Wikipedia article covers most of that situation in a quick-to-read format: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_nullius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_nullius There are some other articles out there describing these areas, but I can't recall where to find them.
speeder 10y ago
The only other place, that is actually colonizable is Bir Tawil, but the land there is so terrible, but so terrible, that noone actually made a serious attempt (a bunch of people made bogus claims, for example one guy proclaimed himself king, just so his daughter could be a princess). Even for desert standards, Bir Tawil is desolate, and it has no decent natural resources, so literally noone wants it.
- jsankey 10y ago
  The reason Bir Tawil is unwanted is more subtle: claiming it would discredit a claim made to the more desirable neighbouring region: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hala%27ib_Triangle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hala%27ib_Triangle
  - speeder 10y ago
    I am talking about people like the guy in the article... not the countries that created the situation.
    - jsankey 10y ago
      I see, I did misinterpret your point somewhat. The situation is still relevant to individual would be claimants, though. Even though Egypt and Sudan don't want to claim the region I don't think they're too keen on random third parties staking a claim either. You'd be surrounded unfriendly governments.

samdung 10y ago

Came across Liberland about a year ago and filled a citizenship form on their site (https://liberland.org/ https://liberland.org/) out of curiosity. I occasionally get their newsletter. Altogether i find this a an occasional and nice distraction from my work. Maybe this is how all countries came into existence.

h4nkoslo 10y ago
Any country you can name came into existence when a collection of warlords established it by force. Ironically, you would expect libertarians to know this better than others.
- vacri 10y ago
  The Vatican City came into existence because Mussolini, a warlord, specifically did not want to move against the pope, and the VC was born out of a sort of gentleman's agreement: you don't denounce me, and you get your own country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City#Lateran_treaties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City#Lateran_treaties
  - martey 10y ago
    I think it's extremely unlikely that Vatican City would be independent except for the previous existence of the Papal States and the way that they were incorporated into Italy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_in_the_Vatican https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_in_the_Vatican https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Question
- wallace_f 10y ago
  NZ came into existence relatively peacefully. It was not predominately created by force.
  - martey 10y ago
    I am not sure when you consider New Zealand to have "come into existence", but wouldn't the Musket Wars and the New Zealand Wars contradict this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Wars

frozenport 10y ago

Obviously its not a real state because it doesn't have a `Monopoly on violence`.

coldtea 10y ago
Obviously, and non ironically, yes. Seeing that what makes a state a state, is the ability to keep others who want to run it/claim it for themselves, outside which takes (among other things) violence.
- ommunist 10y ago
  Yeah! Basically these days you need a nuke and to demonstrate that you are ready to use it.
  - jandrese 10y ago
    Not necessarily a nuke, but you need an army or friends with armies otherwise someone else is going to march their army in and take your land.

shp0ngle 10y ago

From what I know about this guy's project, he is more concerned about PR, going around taking money and talking at circlefriendly libertarian conferences than actually doing anything meaningful. Last I heard him talk at one conference, he was talking about making a Liberland app, that's Uber, AirBnB and ebay in one app, using smart contracts on blockchain. And it somehow connects to Liberland. So yep, I don't see this as a serious attempt. Edit: here is the app, I have no idea what is it actually doing. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=cz.liberland.services&referrer=utm_source%3Dgoogle%26utm_medium%3Dorganic%26utm_term%3Dliberland+mobile+app&pcampaignid=APPU_1_eXcpWLTeG6zKgAacmo7IDQ https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=cz.liberland.s...

madaxe_again 10y ago
Totally. If he were serious about his libertarian ideals he'd bear arms against the police and declare war between his state and his neighbours - or is he waiting for a pro bono pmc to do it for him, in true quasi-libertarian-but-actually-fascist style?
- muninn_ 10y ago
  So you can only be serious about political ideas if you start shooting cops? Nonsense.
  - madaxe_again 10y ago
    Why? One of the pillars of statehood is self defence. His political ideal is founding a state, not promulgating an ideology. To be clear I'm not suggesting that he should, but if he wishes to found a libertarian state, that would be the correct step. Can you think of any state that had a non-violent birth?
    - soneca 10y ago
      Brazil became independent without a war.

