[HN Gopher] Croatia demolished houses of libertarian project "Li...
___________________________________________________________________
Croatia demolished houses of libertarian project "Liberland",
seized property
Author : acadapter
Score : 165 points
Date : 2023-09-24 08:08 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (liberlandpress.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (liberlandpress.com)
| runnr_az wrote:
| Sounds like they're at war with Croatia
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| It sounds like a silly project, but there is no reason to not be
| more respectful in kicking these people off of this unclaimed
| land.
|
| I am an old man, so apologies in advance for making an old man
| comment: in all of my travels, I have uniformly found people kind
| and decent and I have found governments to be fucked up. To be
| honest, there are a (very) few governments on our planet that I
| respect so maybe my generalization is unfair.
| lamontcg wrote:
| > I have uniformly found people kind and decent
|
| There's a whole ton of assholes out there. You can get ripped
| off in any culture if you don't watch your back.
| jq-r wrote:
| Interestingly there were no major (or minor) media articles about
| this at all (or at least what I usually follow). Which goes to
| say that it was either a cover-up or parts of Croatia don't exist
| outside of major cities. From my experience its more of the
| latter as Croatia's public media houses are notoriously terrible
| and they don't bother reporting on something unless you literally
| write an article for them.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| "A cover up"???
|
| "Teeny group of squatters get evicted" isn't exactly headline
| news in most places.
| jq-r wrote:
| Please re-read my comment. Just to reiterate; I don't think
| it was a cover up. It just happened far enough from a major
| city that nobody bothered to report on it.
| PeterisP wrote:
| It's simply something so tiny and irrelevant (unless you have a
| special interest in libertarian experiments) that it doesn't
| warrant major or minor media articles - from the pictures it
| looks like the officials enforced a building regulations issue
| for 2-3 tiny cottages/sheds that somehow involved (but clearly
| couldn't house) a community of 19 people. Like, that's not news
| - the outcome of that thing was as expected, no surprises there
| and such things are routine - every day there are multiple
| building code enforcements on larger, more significant
| buildsites. Why should general media care about this one in
| particular?
|
| I'd assert that demolishing some illegally built sheds in the
| backyard of some locally popular actor, politician or
| businessman (I'd assume Croatia has hundreds people each of
| whom are more widely known there than Liberland is) would be
| far more newsworthy than this, but still likely not newsworthy
| enough for most media, perhaps only as a filler for some
| celebrity gossip yellow press.
| jq-r wrote:
| Oh don't get me wrong, I thought it was just a bit funny
| and/or ironic because the media will write about even the
| most mudane things if they are easy to write about. Something
| happens outside of a major city where nobody was seriously
| injured, no public figures explicitly involved, or there were
| no major crimes commited - it's very unlikely it'll end up in
| the news.
|
| I'm 100% sure if this happened near some major city, it would
| be top 5 news item of that day. But alas, it happened in the
| middle of nowhere, so it kind of not happened if you get my
| meaning.
| kderbyma wrote:
| shoot first, ask invaders later...
| RetroTechie wrote:
| Context:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatia%E2%80%93Serbia_border_...
| acadapter wrote:
| Yes, it's a messy place they they selected for their "free
| state"...
| capableweb wrote:
| It's either choosing a "no mans land" and hope they'll ignore
| you until you're established, or you chose something that
| isn't no mans land, and expect them to come knocking very
| quickly.
|
| You can't really occupy useful land without expecting quick
| and dire consequences.
| notpushkin wrote:
| I'm pretty sure Liberland's case classifies as "no man's
| land" (neither of the bordering countries wanted it, and
| nobody else bothered with it, too). Still, once Liberland
| established a country there, suddenly everybody wants it.
|
| I think nowadays you can't properly set up a new state,
| period. It's just impossible. Currently existing states
| would do anything to push you out (unless you maybe play
| along with their political games somehow - and even then
| you get maybe just a tiny bit of recognition).
| dist-epoch wrote:
| > _I think nowadays you can 't properly set up a new
| state, period. It's just impossible._
|
| Scotland had a chance, but the population democratically
| refused to take it.
| jrockway wrote:
| > I think nowadays you can't properly set up a new state,
| period.
|
| You probably can, but just not where people want to. It
| all comes down to whether your country wins the military
| battles that inevitably take place, and one modern
| soldier can really do a lot these days. The US exists,
| for example, because the British absolutely bungled the
| response to the revolution. Nowadays, it would take a lot
| more incompetence from their end to lose territory; if
| the ground troops are all neutralized, just hit 'em with
| an ICBM or something. It's crazy the amount of resources
| you'd be up against.
|
| People are trying to secede from countries that literally
| have nuclear weapons. Your 3D printed guns aren't going
| to win against that. But, if you're fighting the local
| warlord or whatever, you probably have a chance.
| akkartik wrote:
| You _could_ secede from a nuclear power. Most sane people
| tend to not want to use them in /near their territory.
|
| So it's not enough to have military power, you need also
| the political will to use it. I get the sense India
| exists because the British were fatigued after WWII.
| There just wasn't the will to try to hold on to something
| they didn't feel like they had the moral right to
| anymore.
| jrockway wrote:
| That's a very good example. In my mind I was thinking
| about the Falklands ("the empire strikes back" magazine
| cover floats ominously), but yeah. Britain could have
| nuked India if they wanted to. Civil wars are weird.
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| > I think nowadays you can't properly set up a new state
|
| South sudan and east timor would have a word.
| jacquesm wrote:
| You can, but you'll have to budget for a sizeable army if
| you want to keep it.
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| Eh, Costa Rica does fine with no military. Eventually
| when Serbia calms down and joins the EU, there will
| effectively be no need for a standing army (like other
| European microstates)
| notpushkin wrote:
| Probably, yeah. And sizable in this case means that you
| not only need to be larger than Serbian and Croatian
| armies, but perhaps all of NATO as well.
| justinclift wrote:
| Nah.
|
| If these people had a reasonable functional economy
| (somehow), plus enough military gear/people to make it
| too costly to try invading, then they'd probably be
| ignored if they didn't cause trouble.
|
| That "enough military gear to make it too costly to try
| invading" is an absolutely key requirement though. In
| some ways similar to the China/Taiwan thing.
|
| China _could_ invade Taiwan (manpower wise, etc). Taiwan
| knows it though, so they 've focused their defences on
| asymmetric warfare. "You might take us, but you'll bleed
| forever from the attempt" kind of thing.
| gerikson wrote:
| Realistically, the only way to grow an economy in that
| area is via drug dealing, sex work, and unregulated
| immigration and unregulated manufacturing.
|
| At that point, it's basically academic whether the people
| running the place are ideologically committed
| libertarians or a heavily armed criminal gang.
|
| Additionally, if you want to go up against an armed
| force, the Croatian defense forces are more capable than
| most.
| justinclift wrote:
| > heavily armed criminal gang.
|
| That's nothing unusual though. Isn't every nation
| existing today the remains of a heavily armed gang of one
| sort or another?
|
| > ... drug dealing, sex work, and unregulated immigration
| and unregulated manufacturing.
|
| Those probably _wouldn 't_ qualify as "reasonable
| economy" though. Instead, those would lead to their
| neighbours being pressured to "do something" about them.
|
| Alternatives though... yeah, good question. _Maybe_ they
| could set up something online gambling wise, but it could
| run afoul of the same problem.
|
| _Maybe_ something high-tech instead, though the
| investment required up front would be... interesting to
| say the least. ;)
| notpushkin wrote:
| I think current course is to let IT companies set up
| presence in Liberland (for low taxes / less bureaucracy).
| I'm not sure how viable is that, given other governments
| are unlikely to recognize Liberland-registered legal
| entities at this point, thus disabling them from doing
| any actual business. (I might open one though sometime
| later, just as a novelty thing - for now :-)
| justinclift wrote:
| Reckon it'll generate enough revenue for a practical
| military force?
|
| If not, they're likely just wasting their time and
| effort.
|
| That aside, they'll need to be prepared to add other
| civilisation fundamentals as well. eg police, emergency
| services, medical facilities, etc.
| gerikson wrote:
| Online gambling is legal in most of the EU. It's better
| to set something like that up in Malta, which has the
| infrastructure.
|
| The area seems quite rural, is probably prone to
| flooding, and is reliant on Croatia for electricity and
| internet.
| justinclift wrote:
| Electricity could be the main problem. Starlink would
| probably be a practical internet provider though, rather
| than needing to go through a neighbouring country
| directly.
| anon84873628 wrote:
| Indeed, TFA includes a Starlink antenna in the list of
| items either destroyed or removed.
| pixl97 wrote:
| >ideologically committed libertarians or a heavily armed
| criminal gang.
|
| But you repeat yourself.
|
| Sorry if any ideologically committed libertarians are
| reading this thread, but libertarianism is one of those
| things that theoretically works and practically fails
| every time. People consolidate power into governments
| because it is effective.
| notpushkin wrote:
| Actually yeah, it makes sense, thanks. Still pretty hard
| though!
| cuu508 wrote:
| > I think nowadays you can't properly set up a new state,
| period.
|
| Couldn't an existing state democratically decide to split
| into two?
| masklinn wrote:
| It's also possible for a state to implode and multiple
| successors to arise eventually.
