I wish them well, but this idea has so many holes that explaining them all at 3:30 in the morning is going to be difficult.
So here's a brief summary of what's wrong with this proposal:
The "Initiative" is to find a government somewhere which will create a semi-autonomous zone within its borders called a "Free State" which will itself be a government, and will have its own constitution, legislature, courts, and laws. Or perhaps the existing government will just close its doors and go home, but that's probably too much to ask for.
The "Initiative" is targeting primarily desert areas (albeit with ocean coastline) with little or no population, but expects access to large amounts of cheap labor.
The "Initiative" is being planned as a top-down entity which will dictate various terms, ground rules, laws, or whatever it wants to call them, to its participants.
The "Initiative" is actually contacting existing governments to ask them to sign up!
The "Initiative" says it is for open borders, but then explains that it wants exactly the opposite, for reasons of "state security." I cannot make this up: "... anyone who wants entry to the Free State must make themselves known to the authorities, typically with a passport at an airport. . . . anyone who is found entering the Free State illegally will therefore automatically be assumed to have foul intentions and be immediately expelled."
I cannot in good conscience give these guys a single satoshi.
Hello,
I can answer all your questions and objections. There are bound to many of them.
1) the reason we are targeting unpopulated wastelands with no natural resources is because these have little/no value to a country. They don't lose any power by giving autonomy to such an area. At the same time we are targeting poor countries in desperate need of economic growth and international legitimacy. They would be willing to give up control of a very small portion of their country in exchange for the spectacular economic growth that this can generate. We have already had certain confirmations that this strategy is sound. One country in Africa has expressed great interest in the project.
2) today people from poor countries are willing to move around the globe and live in relatively poor living conditions for what in Western terms is a lousy salary. Filipinos for instance work 60 days on a ship for down to 2 dollars per hour. If you're willing to live on a ship and work 12 hour days for 2 dollars an hour, you are most certainly willing to move to a desert and work there. We do not believe that finding cheap labor will be a problem.
3) the rules will in did be "dictated" and once the constitution is written and the Free State Charter is signed these basic rules can't change. BUT then again, no-one is living in that area at the moment. No-one are affected by those rules. The only ones who will be affected by them are the ones who VOLUNTARILY move to the Free State to live under those rules. If those rules are as bad as you portray them to be, then no-one will come. If they, on the other hand, are as liberating and attractive as we believe them to be then people will come in droves and they will fight to maintain those rules.
4) Yes, we are contacting existing governments. That is the whole point. The Free State will be a sub-national autonomous governmental entity, and our response so far has been positive. In fact, all the negativity we have run into has come from rich spoiled people from the West. The response from people in poor countries, including government officials, has been phenomenal so far. It's too early to tell if this is a coincidence, but it seems not to be. Westerners are so rich that they can be picky. Poor countries and poor people cannot.
5) We are for open borders for PEACEFUL people, but obviously not all people in the world are peaceful. Some are criminals and some are terrorists. We need to protect the peaceful people who DO enter from criminals. That is the job of the state. This means that some provisions will be required to stay in the Free State, but these measures are not strict. Most people will be able to enter without a sweat. That people have to announce themselves to the authorities with an identity does not mean that they will be STOPPED by the authorities. It only means that the authorities need to have control over who is currently in residing in the state. You can very easily enter the Free State, and it will by far have the freest immigration practices in the world. Obviously if it is very easy to get into the state legally and you STILL try to sneak in, then why should we assume anything other than that you have ominous intentions when it is so easy to avoid it?
You say you cannot support us in good conscience. That is the same as saying that you support the status quo. You support the way things are done in the rest of the world, but that makes no sense since the rest of the world isn't anywhere near fulfilling your "good conscience."