dandare 10y ago

I for one don't see a point in these micro countries - they are philosophically inconsistent, nothing more than a make believe game for adults. What if I came to said Liberland and claimed one of the corners of the island for myself?

max_ 10y ago

Just applied for the citizen application form :) http://liberland.org/en/request/ http://liberland.org/en/request/

drej 10y ago

I've been following this for a while now - I actually met this guy in a pub a few years ago, a friendly chap. While I don't subscribe to his ideology, I do wish him luck. As long as they are not harming anyone, I encourage people to push the limits of all sorts of established ideas, including big things like starting a country. I'm still not sure - and nobody is I guess - if it's sincere, a PR stunt, or a scam, I guess it will take a while longer for us to find out. In the meantime, let's hope it's resolved in a friendly and peaceful manner and all the best to his new family (both literally and figuratively).

ommunist 10y ago

This is really interesting and reminds me of legal grounds for Lacota Republic in the middle of the US. Lacotas insist that white people did not fulfilled the contract that was with their forefathers, so Lacota current lands use legislation framework is void. However, Lacotas do not have enough nukes to enforce the consequences of white people misbehaviour, so the illegal use of their lands by the self-proclaimed "The United States" continues.

pif 10y ago

> a land with no compulsory taxes, no gun control, with Bitcoins as currency. There's a name for this: "wildlife". Humanity knows it very well. We escaped it as soon as possible.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

igor_varga 10y ago

As someone who grew up and lived very close to that area I find this free-state territorial claim attempt deeply disturbing and here are some reasons for that. Probably most important is psychological one since there was a war and violent clash between disputed sides in the 1990s and that land was claimed in very similar manner like this guy is attempting now. Coming there with such claims is very wrong and locals and authorities from both sides will be irritated by such attempts. This guy's sad interpretation of current dispute situation would be something like: there is a free piece of land and everyone is invited to claim it. That is far away from reality. There is a dispute about that area but that doesn't mean that it doesn't belong to anyone and that it is not controlled. At the moment land part access is controlled by Croatian police and river access by both sides. Legally that land still belongs to Serbia and that comes from last legal border agreement between two sides which is constitution document of Yugoslavia dating from 1974. Borders between countries were defined back then very precisely but that document is subject of dispute from 1990s till now. Dispute and border changes were caused by war, politics and riverbed changes. Both river and land were used for years by locals as a result of agreement between disputed sides in order enable local population to access that area without too much hassle by the border police. Now, thanks to this idiot, locals are banned from using it any more. Besides collecting a lot of money for his agenda from similar people like him around the world, that is the only concrete result of his actions.

jdmichal 10y ago
> Legally that land still belongs to Serbia and that comes from last legal border agreement between two sides which is constitution document of Yugoslavia dating from 1974. That was my initial thought also. One side proposed a new border, and the other side didn't accept. That does not mean it's free land; that means that the status quo continues. It seems to me the moral equivalent of offering $1 for a house, being rejected, then thereby claiming it's free for the taking...
paxcoder 10y ago
The BBC article claims Croatia doesn't want the land because claiming it would validate Serbia's interpretation of the borders leaving Croatia with less land over all. I can't find the relevance of years 1974 and 1990 in the wikipedia article[1]. The article describes a long-standing dispute last addressed in 1948. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatia–Serbia_border_dispute#Start_Of_The_Dispute https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatia–Serbia_border_disput...

Unbeliever69 10y ago

Let us not forget Ziqistan! http://www.zaqart.com/zaqistan/zaqistan.shtml http://www.zaqart.com/zaqistan/zaqistan.shtml

donretag 10y ago

"he can build a temporary settlement on houseboats on the Danube" Reminds me of the movie "Crna Macka, Beli Macor (Black Cat, White Cat)"

gravypod 10y ago

This guy very much reminds me of Dave from the Republic of Dave in Fallout 3. A little quarky but he thinks he can do it. It's interesting to see if he can do this as it would set an interesting geopolitical precedent for the area.

unicornporn 10y ago

Related: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladonia_(micronation) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladonia_(micronation)