| PeterisP wrote:
| For example, Czechia and Slovakia.
| yankput wrote:
| you can set up a new state the way it always worked.
|
| With either a large swath of population to break away, or
| with a large army to take over some other population's
| land.
|
| I mean even Joshue needed to kill all the Canaanites to
| get to Israel (it's the point of Exodus that "your people
| will live in other people's houses").
|
| I don't think Jedlicka is 21st century's Alexander the
| Macedonian.
| masklinn wrote:
| > I'm pretty sure Liberland's case classifies as "no
| man's land" (neither of the bordering countries wanted
| it, and nobody else bothered with it, too). Still, once
| Liberland established a country there, suddenly everybody
| wants it.
|
| The reason "nobody wants it" is that it's similar to the
| Bir Tawil triangle: accepting it as part of your country
| means abandoning your claim on the larger and more
| valuable area linked to it in dispute.
|
| It does not mean a third party gets to come in and go
| "well if nobody wants it..." it's still part of the
| contention.
| trickstra wrote:
| > Wikipedia: In international law, terra nullius is
| territory which belongs to no state. Sovereignty over
| territory which is terra nullius can be acquired by any
| state by occupation.
|
| that sounds to me exactly like a third party coming and
| going "well if nobody wants it..."
|
| Of course, in reality it's always about whether or not
| you can defend your territory with military power. And it
| doesn't even need to be unclaimed.
| tw04 wrote:
| Right, but this is disputed land, not unclaimed land.
| trickstra wrote:
| I expected this comment. The same wikipedia page also
| says:
|
| > There are currently three territories sometimes claimed
| to be terra nullius: Bir Tawil (a strip of land between
| Egypt and Sudan), *four pockets of land near the Danube
| due to the Croatia-Serbia border dispute*, and parts of
| Antarctica, principally Marie Byrd Land.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_nullius
|
| Next, someone says that wikipedia is not a credible
| source.
| donpott wrote:
| > sometimes claimed
|
| Here, Wikipedia is faithfully recording that some people
| make that claim. It's not saying that there's a consensus
| or endorsing any claim or its contrary.
| tw04 wrote:
| The link quite clearly states the land is under dispute.
| While the two countries may disagree which of them owns
| it, they quite clearly agree nobody else does. I'm not an
| expert in international law, but I'm quite confident you
| would be laughed out of the room trying to claim
| ownership of the land in an international court.
| uxp8u61q wrote:
| That's just something someone wrote on Wikipedia. Do you
| think that if the liberland people showed the Wikipedia
| page to the police, they would have backed off? The only
| logical conclusion here is simply that the Wikipedia
| article is wrong.
| notpushkin wrote:
| Well, yeah, this is how it works now. It's still bullshit
| though.
| masklinn wrote:
| It's how it works always.
|
| If two heirs battle over shares and neither wants
| property A because it means giving up on the more
| valuable property B, property A is still part of the
| inheritance and you will get forcefully ejected if you
| declare that since nobody wants it property A is now
| yours.
| PeterisP wrote:
| It's not that "suddenly everybody wants it" - there
| literally haven't been any changes to Croatia (or Serbia)
| policy regarding the border.
|
| However, they are implicitly reasserting that no,
| Liberland did not establish a country there, that Croatia
| doesn't consider this as a state, that there is no such
| thing as Liberland.
|
| And perhaps they are intentionally making a point of it
| to demonstrate that yes, they can and will push it out if
| you make unwarranted claims of sovereignty without their
| consent - for example, prosecuting individuals for using
| fictitious passports, as according to Croatia Liberland
| and its passports are fictitious.
|
| The key part of setting up a new state is an agreement
| with your neighbours that they acknowledge your
| sovereignty over certain borders (i.e. "play along with
| their political games"), which certainly is possible as
| there have been multiple new states set up during 21st
| century, but until that is achieved, you don't really
| have a state.
| weinzierl wrote:
| Countries have to be strict on things that are
| detrimental to their existence. First and foremost they
| have to be stringent on taxes, but also on money
| laundering, gambling and sometimes ideology.
|
| A lot of countries maintain small areas where they are
| more relaxed about these things than in the rest of the
| territory they de facto control. Sometimes these areas
| are states in a federal system (Delaware), other times
| they take the form of special economic zones (Cayman
| Islands) but in a few cases they form de jure sovereign
| nations.
|
| I think the (more or less) hidden agenda of Liberland is
| to become the de jure sovereign, de facto tolerated,
| "special economic zone" of Croatia.
|
| When they will have built a hotel, the casino is probably
| not far and like the other tax haven, money laundering,
| gambling areas of this world it will be tolerated because
| it is of mutual benefit to them and their host country.
|
| If it pans out: new (de jure) sovereign nation, without a
| (significant) army.
| PeterisP wrote:
| Becoming de jure sovereign requires getting de jure
| recognition of others (even if you don't control the land
| de facto). It doesn't look like Croatia has even the
| slightest intent to recognize Liberland de jure, so
| whatever their agenda is, they aren't on their way to get
| there.
| gerikson wrote:
| It's only terra nullius because Croatia considers it to be
| Serbian territory according to its interpretation of the
| border, while Serbia is fine with it being part of Croatia
| according to their interpretation. Croatia claiming the
| territory would undermine their claim on much bigger land
| parcels now administered by Serbia.
|
| But that's de jure. De facto, it's part of Croatia, and as
| a basic national security issue Croatia isn't interested in
| letting squatters have free reign on a parcel of land
| adjacent to their border.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| can you say more about the 20th century involvement of
| Sweden, their government and bureaucracy, in re-shaping
| the Balkans since 1970 or so ? (all new to me, news media
| seems filled with ads)
| gerikson wrote:
| Sorry, not my area of expertise.
|
| I do know that parts of Swedish foreign aid is in the
| form of building public institutions, reforming tax
| collection, etc.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Sweden?? And surely the start date has to be 1991?
| EGreg wrote:
| I met Vit, like I met many other people in this space. At Brock
| Pierce's school in Washington DC, during Government Blockchain
| Association's event. We build the apps for their events and I
| have been meeting all kinds of people through these kind of
| conferences:
|
| https://community.intercoin.app/t/qbix-and-intercoin-around-...
|
| https://community.intercoin.app/t/greg-magarshaks-travelogue...
|
| I went to Honduras to see Prospera, and other "micronations" or
| libertarian experiments, and want to help them out. I interviewed
| Patri Friedman on our show (and if anyone knows Balaji
| Srinivasan, who wrote The Network State, please message me -- I'd
| love to interview him too)
|
| Say what you will about running a crypto startup, but I get to do
| fun things:
|
| https://community.intercoin.app/t/intercoin-mural-2-0/392
|
| https://community.intercoin.app/t/intercoin-mural-3-0/1061
| IOT_Apprentice wrote:
| Cosplayimg sovereign citizens eh?
| slater wrote:
| I wonder who the money person is, in this group. There's always
| at least one propping things up, with libertarians.
| AynRandQuote wrote:
| [flagged]
| ausbah wrote:
| "my ideology is the absolute objective truth and the opposite
| of my ideology is trash". no wonder no one takes her seriously
|
| or actually what's worse is someone made a whole throwaway
| account to post this one comment
| dang wrote:
| " _Don 't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them
| instead._"
|
| a.k.a. please don't feed the trolls
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| fkdsajfkldsj wrote:
| More like "this party plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes it
| with the exact opposite--with religionists, anarchists, and
| every intellectual misfit and scum they can find--and they
| call themselves Libertarians and run for office".
| bm3719 wrote:
| I suppose we all reserve our greatest ire for the apostate.
|
| If Rand were alive today, I'd probably respond by saying that
| as she identifies as a philosopher, she's (part of) the logos
| to libertarians' praxis. So, naturally there's going to be some
| sloppiness introduced into her conceptual ideal. That's there
| to account for the real world issues she didn't have to deal
| with alone at her typewriter, like how to get enough bodies to
| have a viable a political movement.
|
| Furthermore, what she's describing in the latter half are
| anarcho-capitalists, which are a small subset of libertarians.
| In fact, many (perhaps most) of them would be very uninterested
| in being labeled as such, thinking of libertarians at best as
| minarchists.
| mlinhares wrote:
| [flagged]
| rglullis wrote:
| > It's a mockery of philosophy and ideology.
|
| So is her Objectivism.
| dang wrote:
| " _Don 't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them
| instead._"
|
| a.k.a. please don't feed the trolls
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| atemerev wrote:
| Sovereignty is impossible without defense. Defense is impossible
| without credible deterrence. Deterrence forces of newly
| established states are probably impossible without private
| nuclear weapons.
| Simulacra wrote:
| You're not wrong. Most countries are just one pissed off
| dictator away from being overtaken. Western democracies have
| shown they are not willing to go to war over small countries
| anymore. If Germany annexed Austria, again, Europe is not going
| to go to war against Germany to save it.
|
| Austria, or any country can only be defended if they have their
| own nuclear weapons. That is the only deterrence that works.
|
| Unless one of those larger countries breaks up, there will be
| no new sovereign territories.
