Secession ? One Lot at a time? (Freedom Zones)

[LiveFree]

Thank you, freedom-baker and fsp-ohio for addressing the argument.  After thinking about the CJ system, and all the crap that comes with it in our "civil society" and then thinking over my current situation, I came to the conclusion that I would be much better off in a so called "freedom zone" if I actually owned property.

Do you guys think that an idea like this could work in urban areas, or rural only?  I'm thinking this could actually reduce crime, as some that "criminal element" I talked about would get weeded out pretty quickly if they started wandering into the wrong areas.  I also think I most people could save money on things like protecting their homes and property if they used a private service like ADT instead of paying taxes to the municipality for police.

My only real hesitation here is in the arbitration department.  Prison is expensive, and if I found some scumbag that committed a property crime against me, I definitely wouldn't feel like paying for their jail term, but I wouldn't want to let them go, either.  Now, in one of these "freedom zones" I wouldassume it'd be perfectly "legal" to just open fire on property offenders when they're in your "zone," but what if you go the police subscription route and they actually catch the guy (yes, I know, long odds there, another reason I'm warming up to this "freedom zone" idea, not that I think it's very practical to hope for anytime soon), then what?

[maineiac]

So what happens when some robber figures out you live in one of these freedom zones, and breaks in, makes off w/ your stuff, and you weren't home?  Before you say "I have a security system" or "I have mean, viscious dogs!" consider that they might have already thought of that, and taken measures to get around it, knowing that the police will be powerless to investigate.  While I don't want SWAT cops ripping the walls out of homes and murdering 90 year old women on the tips of convicts, and worse yet, lying to get their warrants, I also don't really mind having to pay for investigative services when they aren't grossly inefficient. And before you start talking about a private justice system, consider that nobody would respect its authority, or bother to show up for their day in "court", I know I wouldn't.

There are certain advantages to civil society that I don't think many people are taking into consideration when they propose sovereignty ideas such as this one.

There's a government apologist around every corner! ???

Either that, or LiveFree needs some serious unconditioning.

"Given the black record of governments over the ages . . . " --paraphrasing Rothbard on trying Freedom.

[Russell Kanning]

So what happens when some robber figures out you live in one of these freedom zones, and breaks in, makes off w/ your stuff, and you weren't home?

The same as now.
I have not had a car stolen since I moved from SoCal to Keene, NH. Do you think that is because there is better government here ... or better society ... or better people ... or something else?

[eques]

There's a government apologist around every corner! ???

Either that, or LiveFree needs some serious unconditioning.

"Given the black record of governments over the ages . . . " --paraphrasing Rothbard on trying Freedom.

Remember, man, it's like The Matrix... they're all trapped in their own little dream world... all of them, potential allies... and potential enemies.

Or something like that. 

[FrankChodorov]

So what happens when some robber figures out you live in one of these freedom zones, and breaks in, makes off w/ your stuff, and you weren't home?

The same as now.
I have not had a car stolen since I moved from SoCal to Keene, NH. Do you think that is because there is better government here ... or better society ... or better people ... or something else?

NH has one of the highest ratings of "social capital" based on trust of any state in the nation because of their lack of diversity.

SoCal has one of the lowest...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital

[freedom_baker]

LiveFree, I think this idea could work in both rural and urban areas.  You could probably make a bigger 'freedom zone" in a rural area because land is much cheaper.

Yes, I acknowledge your point about the arbitration department.  However, I'd like to point out that protection of civil liberties comes with a price.  If the police catch the bad guy, you'll have to decide to what to do and ultimately pay for that choice.  That's the crux of the freedom zone; you are to free to do what you want but you have to bear the costs for your actions.  No one's going to subsidize you or your property.

Thus, if you own expensive stuff, you better buy some insurance, hire some security, or keep your valuables in a safe and secure location.

Thank you, freedom-baker and fsp-ohio for addressing the argument.  After thinking about the CJ system, and all the crap that comes with it in our "civil society" and then thinking over my current situation, I came to the conclusion that I would be much better off in a so called "freedom zone" if I actually owned property.

Do you guys think that an idea like this could work in urban areas, or rural only?  I'm thinking this could actually reduce crime, as some that "criminal element" I talked about would get weeded out pretty quickly if they started wandering into the wrong areas.  I also think I most people could save money on things like protecting their homes and property if they used a private service like ADT instead of paying taxes to the municipality for police.

My only real hesitation here is in the arbitration department.  Prison is expensive, and if I found some scumbag that committed a property crime against me, I definitely wouldn't feel like paying for their jail term, but I wouldn't want to let them go, either.  Now, in one of these "freedom zones" I wouldassume it'd be perfectly "legal" to just open fire on property offenders when they're in your "zone," but what if you go the police subscription route and they actually catch the guy (yes, I know, long odds there, another reason I'm warming up to this "freedom zone" idea, not that I think it's very practical to hope for anytime soon), then what?

