Project Lawless Frontier

There seems to have been a rise in anarchic discussions on ILP; Myself, uglypeoplefucking, Pezer and James L.Walker (aka the Joker) being a large contributor to that.

Out of us four ugf and I do not not support or endorse anarchy. And my politcal views are unique/complicated. Though we seem to agree on some key things.

Anyway I’ve been thinking of a “resolution” to this conflict of interests.

This is of course completely theoretical so don’t hound me for details, at least not all at once.

What if a territory were drawn up (large is size, think Alaska though not necessarily there) for all these dissedants to live with no laws/taxes etc.

The only rule being they must remain in the territory (not sure whether or not they would be aloud to trad with the outside world either).

Now this is just a thought ,as I write this (and it’s been an idea in my head for a while) I can predict a myriad of problem and holes in this plan.

But there it is, tell me what you think.

I think that it could work, except for the obvious argument that they are being, “Governed,” simply by being relegated to that territory. In that event, I would actually be inclined to agree with the Anarchists, we already have a place set aside for those who do not follow society’s Rules in which they can all live together…and it is called prison.

This would be something along the lines of how Austrailia started out, I would say, just a voluntary Austrailia.

Believe me I’m already aware of those two issues, That in a sense it is “governed” and that it could be seen as a prison.

I’d say the differance though is that there are no prison guards on the inside, they wouldn’t necessarily be dangerous criminals and it wouldn’t be exclusively a male population(in theory).

if this is your idea of an experiment to test the idea of anarchy, it’s ridiculously flawed. not allowing them to trade with outsiders? that’s crippling. that’d be like trying to test if George is faster than Larry, but before the race you cut Larry’s Achilles Tendons, and then when he loses you take that as evidence that Larry could never have beaten George, and he’s somehow inherently slower. So yeah, that’s “the hole in the plan.” The hole is that when you deliberately cripple one person in the race, OBVIOUSLY they’re going to lose.

I actually hadn’t decided if that would be a condition so hold your horses.

The two reasons i was considering that as a condition is

1: To see if Anarchism can be self sufficent i.e not reliant on outside trade.

2: Don’t want them manufacturing illegal “goods” and smuggling them into the land of law.

  1. why? the present form of statism isn’t self-sufficient – I don’t know if you’re aware of it, but the US govt is in a ridiculous amount of debt. so, not only is it not self-sufficient, it doesn’t seem to be doing very well even with the ability to trade and make/take loans from other nations. statism has the advantage of external trade and it still doesn’t seem to be working so well, why would you take away that advantage to test an alternative system? i don’t get it.
  2. people already do that though, in the land of the law and in mexico

The thing about permitting trade is that you are then relying upon the goods of a Governed country for your survival, which would seem somewhat hypocritical, and if not hypocritical, than antithetical, to your goals. Even with that possibly being the case, I still think you should be allowed to trade if that is what your horde chooses to do, in full or in part.

You guys are going to have the built-in problem about how to trade in bulk without anything being Legislated, though. For example, I’m not going to send a boat or a plane over to your place for 100 bushels of corn if I am looking to trade something for corn. I guess that’s what really confuses me about Anarchy. An Anarchist society would still require organizational socialization and there would still be a Social Contract resulting in de facto guidelines and standards for both behavior and business. These guidelines may not be expressly codified and may even be flexibile, which is a huge difference between that and the present forms of Government we see, but I really fail to understand how it does not constitute a loose Government, just one that is called something else. It can be static, very static, in fact, but it still has the purpose of social organization for the betterment of a community on the whole, or so many Anarchists claim.

The only true Anarchy, in my opinion, it would seem, is a literal dog-eat-dog, “Every man for himself,” kind of thing. I think it is readily apparent to all why that would go to shit in a real hurry. There are certainly people who want the whole thing to go to shit, don’t get me wrong, so that would satisfy their goals, but many Anarchists seem to still want a functional society, to some extent. I think they’re just calling loose Government something else.