| arwineap wrote:
| I'm not an expert on geopolitics but I suspect the world
| would do more than raise eyebrows if Germany raised an army
| and invaded austria
| kergonath wrote:
| There is also the practical issue that the EU is
| fundamentally (and on purpose) a mutually assured
| destruction mechanism in such cases.
| PeterisP wrote:
| Sovereignty is clearly possible without defense as long as
| everyone around you acknowledge it, like all the European
| microstates listed in other comments.
|
| You don't need deterrence if there is noone to deter, which is
| the case iff any newly established states are established with
| a consensus of their neighbors.
| tgv wrote:
| Liechtenstein? Andorra? Luxembourg?
| thsksbd wrote:
| Lets add San Marino, Monaco and the Vatican for good measure.
|
| All those states have very specific historical reasons why
| they dodged unification with their surrounding countries. The
| most surreal being Monaco's sovereignty saved by Grace
| Kelly's fame as an actress moving American public opinion to
| pressure France not to swallow it.
|
| Also, note, that all the towns you listed are (historically)
| worthless border towns wedged between titans who would
| violently oppose their neighbor swallowing them. Sure, now
| those microstates are rich, but historically they were
| worthless and not worth war with a powerful neighbor to take
| over.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| > The most surreal being Monaco's sovereignty saved by
| Grace Kelly's fame as an actress moving American public
| opinion to pressure France not to swallow it.
|
| I'm not quite sure that this was the case. Monaco was
| independent long before Grace Kelly married the incumbent
| prince.
|
| The country is a tax haven, which seems to be enough for
| many micronations to survive.
| jonhohle wrote:
| Taiwan?
| thsksbd wrote:
| You're comparing an _island_ with _millions_ of people to
| Andorra?
|
| Except for Luxembourg a few hundred guys could besiege
| all of the states listed above. Ten thousand would
| suffice for Luxembourg. As it stands no one is really
| sure if China - with one of the the world's largest armed
| forced - could successfully invade Taiwan.
| radiator wrote:
| No, some people are sure that China could.
| panick21_ wrote:
| That's a country with 23 million people.
| SonicScrub wrote:
| > Sovereignty is impossible without defense. Defense is
| impossible without credible deterrence
|
| See above
| [deleted]
| beebeepka wrote:
| Is any of these countries really on their own?
| tgv wrote:
| Luxembourg certainly is.
| yreg wrote:
| Luxembourg is a founding NATO member.
| js8 wrote:
| They are often tax havens, which attract rich people and by
| taxing them very lightly, they are able to support a small
| local population. So there is desire on the part of rich
| elites to keep them.
|
| They're like parasites in a global economic system. Imperial
| powers are similar to carnivores, they can force their
| economic will onto other nations, but at the high cost of
| maintaining large military, and smaller nations that build up
| their economy are like herbivores, they focus on internal
| prosperity, rather than outside world.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| > Our legal position supporting our claim is clear: that the
| territory has never been part of Croatia and falls outside of its
| borders.
|
| My legal position is that I'm king of the universe, but I've had
| some difficulty getting recognition by other states.
|
| This will go down exactly how all these silly "sovereign
| citizen", seasteader, etc. type things go down. People have
| somehow forgotten that all of our "legal fictions" we've created
| are just that: fictions. They are general rules that we've set up
| to manage society, but unless you have the ability to back up
| your stance with force, or to convince someone else to back you
| with force, "legal positions" are meaningless.
| kderbyma wrote:
| yes....autocracy for the win....you are a awful human
| being.....enjoy you lack of humanity
| joe_the_user wrote:
| _They are general rules that we 've set up to manage society,
| but unless you have the ability to back up your stance with
| force, who to convince someone else to back you with force,
| "legal positions" are meaningless._
|
| These "market anarchists" have an odd need to believe that the
| literal interpretation of human-dreamed-up laws would will be
| sufficient to protect them forever. It seems like this belief
| goes with the need to believe that in their future "selfish-
| market-behavior-creates-mutual-benefit" society, the stronger
| won't use their strength to subjugate the weak.
| nsajko wrote:
| The whole Liberland micronation project was just a ridiculous
| publicity stunt and scam from the start.
|
| 1. The "unclaimed territory" story is a blatant lie.
|
| 2. The land in question (Gornja Siga) is a floodplain. It gets
| completely flooded with water multiple meters deep every couple
| of years.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberland
|
| EDIT:
|
| > Define "scam"? Who is trying to scam who in this situation?
|
| Jedlicka sold quite a few Liberland "citizenships".
| acadapter wrote:
| It is unclaimed if you choose to accept both the Croatian and
| Serbian border definitions at the same time (which they
| apparently have done)
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Seems like Serbia's position is that Croatia owns it and
| Serbia has no intent to administer it given that, while
| Croatia's position is that (1) either Serbia or Croatia owns
| it, (2) it's probably Serbia, and Croatia makes no positive
| claim, but also won't force the issue pending international
| arbitration to clarify the border, and (3) Criatia will
| continue administering it as an interim matter until the
| border is resolved.
|
| So it seems clear that (1) its either non-ceded Croatian
| territory being administered by Croatia with a diplomatic
| choice not to make an affirmative claim without arbitration
| of the border, or (2) it's by prior treaty Serbian territory,
| which may or may have been ceded to Croatia, which is being
| administered by Croatia without challenge to any rights
| Serbia (and only Serbia) may have.
| throwoutway wrote:
| In terms of international law, does Croatian law
| enforcement performing a court order and making arrests
| within the land, make this an affirmative claim? Otherwise
| wouldn't it be an cross-border action?
| tylergetsay wrote:
| Its not really meant as a "documentary" but more as
| entertainment, but a youtuber visited the area under this
| idea. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb8T9X5K1AA
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| HWR_14 wrote:
| You cannot accept both Croatia and Serbia's borders at the
| same time. Croatia's policy is Serbia has this worse land and
| they have a better plot of land. And Serbia's policy is they
| own the better plot and Croatia owns this worse plot.
|
| So, neither side claims it, because they both claim a better
| area. But whoever ends up losing the better area is going to
| take it.
| tptacek wrote:
| Without dignifying any of this supremely silly drama, that's
| not an option that logically avails. Both Serbia and Croatia
| agree that _one of them_ is getting this territory.
| yreg wrote:
| Neither of them claim it. Why is their opinion on land they
| do not claim relevant? (Other than because of force.)
| dragonwriter wrote:
| There's a border definition dispute where its unclear
| whose side this piece if land falls on, and where Croatia
| has decided (and Serbia has acceded to this decision) to
| administer it until the dispute is resolved.
|
| But there's no dispute that either Serbia or Croatia owns
| it, and it doesn't really matter, as to any third party
| attempt to set up a state in defiance of the _status quo_
| administration, whether Croatia is conducting non-hostile
| administration of Serbian territory with Serbian consent
| or administering its own territory.
|
| If there's a smudge in the only copy of a contract you
| can find and you think it called for a 60/40 split of
| profits from a certain kind of joint activity in your
| partner's favor, and they think it called for a 60/40
| split in your favor, there's 20% that is uncertain until
| some reolution is reached, but that doesn't mean that
| someone else can just restructure the deal unilaterally
| to be 40/40/20, which is (but for the actual numbers and
| the nonfungible nature of land) what Liberland is trying
| to do.
| yreg wrote:
| > The "unclaimed territory" story is a blatant lie.
|
| So who claims it?
| PeterisP wrote:
| Currently Croatia manages this territory as its own until the
| dispute is resolved; so while they don't claim that this is
| their de jure land in perpetuity, they clearly assert (and
| demonstrate with their actions as seen in this article) that
| their law applies there right now.
| the_mitsuhiko wrote:
| Both Serbia and Croatia agree that one of them owns it.
| kazinator wrote:
| Well, that's settled then! On to demolishing people's
| homes.
| tptacek wrote:
| If you build your home in the middle of Yellowstone Park,
| nobody's going to cry any tears when the Bureau of Land
| Management comes and tears it down. Don't build your
| house on land you don't own.
| mik1998 wrote:
| Apparently one of {Croatia, Serbia}. I think we need to
| consult the axiom of choice on this one.
| yreg wrote:
| That's not true. Neither of them claim it.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| The two sides disagree on the algorithm used to define the
| border. Croatia's algorithm gives it to Serbia and better
| stuff to Croatia. Serbia's algorithm gives it to Croatia and
| better stuff to Serbia. So neither claims it. But, nor will
| whoever loses the fight over the algorithm give it up either.
|
| That doesn't mean either side will accept some third party
| adding another algorithm and set of borders into the mix.
| lolinder wrote:
| Define "scam"? Who is trying to scam who in this situation? The
| Liberlanders feel more like a LARP group than any sort of
| pyramid scheme, and it's not like there was any serious risk of
| them actually receiving recognition and depriving the actual
| nations nearby of the (as you point out) worthless land.
|
| Edit: Replying to people by editing your own post is bad form.
| It makes the conversation very hard to follow.
|
| I fail to see how a Liberland citizenship is any more scammy
| than any of the other supremely silly things people decide to
| spend their money on. I'd like to see concrete evidence that
| people buying a Liberland citizenship thought they were paying
| for something real.
| karaterobot wrote:
| Behind any philosophical notions of statehood, a country is still
| just whatever territory your army can protect from other armies.