[David]

Rural or urban?  That is a toughie, because both have seeming advantages.  There are statists in both.  The higher populations in urban areas mean more statists, but it also means more victims of the statists, and if there are enough people resisting the gov't, in theory a group could 'hide' out in plain site.  Of course in rural you can just plain hide, but this is becomeing increasingly difficult.  The biggest advantage of rural, is the ability to start something with less resistance. 
For example, if a group that didn't follow regs. and did'nt pay taxes formed in the city, the persecution would be from all layers of gov't.  The main difference is in the city there is more gov't and its many sympatizers. 
Gov'ts are threated by resisters because of loss of income, and the fear of loss of control.  Control is important of course because no gov't can survive mass resistance, and every gov't knows it.  Due to the enormous money and power in gov't, there are a large number of vested interests.  These non gov't groups are also directly threated by resistance.  Of course, the rural has less of all these things. 
The greatest advantage a city provides, is allies, and sympathetic onlookers.  Allies are generally victims of gov't.  Sympathetic onlookers are the media, and persons nearby, neighbors who know that you are not a threat.  This is where nonviolent resistance can be most effective, and in fact vital to maintain any sympathy from peaceful people. 
I personally lean towards the rural areas, because I believe it is easier to create something new than to challenge the vested interests and statism rampant in every corner of the globe.  But at some point it may not make any difference and the only place for freezones to develope will be in the cities, or very extreme places like near the artics, or very high mountains where it is still very possible to avoid the gov't arm. 

[error]

A thief who refuses to make restitution for a property crime he committed in a "freedom zone" is going to find his life terribly difficult from that day onward, because virtually nobody in one of these "freedom zones" will have anything to do with him, and not too many people in the "government zones" will either.

[freedom_baker]

People in general who choose not to be a part of civil society usually have a hard time through life.

Regarding making freedom zones in urban or rural areas, I like urban areas better.  The logistics are easier.  Security is simpler because a residential lot is much easier to protect than a 5 acre ranch.  You just declare a freedom zone on the lot your house is on.  Then you make some agreements with your municipal services and keep paying the bills.  Life doesn't have to change too much unless you want it too.  It's added flexibility so you can still be integrated into society but have your little 100x90 ft plot of freedom when/if you want it.

For instance, you'd like to homeschool or you want to be a nonregulated alcohol wholesaler and you don't particularly care about any other issues.  An urban freedom zone would be perfect.

[KurtDaBear]

I don't think the idea of "urban" Freedom Zones is realistic.

After all, "urban" is "city," and a city is a governmental entity formed by a group of people who got together and said, "We don't have enough government here; let's form a municipality and take it to the next level."

Cities are run by people who thrive on uniformity, orthodoxy, and legal authority.  They're not going to "cut a deal" with anyone over utilities, except when they say, "You owe us a special assessment for your mandatory hook-up to our sewer system, and if you pay us the $23,000, we'll let you keep your house."

And they're certainly not going to turn a blind eye to you setting up a blind pig in the middle of their carefully zoned and regulated city.

No, the only way to have a "Freedom Zone" is to get so far out in the boonies that the authorities don't want to bother with you unless you do something really over the top.

[David]

That is true about the utilities.  The more reliant a person is on the gov't and even private system, the more a gov't can cut off in an attempt to hurt you.  Private businessess will bend over backwards to cooperate with gov't to avoid being targeted themselves. 

[cyberdoo78]

I agree with Kurt, you can't build a home that doesn't use utilities(they won't let you). You can't convince enough people to let you establish a 'Freedom Zone'. You really need to start from scratch.

That's what I am doing. I'm looking to purchase a large chunk of land with the help of others and form sometype of 'Freedom Zone' there. I don't know how exactly I'm going to do this. I need to get to New Hampshire to find a nice 100 or so acres for about 10 families of about 4 people each. With the purpose to create something from nothing.

I know there are quite a few people who are interested in an idea like this, some projects who have started but stalled. Don't know yet, still working on it.

[David]

Awesome.  There is at least a small handfull of folks that would like to do this, myself included.  But it seems that no one has money to get it rolling. 

[cyberdoo78]

Awesome.  There is at least a small handful of folks that would like to do this, myself included.  But it seems that no one has money to get it rolling. 

You are exactly right on that issue. I'm still formulating my idea and outline. There are two options open to us. One is the normal and most usual way which is to buy the land, which we all agree is difficult to do. I've got some background in creative financing and I've been a car salesman so I think it is possible to perhaps get some owner financing going.

There is the often unexplored option as well. I've been reading about anarchy and various different beliefs and some of them rationalize that one can not own that which one has not put in their labor to. So most undeveloped land falls into this category. The thought is you can't not own what you have not exchanged your labor for. That all land has be illegally claimed by government and then sold to people, so their title to the land is illegal. If this is true, and they haven't worked the land then they don't rightfully own the land. This was the concept of Homesteading that seems to have been lost over the years. I don't know if I like this idea or fully accept the idea but its out there.

Perhaps with 10 families or so we could get enough money to float the project. I was thinking 10 acres per family should be enough for us to feed, clothe, and raise our families. I don't want to get into a formal associations with anyone, thats how this government got started and now look at it.

I think there are few certain things that 'community' is good for, trading and mutual protection to name a few. Perhaps in time, we may find ourselves establishing a government, who knows? I'm not for government, as I am interested in trying out this anarchy idea and see how it goes.

Sometime in the near future I'm going to perhaps get a group together and move on this. My biggest problem is that I am not on the ground in NH yet. I don't think a group would be effective without someone on the ground to do the leg work needed for this type of project. So we will see what we will see.

For anyone else who is interested, please PM me with your email address, if you want to, so I can keep you in mind when I do this.

[Caleb]

Philosophy of land ownership is complicated. I, for one, have come around to the idea that there can be no *absolute* ownership of land, since it is not produced by labor, and since its use can potentially infringe on the inalienable rights of others to the fruits of their labor.

Nonetheless, this is an issue that ought to be put on the back burner for awhile; there is an evil empire to take on first.

I like the idea of a group of people owning land together and developing it under private deed. There have been other threads that deal with some of these ideas.  You might try doing a search for "porcupine acres"

Caleb