I would actually do the opposite of cripple you for this Social Experiment. I would suggest you take a populace of maybe 2,000 volunteers and slap them somewhere where there are inpenetrable walls surrounding it to the extent that if they want to engage in trade, helicopters will fly in if whoever owns the choppers chooses to trade. You would give these people, “Prime Real Estate,” in terms of natural resources and the basic infrastructure needed for electricity, heat, a hospital, so on and so forth. See how they do. It’d be interesting. Impractical, but interesting.

I’d say you check on them in fifty years, or so, and see how the whole thing went. Are they all dead? Starving? Did they turn to a Government other than a loose one?

I’m down, just put us on an area that has all the basic resources to survive if you will decide not to trade with us. If you decide to trade, but us somewhere with at least one good source of resources.

There seems to be a sense that “we wouldn’t take it because an icky statist gave it to us,” but I would jump all over that fucker.

I have in fact been making plans involving areas of the world with veery little governmental prescence, like Guyana right next to Venezuela.

But if you told me that “the empire” set up a territory where they would not fuck with you and you would have resources available to you, then I would have an instant orgasm and then move there. Most likely a trap, I’ll reckon, but an anarchist non-state is unfathomable enough as it is, best to give it every chance its got.

My god!!! Common ground!!!

Congrats Stoic. now let’s see what UPF and Joker have to say.

Ok, I read a bit of PAv’s last post and, I must say, an impenbetrebale wall all around would be a deal braker.


Here’s the thing about the wall. You don’t want to be subject to any laws, right? If you don’t want to have a wall, then there would be a fence, or something that you could easily cross that is otherwise apparent. If you come off of your territory, then you will be subject to the laws of the territory you step onto. Giving you free reign from being Governed everywhere defeats the purpose of giving you your own area entirely.

Isn’t the personal income tax 33.3% in Guyana? Regardless of what you make? FREEDOM!!!

We’re trying, Stoic’s idea, though, you’re right about that.

I ask you sir, do you think anybody is paying those taxes down there?

About the wall, well, call me a visual person but I’m not down. Maybe a bright, fluorescent blue line that is constantly upkept? With supervisors on your side and random anarchists on ours overlooking the whole thing.

I don’t care as long as there is some kind of clear division and you all know that you will be subject to our laws anytime you cross it.

I believe people are paying the taxes, at least, for the most part. I believe that Guyana had a number of different taxes, at one point, which resulted in a highly complex system by which taxes were easily evaded. The result was they came up with a simple personal income tax of 33.3%, which makes it much more difficult to evade taxes. I suppose if you found a place working, “Under the table,” or worked for yourself and under-reported, you might have a chance. I obviously have no idea to what degree of effectiveness they police people getting paid under the table.

Guyana is a world capital of criminal mining; that is, mining without permits and without paying taxes. Basically, the only resources it has that are worth a shit are illegally extracted with no cut for the gvmnt (except the private pockets of the corrupt facilitators).

Now, the only question is: where could such an anarchist colony be placed?

Being an almost completely theoretical plan at this point I hadn’t decided, It did seem like the most likely possibility. What alternative would you propose.

I’ve never like walls in the sense of political dividers, they always seem to worsen relations, making the “us an them” mentallity grow. But seeing as how they would be seperated from the rest of "the

That sounds like a DMZ, that seems like a viable alternative, though i’d imagine there would still be some sort of physical barrier rather than just a line on the ground.

Asia, North/South America, Africa, Europe.

South America ,Asia and Africa seem more likely.

I can envisioned certain areas in each that may work (well, as well as I someone who doesn’t endorse anarchism thinks they could work.)

Irrelevant, it’s purely conceptual. We have no way of actually effectuating it, so physical locale doesn’t matter.

Well i’d say we could put that issue on the back burner for the moment.

You’re imposing your own vision of what anarchy is. And you’re not even an anarchist. You’re not really qualified to say what is and isn’t hypocritical if you don’t even know or understand the principles backing it.

No, it’s not hypocritical. No voluntary trade between two people, even if one of those people is a statist, is in any way wrong or hypocritical or anything. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.