| dang wrote:
| Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents.
| They just lead to more predictable, and therefore boring and
| nastier, discussion.
|
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| boomskats wrote:
| And this is exactly why we must all remember to pledge 2% of
| our Gross Domestic Product to Lockheed Martin.
| belter wrote:
| Europe thanks you, so it can only pledge 1.5 %
| dvgddksj wrote:
| How much do we give to Apple?
| pjscott wrote:
| It's a little under 0.2%, using the revenue and GDP numbers
| from last year. (You might have misplaced the decimal point?)
| anon1199022 wrote:
| More like few trillion to Afganistan and Iraq with no real
| threat but idk, you can say whatever % too.
| alwa wrote:
| I wonder if the parent comment was referring to NATO's 2%
| Defense Investment Guideline [0], where NATO countries
| agreed in 2006 to spend 2% of their respective GDPs on
| defense. The Americans periodically get grumpy that the
| European countries tend to come in short of that target.
|
| [0] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm#ind
| irect
| PKop wrote:
| Non sequitur aside, given the outcome of this very situation,
| is it not true that power dictates (whether we like it or
| not)?
| enaaem wrote:
| Without your countries army, another army will come in. Kill
| or resettle your family to some shitty outback place and
| settle their own people on your property. Your property is
| acquired under your current government and your property
| rights is only valid under said government, another
| government can just rewrite the rules as they please. There
| is no such thing as "natural property rights".
| logicchains wrote:
| History's proven that completely false. A well armed
| militia of volunteers can defeat a much larger,
| professional, funded military, as the Taliban defeated the
| US. Similarly no country existing has any hope of
| successfully occupying the continental United States given
| how high the rate of weapon ownership there is
| enaaem wrote:
| Guess what the Taliban became (and already were)? Just
| another government with their own set rules and
| regulations. This is what every "independent militia" or
| warlord aspires to become.
|
| At this moment, several countries in the world can
| completely annihilate and depopulate the US. One of the
| things that are stopping them is... Lockheed Martin.
| EGreg wrote:
| [flagged]
| zapdrive wrote:
| Other countries "armies" are still walking right across the
| border and into the US.
| lostlogin wrote:
| Will it?
|
| Lots of countries have tiny armies, and those that have
| large ones aren't habitually invading their neighbours.
| There are a couple of potential exceptions to this, but
| it's been holding up pretty well.
| defrost wrote:
| For reference: Free Republic of Liberland is a
| sovereign state located between Croatia and Serbia. It is a 7 km2
| piece of land referred to as "Gornja Siga". The
| founder and elected head of state is President Vit Jedlicka.
| Liberland is a constitutional republic with elements of direct
| democracy. The state has two Vice Presidents and 5 Ministers. The
| language is English. The Liberland merit is the currency of
| Liberland. The country's motto is: To live and let live.
| After 8 years of international diplomatic efforts, Liberland
| recently opened its border with Croatia on the 6 August 2023.
| This marks a significant step forward for Liberland, followed by
| an active settlement of the land. The Liberland community aims to
| construct enduring structures to facilitate economic growth for
| both the residents of Liberland and the surrounding community.
|
| https://liberland.org/en/
|
| It's another postage stamp self declared sovereign state,
| although being bang in the midst of already disputed territory
| it's more interesting than, say, the Principality of Hutt River.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Hutt_River
|
| http://www.principality-hutt-river.com/
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| > being bang in the midst of already disputed territory
|
| It's kind of the logical opposite of disputed territory. Due to
| the nature of the dispute, the parcel is in territory that
| _neither_ side claims, if they are being consistent with their
| claims.
| [deleted]
| dist-epoch wrote:
| Neither country claims it, but both countries agree it
| belongs to one of them and that it's not free for taking for
| anybody else.
| PeterisP wrote:
| While it is unclaimed de iure due to a border dispute,
| Croatia is currently asserting its de facto sovereignty over
| this land, as clearly demonstrated in this event, with
| Croatia enforcing its laws in the area and ignoring or
| rejecting any claims of sovereignty of Liberland.
| ShrigmaMale wrote:
| Idk why the seeming schadenfreude. There seems to be this
| ridiculous idea now that no nation can possibly grow or shrink
| and that no new nations can break off or form, but that we must
| stick with the current set of nations and their boundaries ad
| infinitum. I don't get it.
| jcranmer wrote:
| The international communities do recognize the independence
| of countries--Timor-Leste and South Sudan are two countries
| that declared independence in the 21st century. However, when
| independence isn't mutually recognized by the former parent
| country, you get reluctance from the wider community to
| recognize it. Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan, and Western Sahara
| are functionally states with recognition issues best summed
| up as "it's complicated."
|
| The next clade of states are those formed during civil wars
| or other breakdowns of states, such as Somaliland or
| competing governments in Libya and Yemen. There's a
| preference by the international community to stitch countries
| back together rather than admit their dissolution. Partially,
| it should be recognized that states fracturing up this way
| tend not to produce stability--turning internal
| administrative boundaries into international boundaries makes
| life very bad for people on the wrong side of the border, and
| there's usually no easy solution to that. Partially, too,
| there's a desire to discourage wars. For similar reasons,
| there's also a clutch of unrecognized states that are
| essentially frozen conflicts being perpetuated by a third
| party (not uncoincidentally, most of these are in the former
| Soviet Union--see previous note about international borders).
|
| The final clutch of stuff is the performative micronation
| (cases like the state at question here), which is almost
| invariably about trying to evade the authority of existing
| states. And that should immediately explain why there is very
| little desire on the part of those states to sanction their
| existence.
| duskwuff wrote:
| I'd argue that there's a fourth, even lower tier: the
| roleplay micronation, whose "borders" are typically the
| walls of its creator's apartment, which engages in "foreign
| relations" by way of online forums, and whose "foreign
| imports" are typically from the supermarket.
|
| These are clearly of even less significance than the
| performative micronations in your classification. But at
| least their creators typically recognize this, and don't
| make claims which get them noticed by actual nations.
| sgt101 wrote:
| Everything is decided with violence one way or another.
| nathancahill wrote:
| Owning property is violence.
| logicchains wrote:
| Taking someone's property is violence.
| lamontcg wrote:
| Is taking land you don't own also violence?
| patrickaljord wrote:
| Is owning your body violence? Is your body your property?
| It needs violence to defend a property, but simply owning
| it is not violence.
| yankput wrote:
| Well let's see about Crimea
| Jensson wrote:
| > I don't get it.
|
| Propaganda works, that is all there is to get here.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| I don't need propaganda to be convinced: we tried the whole
| "borders can move, nations can break off" thing and it
| generally resulted in a lot of pain, death, and suffering
| in the previous century.
|
| It seems _especially_ tone-deaf calling it propaganda when
| we 're currently experiencing how it usually plays out with
| what started as a small scale conflict over borders in
| "Donbas".
| dragonwriter wrote:
| The Russo-Ukrainian war started as a large scale invasion
| of Ukraine, largely from Russias leased bases (inherited
| from the USSR and granted leases as part of thr
| settlement of the breakup of the USSR) in Crimea, leading
| to the seizure and illegal annexation of Crimea
| simultaneously with _large scale_ fighting in the Donbas.
|
| It didn't start as small scale fighting over borders in
| the Donbas.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| The invasion was a follow-up of events going back to 2014
| and earlier. It didn't happen out of the blue.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > The invasion was a follow-up of events going back to
| 2014 and earlier.
|
| The large scale invasion from leased bases in Crimea
| _occurred in_ 2014.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| We're in 2023, where the war in Donbas has erupted into
| an all out ground war in Ukraine covering at least 3x as
| much area, by comparison the original fight was a small
| scale conflict...
|
| This is that kind of nitpicking where you just make
| yourself seem lost in the conversation by taking an
| argumentative tone: Crimea and Donbas are both just
| examples of why pining for a world where borders are seen
| as flexible and flowing doesn't make sense.
|
| We're in a fully globalized world. Things are past the
| stage where anyone besides large countries looking to
| bully are able to move borders and keep them there. It
| doesn't really take propaganda to understand why that is:
| just looking at the current world is enough.
| Jensson wrote:
| So you think that oppressed people should just continue
| to lived with the oppressor instead of getting self
| determination and independence? That doesn't work out
| well, see countless examples many that are still there
| today like Xinjiang or Tibet.
|
| Self-determination is a core principle of international
| law, people arguing against it are almost always
| repeating propaganda points.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| > _Self-determination is a core principle of
| international law, people arguing against it are almost
| always repeating propaganda points._
|
| Arguably, the core principle of international law is,
| "everyone's got some slice of the planet, now let us all
| agree that past is past, and stick to the borders as they
| are now, so we can all focus on something more useful and
| mutually beneficial, instead of continuing to spend blood
| to adjust them". Attempts to change borders, or to create
| or remove countries, are _quite a big deal_.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| Are you really naive enough to think the oppressed would
| gain from flexible borders more than the oppressors in
| the modern world?
|
| Self-determination _at the level of the existing
| countries_ is a core principle, not the individual: that
| 's literally the reason we formed international law.
| mrtksn wrote:
| The problem with changing borders is that most of the time it
| happens with use of violence. Even if there is an ambiguity
| about the borders, it's obviously that the land would be
| claimed by one of the neighbors.
|
| Personally, I am very against borders(extremely unpopular
| position these days) and at the same time I'm very against
| changing borders.
|
| They should have entered politics, and create a community
| there, Within the framework of the current state. Or find a
| real unclaimed land that they can defend.
| Jensson wrote:
| > Or find a real unclaimed land that they can defend.
|
| That is what they did here, they still got bullied by other
| countries. International politics is mostly the strong
| bullying the weak, that is life but don't applaud it when
| it happens.
| mrtksn wrote:
| That's not what they did at all, it's just a 3rd claim on
| the disputed land. They are leveraging the ambiguity on
| the Serbian-Croatian border caused by the Danube river's
| changing flow. They are just trying to exploit a
| technicality, which is definitely entertaining.
| tetris11 wrote:
| Would this not just bring about a new era of warring city
| states, usually acting as puppets to other larger foreign
| powers, a la Italy before Italy?
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| Because the gravitational centre of HN politics has shifted
| massively.
|
| Look at the news sites that make it to the front page of
| hacker news. As of writing there's:
|
| - New York Times
|
| - PBS
|
| - The Guardian
|
| Do you expect the people that upvote these things to be
| sympathetic to libertarianism?
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Here's the 20 top sites from 2008 in the HN front-page
| archive:
|
| 2008: Distinct sites: 3458 Site
| Stories Points ( mean ) Comments ( mean )
| ------------------------------ ------- ------
| ---------- -------- ---------- n/a
| 1304 33699 ( 25.82 ) 44937 ( 34.43 )
| techcrunch.com 440 12437 (
| 28.20 ) 6954 ( 15.77 ) nytimes.com
| 333 7457 ( 22.33 ) 4817 ( 14.42 )
| wired.com 124 3166 (
| 25.33 ) 1818 ( 14.54 ) readwriteweb.com
| 103 1794 ( 17.25 ) 889 ( 8.55 )
| 37signals.com 101 3794 (
| 37.20 ) 2079 ( 20.38 ) economist.com
| 82 1686 ( 20.31 ) 858 ( 10.34 )
| wsj.com 76 2329 (
| 30.25 ) 2047 ( 26.58 ) alleyinsider.com
| 75 1597 ( 21.01 ) 980 ( 12.89 )
| arstechnica.com 74 1602 (
| 21.36 ) 672 ( 8.96 ) codinghorror.com
| 68 2284 ( 33.10 ) 1578 ( 22.87 )
| cnn.com 64 1620 (
| 24.92 ) 1249 ( 19.22 ) gigaom.com
| 58 1147 ( 19.44 ) 562 ( 9.53 )
| sethgodin.typepad.com 57 1548 (
| 26.69 ) 841 ( 14.50 ) youtube.com
| 57 1915 ( 33.02 ) 760 ( 13.10 )
| guardian.co.uk 53 1410 (
| 26.11 ) 914 ( 16.93 ) businessweek.com
| 52 1248 ( 23.55 ) 809 ( 15.26 )
| cnet.com 52 1108 (
| 20.91 ) 630 ( 11.89 ) bbc.co.uk
| 49 1059 ( 21.18 ) 757 ( 15.14 )
| yahoo.com 47 1070 (
| 22.29 ) 880 ( 18.33 ) mattmaroon.com
| 45 1762 ( 38.30 ) 1880 ( 40.87 )
|
| The only one from your list that's missing would be PBS
| (ranked 93 for 2008).
|
| By 2010 you could add theatlantic.com (#11) and npr.org
| (#23).
|
| Source: own research based on the HN front-page archive.
| pas wrote:
| https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/where-does-libertarianism-
| go-f...
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| People with common sense usually don't think much of
| libertarianism because of how pathetically worthless it is
| as an actual usable philosophy.
| paxys wrote:
| > There seems to be this ridiculous idea now that no nation
| can possibly grow or shrink and that no new nations can break
| off or form
|
| There is no such idea. Nations are created, destroyed, grow,
| shrink, break off etc. on a very regular basis. The
| difference is that the process happens via guns and blood,
| not a twitter account and "sovereign citizen" bullshit.
| hyperpape wrote:
| I believe that national borders can change, and new states
| can form.
|
| I don't see how that prohibits me from looking at this
| particular "state" and thinking "its chances are bad and
| there's no reason to hope it succeeds."
| sangnoir wrote:
| > I don't get it.
|
| The schadenfreude is because libertarians seem unwilling or
| unable to acknowledge the fact that violence trumps rules or
| contracts.
|
| When their pie-in-the-sky "micronations" face this
| unsurprising fact - typically at the hands of real nations,
| they act surprised every single time.
| anon84873628 wrote:
| I can't speak for Libertarians but I thought they were well
| aware of the coercive power of violence; the whole point is
| to build a state that does less of it...
| pjc50 wrote:
| As has been discovered, that doesn't prevent some other
| state from doing violence to you.
|
| The irony of doing this in former Yugoslavia is
| astonishing. Yes, states can fragment and borders can
| move .. at a considerable cost in human life. You can see
| it happening today in Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as the
| much more visible attempt by Russia to move the borders
| of Ukraine.
| anon84873628 wrote:
| Again, this is surely not a new discovery for these
| people. TFA is obviously their biased explanation of
| events. But the behavior of the Croatian authorities
| could still be "surprising" if it was substantially
| different from past interactions. E.g. lack of formal
| written notice.
| sangnoir wrote:
| > the whole point is to build a state that does less of
| it
|
| A state is only a state when it can defend its territory.
|
| At the individual level, the praxis of property rights is
| that something belongs to you if the person with the
| biggest stick says it is - this is typically the state
| (libertarian utopia's excluded).
| dfee wrote:
| In the US, many libertarians are supportive of an
| unfettered second amendment.
|
| One reason for this support, is perhaps the explicit
| acknowledgment that violence trumps rules or contracts.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| it's not that sort of violence that matters. A bunch of
| provincial homesteaders with guns don't constitute an
| army. Any small nation that is going to survive is going
| to look like Israel or Taiwan, militarized, armed to the
| teeth, with discipline, cohesion and state capacity.
|
| One of the funniest experiments with this kind of thing I
| ever read was a small town in the US being overtaken by
| libertarians, only to succumb to... bears. (as the
| citizens could neither organize waste regulations, public
| garbage disposal, or prevent one crazy guy from feeding
| the bears in the first place)
|
| https://unherd.com/2020/12/libertarianism-never-ends-
| well/
| patrickaljord wrote:
| > Any small nation that is going to survive is going to
| look like Israel or Taiwan, militarized, armed to the
| teeth, with discipline, cohesion and state capacity.
|
| And protected and funded by the US ;)
| zdragnar wrote:
| So is (almost) all of Europe. Only four countries besides
| the US actually meet their obligations to fund NATO, and
| though they've given more by GDP than the US to Ukraine,
| it isn't by much.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| NATO defense spending targets aren't an obligation (well,
| they aren't a spending obligation, just an obligation to
| make it a policy goal to move toward a spending target)
| and aren't "funding NATO".
|
| That's a double-misrepresentation popularized by Russian
| propaganda proxies seeking to sow discord in the West.
| xcdzvyn wrote:
| Libertarianism does not preclude a self-defense force nor
| measures against bears. Get real.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| Oddly related: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
| politics/21534416/free-state-...
| HWR_14 wrote:
| It's not odd. It was specifically brought up in the
| conversation. It's what the person you are responding to
| was responding to.
| nsajko wrote:
| So you're just gonna spin their story as if it were fact?
| Surely you understand that liberland.org can't be an unbiased
| or reliable source on the "Liberland" scam.
| [deleted]
| rolph wrote:
| [flagged]
| GaryNumanVevo wrote:
| I don't think you know a lot about the history of the Gaza
| Strip
| lostlogin wrote:
| It really doesn't.
| c7DJTLrn wrote:
| As fun as this little project is, it has the potential to turn
| nasty if it goes on. I imagine Croatia will start taking this
| seriously at some point.
| davidgerard wrote:
| It's functionally a bitcoin scam.
| nsajko wrote:
| It's been taken seriously from the start.
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| [flagged]
| __sy__ wrote:
| might makes right
| abigail95 wrote:
| Privet?
| INTPenis wrote:
| The reason this is terra nullius is because the river has moved
| that land around for centuries, and will continue to do so.
| That border attempts to follow the river but the river doesn't
| follow diplomacy. These people who take advantage of this fact
| are very short sighted and mostly bored middle/upper class
| kids.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Maybe if a bunch of libertarians get together for mutual
| defense, elect leaders, set rules on how they'll pool their
| resources, they'll be able to prevent this from happening...
|
| Oh no, they created a government!
| nannal wrote:
| Why didn't the other party just follow the NAP?! Then this
| couldn't have happened!
| notpushkin wrote:
| Yeah, I don't believe a true anarcho-capitalist society is
| possible at this point in time. (It's a neat concept,
| though!)
|
| Minarchism, also a part of libertarianism, is definitely more
| realistic though.
| solarman5000 wrote:
| Believe it or not, libertarianism is the entire bottom half
| of the political compass, and the vast majority of them are
| not anarchists
| saalweachter wrote:
| "the entire bottom half of the political compass" drawn by
| libertarians.
| abigail95 wrote:
| Are you giving a definition of libertarians or making a
| rhetorical point about the inadequacy of democracy in the
| short term for avoiding a crisis, or arguing against any form
| of government?
|
| I can't make any sense of this.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| So disappointing that people hear are waving it off, when it
| sounds like The form of government they're attempting to create
| is more just and democratic than any country surrounding it.
| Sure, it's an experiment, and one that was probably doomed to
| fail without croatia's permission. It's still sad this happened.
| kristopolous wrote:
| It's Yet Another Libertarian free land project like minerva,
| sealand, jfip, operation atlantis 1, 2 & 3, satoshi, rose
| island, blueseed etc. They all end effectively the same way:
| either discovering there is such a thing as society through
| things like disease, disaster, securing water, or that other
| people, with like armies and planes, also value property
| rights.
|
| Yet somehow I guess the inevitable happening is still shocking
| to some. When I'm either old or dead, I'm sure this will repeat
| itself on Mars
| davidebaldini wrote:
| In what instance did it happen that a libertarian claim to a
| territory survived so long as to fail by its own ineptitude?
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| This is only influencing a local government, not
| establishing a sovereign state, but it's in that direction
| of failing by its own ineptitude:
| https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-
| state-...
|
| "...
|
| Sean Illing: And how did they take over the local
| government? Did they meet much resistance?
|
| Matthew Hongoltz-Hetling: When they first showed up, they
| hadn't told anyone that they were doing this, with the
| exception of a couple of sympathetic libertarians within
| the community. And so all of a sudden the people in Grafton
| woke up to the fact that their town was in the process of
| being invaded by a bunch of idealistic libertarians. And
| they were pissed. They had a big town meeting. It was a
| very shouty, very angry town meeting, during which they
| told the Free Towners who dared to come that they didn't
| want them there and they didn't appreciate being treated as
| if their community was an experimental playpen for
| libertarians to come in and try to prove something.
|
| But the libertarians, even though they never outnumbered
| the existing Grafton residents, what they found was that
| they could come in, and they could find like-minded people,
| traditional conservatives or just very liberty-oriented
| individuals, who agreed with them on enough issues that,
| despite that angry opposition, they were able to start to
| work their will on the levers of government.
|
| They couldn't pass some of the initiatives they wanted.
| They tried unsuccessfully to withdraw from the school
| district and to completely discontinue paying for road
| repairs, or to declare Grafton a United Nations free zone,
| some of the outlandish things like that. But they did find
| that a lot of existing Grafton residents would be happy to
| cut town services to the bone. And so they successfully put
| a stranglehold on things like police services, things like
| road services and fire services and even the public
| library. All of these things were cut to the bone.
|
| Sean Illing: Then what happened over the next few years or
| so?
|
| Matthew Hongoltz-Hetling: By pretty much any measure you
| can look at to gauge a town's success, Grafton got worse.
| Recycling rates went down. Neighbor complaints went up. The
| town's legal costs went up because they were constantly
| defending themselves from lawsuits from Free Towners. The
| number of sex offenders living in the town went up. The
| number of recorded crimes went up. The town had never had a
| murder in living memory, and it had its first two, a double
| homicide, over a roommate dispute.
|
| So there were all sorts of negative consequences that
| started to crop up. And meanwhile, the town that would
| ordinarily want to address these things, say with a robust
| police force, instead found that it was hamstrung. So the
| town only had one full-time police officer, a single police
| chief, and he had to stand up at town meeting and tell
| people that he couldn't put his cruiser on the road for a
| period of weeks because he didn't have money to repair it
| and make it a safe vehicle.
|
| Basically, Grafton became a Wild West, frontier-type town.
|
| Sean Illing: When did the bears show up?
|
| Matthew Hongoltz-Hetling: It turns out that if you have a
| bunch of people living in the woods in nontraditional
| living situations, each of which is managing food in their
| own way and their waste streams in their own way, then
| you're essentially teaching the bears in the region that
| every human habitation is like a puzzle that has to be
| solved in order to unlock its caloric payload. And so the
| bears in the area started to take notice of the fact that
| there were calories available in houses.
|
| One thing that the Free Towners did that encouraged the
| bears was unintentional, in that they just threw their
| waste out how they wanted. They didn't want the government
| to tell them how to manage their potential bear
| attractants. The other way was intentional, in that some
| people just started feeding the bears just for the joy and
| pleasure of watching them eat.
|
| As you can imagine, things got messy and there was no way
| for the town to deal with it. Some people were shooting the
| bears. Some people were feeding the bears. Some people were
| setting booby traps on their properties in an effort to
| deter the bears through pain. Others were throwing
| firecrackers at them. Others were putting cayenne pepper on
| their garbage so that when the bears sniffed their garbage,
| they would get a snout full of pepper.
|
| It was an absolute mess.
|
| ..."
| davidebaldini wrote:
| The decadence of the public services happened within the
| existing, non-libertarian legal framework that
| provisioned the publicly-funded police, the monopoly of
| land, and the public ownership of roads. The input into
| this model was the starvation of the government by means
| of cutting its funding, the output was its decline
| without a viable replacement. No libertarian theory that
| I've read proposes that social elegance emerges out of
| the mixture of the new and the ancien regime. Local
| policing and national defense are often theorized as
| funded by property contracts, rents, and fees on
| consumption and on fuel. The distinction from the usual
| taxation is that the individual retains the freedom to
| change property and location, and opt out.
| abigail95 wrote:
| If the goal was to increase recycling and reduce legal
| costs, I would agree that seems like a failure but I
| can't see that being the case. Nor was the goal to reduce
| the number of sex offenders or homicides. It wasn't to
| increase the welfare of bears.
|
| The goal was to move there and influence the government
| towards their own policies. The fact that all these
| problems showed up is a measure of their success.
|
| If they were inept they would have caused the opposite
| thing to happen, Grafton would have become more
| restrictive and the bears stay in the woods.
|
| It doesn't seem at all valid to critique someone for the
| amount of snow on the roads if they organised as a group
| specifically to remove snow plowing.
|
| This is as ridiculous as measuring the original Woodstock
| by its sound quality, or available amenities. Are people
| who call it the best concert ever wrong? Are they allowed
| to have a different definition of success?
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Point to where I said it was shocking.
| kristopolous wrote:
| Not you individually. I said "some", that's a subgroup from
| a larger population
| dudinax wrote:
| I'm all for small-scale social experiments, but trying to run
| an "independent" society between two Balkan states doesn't seem
| like the right way to do it.
| Kosirich wrote:
| Idiotic decision by Croatia, here I'm talking both as a Croatian,
| as well as someone supporting this kind of "liberal" experiments.
| Instead of seeing this as a fun experiment that wouldn't cost
| Croatian tax payer anything, the most politically controlled
| nepotistic organization full of "uhljeb's", Hrvatske sume,
| decided to act this way (under direction). If Croatian government
| was smart, they could have tried reaching some deal proclaiming
| "Liberland" as a free zone, under protection of Croatians army
| until UN recognition is made (probably never). The potential
| touristic revenue to local areas could have been used to justify
| it to Croatian people. Sad...
| watwut wrote:
| The moment the experiment would turn illegal level of abusive
| or a murder would happen or whatever, the goverment would be
| seen as responsible.
| acadapter wrote:
| Yes, they messed up in this. Croatia did a mega police
| operation, in order to get rid of people that brought them
| tourist revenue and didn't bother anyone. Now all the money
| will go to Serbia, as the participants hold their events and
| "Floating man" festivals in Apatin instead.
| tail_exchange wrote:
| What's would be the purpose of such liberal experiment? I don't
| see what is there to learn about it. Allowing some entity to
| establish a government in your lands just to see what happens
| doesn't seem like a wise move to me. This would only legitimize
| their claims to the land and legitimize them as a sovereign
| state. It's a good way to end up losing this land and creating
| yet another microstate.
| [deleted]
| wodenokoto wrote:
| > Allowing some entity to establish a government in your
| lands just to see what happens doesn't seem like a wise move
| to me.
|
| It is land that Croatia very actively considers someone elses
| land. That is why Liberland was established there in the
| first place. Two countries are arguing "not mine, its yours"
| about a plot of land.
|
| If anything, this can be used against Croatia to argue that
| it is in fact Croatian territory
| lolinder wrote:
| The reason why both countries refuse to claim ownership is
| actually really interesting: both sides agree that the
| Danube should be considered the border, but the Danube has
| changed course over the centuries in a way that left a lot
| more land on the east than was there before. Naturally,
| that means that Croatia insists on using the historical
| path of the Danube, while Serbia insists on the modern one.
| For either side to claim the land on the west of the
| current Danube would be to cede the larger quantity of land
| to the east.
| josefx wrote:
| > It is land that Croatia very actively considers someone
| elses land.
|
| It doesn't consider the land to be "someone elses land" it
| considers the Serbian definition of the shared border
| faulty. Letting people that cite the Serbian definition of
| the border settle there is the last thing they want, since
| it actively undermines their own definition of where the
| border between it and Serbia should be over its entire
| length.
| lolinder wrote:
| Liberland doesn't cite the Serbian definition of the
| border, they accept both definitions at once. If either
| definition were given preference there would be no terra
| nullius. If Croatia were serious about their border
| claims then they should see Liberland as strictly
| Serbia's problem.
|
| Edit: I suppose that actually allowing an independent
| state to settle there would ruin their chances of ever
| trading it with Serbia for the eastern land, but the
| chances of that are slim to none anyway.
| josefx wrote:
| In the article they directly call out correspondence
| where Serbia disclaims the region, Croatia wants the
| exact opposite.
|
| > their border claims then they should see Liberland as
| strictly Serbia's problem.
|
| They don't want it to just be "Serbia's problem" they
| want a signed document by Serbia accepting Croatias
| definition of the entire border stretch.
|
| Also just because both sides do not want to claim the
| territory does not mean you can leave it entirely
| lawless. Hell there is a small but popular lake near my
| home town that the three towns bordering it disclaim any
| ownership of, which doesn't get rid of the issues
| surrounding the lake, like the fact that they have to pay
| for road maintenance and everything else related to it,
| it just makes it a mess to sort everything out. Police
| would also drag of any group of crazy people trying to
| create their own floating country in the middle of the
| lake.
| lolinder wrote:
| The difference with your local municipal dispute is that
| there's no question that it belongs to a given county. If
| it were a county dispute it would still belong to the
| state/province. If it were a state dispute it would still
| belong to the country.
|
| You only get into full terra nullius when no _country_
| will claim the land. Since there is no higher umbrella
| authority, _any_ police force operating in terra nullius
| is operating outside its self-professed jurisdiction.
| josefx wrote:
| > You only get into full terra nullius when no country
| will claim the land.
|
| After looking up the definition of terra nullius it seems
| to be a term historically rooted in colonialism where
| states could only establish themselves by successfully
| applying massive amounts of "sovereignty" aka military
| power against colonial powers.
|
| Given that Liberland seems to be unable to showcase its
| sovereignty against Croatian invaders it fails the basic
| test for acquiring land or even official statehood
| required by terra nullius.
|
| > Since there is no higher umbrella authority, any police
| force operating in terra nullius is operating outside its
| self-professed jurisdiction.
|
| And who is going to complain about that? Certainly not an
| established state.
| anon84873628 wrote:
| Well it's not a lawless area; some enterprising people
| founded a new constitutional Republic there.
| tptacek wrote:
| No, they didn't. See: the article we're commenting on.
| anon84873628 wrote:
| There is certainly a difference between "lawless" and
| "not MY laws" or "not the laws I prefer". In my view the
| parent comment is framing the situation in an incorrect
| or at least incomplete way. The residents of Liberland
| were not conducting activities that would be considered
| obviously criminal by most societies. And I don't know
| the details of their legal system but "complete anarchy"
| seems unlikely.
|
| The Darien gap, China & Myanmar border region, central
| Africa -- these are "lawless" areas despite having clear
| territorial ownership.
| helpfulContrib wrote:
| There are great artistic and cultural reasons to let this
| happen.
|
| After all, look what happened with Kugelmugel - another of
| these liberal experiments:
|
| https://theculturetrip.com/europe/austria/articles/kugelmuge.
| ..
|
| Spoiler: the bigger states always win.
| acadapter wrote:
| Denmark's Christiania had quite a long time of "hippie
| semi-anarchy", but it was formally reintegrated into
| society about 10 years ago.
|
| However, this was a product of the Boomer generation, when
| they were young. It might not be possible in today's more
| authoritarian world.
| logicalmonster wrote:
| > What's would be the purpose of such liberal experiment? I
| don't see what is there to learn about it.
|
| Not that the only group of people who want to bother nobody
| else need any justification for living their lives as they
| see fit, but how else is humanity going to learn about the
| different ways we can organize society if we don't try them
| out?
|
| It would be phenomenal for humanity if people with ideas
| outside of the box organized as they saw fit without outside
| interference and we all get to see what works and what
| doesn't.
| Daishiman wrote:
| People relearning Hobbes and the fact that sovereign claims
| need power to be enforced, news at 11.
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| [flagged]
| tail_exchange wrote:
| Isn't that why we don't have just a single country with a
| single set of laws? What experiment is being performed in
| Liberland that cannot be done in other countries that
| already exist?
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > What experiment is being performed in Liberland that
| cannot be done in other countries that already exist?
|
| Existing countries are captured by various interest
| groups who use their control over the government to their
| benefit. In a democracy this is generally various
| industries or government factions that control a large
| voting bloc or resources politicians need like campaign
| contributions. In a non-democracy the existing rulers
| want to remain in power and continue to rule as they see
| fit.
|
| If the experiment you want to run is a country with an
| extremely limited government, you would either need a
| stable country where that is already the case (not
| currently available), or a way to overcome the entrenched
| interests in some existing country (good luck), or you
| need a new country not already beleaguered by entrenched
| interests.
| fauigerzigerk wrote:
| _> Isn't that why we don't have just a single country
| with a single set of laws?_
|
| Historically this is not the reason. And as a
| justification for continuing to have many countries it
| would only be convincing if people were free to choose
| which "experiment" to join or start.
|
| The reality is, we are all guinea pigs that get thrown
| into some random country where some experiment has
| already started and we have no right opt out. If this is
| indeed someone's experiment, I would say it's highly
| unethical :)
| chromoblob wrote:
| It is indeed like you say. You are making a hyperbole,
| but essentially we have a single type of country.
| harpiaharpyja wrote:
| The world would be a pretty different place if the
| organizations that make up the government of countries always
| did what was in the best interest of their country...
| tw04 wrote:
| >Idiotic decision by Croatia, here I'm talking both as a
| Croatian, as well as someone supporting this kind of "liberal"
| experiments. Instead of seeing this as a fun experiment that
| wouldn't cost Croatian tax payer anything, the most politically
| controlled nepotistic organization full of "uhljeb's", Hrvatske
| sume, decided to act this way (under direction).
|
| I feel as though you're taking a rather naive view of the
| situation. Currently Croatia isn't claiming the land as their
| own because it's part of a larger dispute, and if they do lay
| claim to it, they lose a larger chunk of more important land to
| Serbia.
|
| Do you _REALLY_ think if they allow ethnic Croatians to start
| building permanent settlements on the property in question,
| they can continue to claim that it 's not theirs in the broader
| land dispute?
|
| This isn't "a fun experiment that costs taxpayers nothing". It
| is a GREAT way to lose permanent rights to a much larger swath
| of land so that some people who think they're free from
| government oversight can play make believe. I'm not sure what
| the actual benefit to the people of Croatia is but I'm open to
| ideas.
| lolinder wrote:
| > Do you REALLY think if they allow ethnic Croatians to start
| building permanent settlements on the property in question
|
| Do we know the ethnicity of these settlers? The founder is
| Czech, and the resources I've found suggest that local Croats
| and Serbs are a tiny minority of those involved.
| uxp8u61q wrote:
| They experimented, and they discovered what happens if you try
| to claim land that isn't yours. They also discovered what
| happens in a libertarian world when someone stronger than you
| wants your stuff.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > They experimented, and they discovered what happens if you
| try to claim land that isn't yours.
|
| Well, its about claiming land that the Croatian government
| doesn't even claim to own.
|
| Ironically, the fact that the Croatian government kicked them
| out, harms the Croatian government's legal claims with
| Serbia.
| claytongulick wrote:
| > They also discovered what happens in a libertarian world
| when someone stronger than you wants your stuff.
|
| How is this in any way unique to libertarians?
|
| Maybe take a look at civil forfeiture abuses in the US?
|
| Not to mention other county where the rule of law is more of
| a polite suggestion.
| zzzeek wrote:
| It's not unique but only apt as libertarianism advocates
| for dominance of the strongest
| zo1 wrote:
| No it doesn't. You're projecting your own value,
| interpretation and criticism of libertarian concepts to
| make it mean "dominance of the strongest". It's no more
| the case than with all other forms of government,
| including the majestic and noble "democracy".
| anon84873628 wrote:
| You seem to have conflated libertarianism with some other
| philosophy like the Ayn Rand stuff
| zzzeek wrote:
| Can I own a town and buy my own police force or not ?
| anon84873628 wrote:
| Sure, it depends on the disposition of the polities
| around you and how strong the police/defense force is.
| You could also run it with any system of government you
| like, libertarian or otherwise.
|
| A lot of people in this thread are laughing at the
| Liberland folks for being doomed to fail, not realizing
| that "might makes right", etc. Well how would we be
| reacting if they became terrorists instead? Defended the
| area with homemade bombs? What if Jeff Bezos built a
| private army and decided to secede from the US?
|
| The morality or intellectual interest of a people's claim
| to a territory (along with their chosen system of
| government) is completely orthogonal to their ability to
| enforce it. For the other end of the spectrum just look
| at Ukraine, as others here have pointed out.
|
| And btw I'm personally not even a libertarian...
| claytongulick wrote:
| Where?
| [deleted]
| tylersmith wrote:
| When stronger groups want your stuff it doesn't matter what
| world you're living in. The same is true of non-Libertarian
| states like Ukraine.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Ukraine situation is a conflict between two states.
| International world _is_ a libertarian world. The whole
| point of having countries is that a country can offer
| _something better_ to people within its borders. This is
| achieved through monopoly on violence. Internationally,
| there is no monopoly on violence; arguably, the only thing
| keeping the world mostly together is _nukes_.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| in other news, check out "intelligence", "trade" and
| "medicine" as other alternatives mechanisms before the
| recent invention of NUKES
| WalterBright wrote:
| > They also discovered what happens in a libertarian world
| when someone stronger than you wants your stuff.
|
| Libertarianism requires a government to protect property
| rights.
| jcranmer wrote:
| I've seen quite a few libertarians that would argue for
| private enforcement of property rights, thereby abolishing
| the need for a government altogether.
| Jensson wrote:
| So if I pay a bunch of guys to enforce "my property
| rights" over their house, then it is my house right? So
| now I'll force them to pay rent for it or my private
| thugs will evict them from "my home".
|
| Is that what they want? That is how society worked before
| we had modern governments. The only way to prevent this
| is to have a government who tells me I can't just bring a
| bunch of thugs and take stuff from people.
| latency-guy2 wrote:
| Yes, there always tends to be a large number of
| hypocrites in the world, see any socialist or communist
| of modern times who are all talk but take on none of the
| risks by living their ideals.
| WalterBright wrote:
| Undoubtedly, but those aren't real libertarians. They're
| anarchists.
|
| Libertarianism is a free market economy, with the
| government serving as enforcer of property rights and
| contracts. The government also enforces individual
| rights.
|
| Such as the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
| happiness.
| sangnoir wrote:
| How would this libertarian government be funded?
| WalterBright wrote:
| Taxes, import duties. For example, the early US
| government (excluding the slave south) was fairly
| libertarian.
| ufo wrote:
| From Croatia's point of view, these squatters would only make
| it even more difficult to resolve the border dispute. Croatia
| wants this land to belong to Serbia (in exchange for more land
| on the other side of the river), and having these people there
| might throw a wrench at the negotiations. Furthermore, if the
| negotiation goes Serbia's way then Croatia would have to deal
| with a bunch of squatters trying to set up a sovereign
| micronation on Croatian land.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| As a Croatian, I can't do whatever I want (esp. building) with
| various bits of land I actually own, why should these people
| get special treatment?
|
| I'm all for liberalisation of land use, and think Croatian
| bureaucracy and petty corruption are slowly destroying the
| Croatian state economically, but people acting independent of
| the law, because they claim they're special, doesn't wash. The
| tourist angle is a red herring. Tolerating unlawful occupation
| isn't smart at all.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| > Croatian bureaucracy and petty corruption
|
| ok, but you get Kentucky Fried Chicken and 7-11 stores in the
| current version of things.. right?
| Zak wrote:
| What makes this weird is that Croatia says this land belongs
| to Serbia, but sent police there to enforce Croatian laws
| against people there.
| standardUser wrote:
| Most people would not consider it 'smart' for a sovereign
| nation to voluntarily give up territory. Maybe they could have
| responded less aggressively, but if you're waiting around for
| governments to start giving away land, keep waiting.
| acadapter wrote:
| It's not a situation where someone is "giving up land".
| Croatia doesn't claim the land from its own legal
| perspective. The Croatian ambition is to use a historical
| path of the Danube river (from something like ~150 years ago)
| as the border. This way, Croatia could control larger pieces
| of land which today belong to Serbia. The line of control,
| after the war, is the modern-day river, which follows
| Serbia's claim.
|
| However, despite Croatia's claims, there's also been some
| gray-area Croatian forestry going on there, through Hrvatske
| Sume. And since the Liberland movement started to claim the
| parcel as "no man's land", Croatia started patrolling it with
| police and arresting people occasionally.
| emptyfile wrote:
| [dead]
| bannedbybros wrote:
| [dead]
| adolph wrote:
| The number one threat to governments is a lack of need for a
| government. Croatia, like any government, must crush independence
| (lack of dependence) even if it exists outside the government's
| claimed borders.
|
| All past revolutions sought to replace government. The universal
| revolution of all humanity is to leave no reason for it to exist.
| semicolon_storm wrote:
| Liberland had a government. Apparently no one ever told them
| they didn't need it.
| tzs wrote:
| They should have picked disputed territory where all existing
| states that could reasonably claim it insist that it is not
| theirs.
|
| E.g., Bir Tawil [1], which is 2000 km^2 (800 mi^2) of disputed
| territory on the border between Egypt and Sudan. Egypt says it
| belongs to Sudan, and Sudan says it belongs to Egypt.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bir_Tawil
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| That's exactly what they did (iirc, one side claims historical
| river course, other side claims contemporary river course)
| c7DJTLrn wrote:
| The fact that nobody wants it is telling. It's an uninhabited,
| landlocked strip of desert with no water. Would be hard to
| start a new settlement there.
| ianburrell wrote:
| Landlocked is important since have to travel through Egypt or
| Sudan to reach it. Which means they can block any
| independence movement by denying entry to participants.
| acadapter wrote:
| Exactly the same situation exists in four places along the
| Danube river's coastline (although only one of the land pockets
| is somewhat suitable for creating a country)
| PeterisP wrote:
| This is a literal equivalent to Bir Tawil, with both sides of a
| border dispute preferring the interpretation of the whole
| border that leaves this particular plot to the other.
|
| However, as demonstrated by this situation, in practice that
| doesn't mean that some third party can just grab that land -
| and I'd expect the same thing to happen in Bir Tawil; legal
| technicalities are nifty but they aren't really sufficient for
| de facto recognition, which is the main thing that matters in
| international law.
| bombcar wrote:
| It's like when two siblings are fighting and a third comes in
| and insults one and they stop fighting to beat the living
| daylights out of the interloper.
| archsurface wrote:
| Sounds like they were inspired by Russia. Unnecessarily
| aggressive. There must be accountability.
| notum wrote:
| [flagged]
| tzs wrote:
| An interesting place to try to establish a new state might be
| some of the weird places that exist due to the ridiculousness of
| the India and Pakistan border (if they still exist--I remember
| that there was some talk of adjusting the borders to get rid of
| them).
|
| There are (or were) some places where Indian territory was
| entirely surrounded by Pakistani territory, and some places where
| Pakistani territory was entirely surrounded by Indian territory.
|
| But it didn't stop there. There were a small number of cases
| where within one of those surrounded territories there was an
| even smaller territory that was part of the other country. E.g.,
| a small Pakistani territory entirely in a larger Indian territory
| which was entirely inside Pakistan.
|
| Pakistan and India aren't friendly with each other.
|
| So suppose you went to one of those innermost territories and
| convinced the people there to join you and declare themselves a
| new independent state. Say some Pakistani territory inside some
| Indian territory inside Pakistan.
|
| Pakistan can't reach you to kick you out without crossing Indian
| territory, which India is not likely to give them permission to
| do.
| Analemma_ wrote:
| > So suppose you went to one of those innermost territories and
| convinced the people there to join you and declare themselves a
| new independent state. Say some Pakistani territory inside some
| Indian territory inside Pakistan.
|
| This wouldn't work the way you imagine. The fundamental reason
| the India-Pakistan border situation is so dicey is that the
| "percentage of population which is Hindu vs. Muslim" is a
| smooth gradient across the area. The British drew an arbitrary
| line through this gradient as best they could and called that
| the border, but no line can ever fix the problem entirely. But
| all the people involved are more loyal to their ethnoreligion
| than an actual abstract state-- that's the whole reason there's
| a dispute to begin with-- and proposing a new state based on
| foreign ideas of libertarianism would not be met with eagerness
| from anybody.
| baybal2 wrote:
| [dead]
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| This was east Pakistan, aka Bangladesh (cooch behar enclaves),
| and that border was resolved recently
| friend_and_foe wrote:
| Not entirely resolved. Some enclaves and exclaves were
| transferred but some still exist. A big issue is citizenship
| and relocation, respecting peoples prproperty rights and
| perceived nationality, and this is the most densely populated
| region on the planet. It's a messy situation along that
| border, thankfully not one viewed by the governments as
| contentious or worthy of conflict.
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| Yeah Iirc the status of the biggest enclaves are still
| enclaves but that's manageable.
| hackandthink wrote:
| Berlin 1988: There was some GDR territory near Brandenburger Tor
| beyond the wall.
|
| Similar story but people escaped over the wall.
|
| https://alternativeberlin.com/2015/05/21/the-amazing-story-o...
| Nihilartikel wrote:
| Still waiting for a sovereign _Libertine_ state.
| moomin wrote:
| This is a good read:
| https://www.britannica.com/topic/international-law/States-in...
|
| The TL;DR of this is, ultimately, that a state is whatever other
| states say is a state, and they're generally wary of recognizing
| anything disputed. There's a fair bit of nuance there though so
| it's worth a proper read. And, as we know from Ukraine, even when
| the state is widely recognized with well-established borders,
| you'd better be in a position to enforce those borders by force
| if your neighbour decides they disagree.
| dudinax wrote:
| I think you're saying any small group of people is in danger of
| being pushed around because they can't defend themselves.
|
| Heck, just look at the difficulty communist China had being
| recognized as a state, and they certainly could defend
| themselves.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-24 23:01 UTC)