Libertarianism

Interview with the Founder of Liberland, a Possible Libertarian Paradise

Pay whatever taxes you want and be left alone to live as you please. But no drugs allowed.

|

Like a lot of people in Europe, Czech activist Vit Jedlicka was dissatisfied with the state of affairs in his country.

"You know, it was rising taxes every single year, rising number of regulations every single year," he said. "So I felt like I had to do something about it."

Unlike a lot of people, for Jedlicka doing something meant founding a whole new country: Liberland.

"Everybody told me, 'You should start your own country to prove that your ideas of liberty work,'" he said in a phone interview. "So I did."

There's something charmingly maniacal about Liberland's self-proclaimed president. Despite giving more than 200 interviews in the last fortnight, he's chatty and his voice trills with a ha ha ha when something pleases him. But underneath this quaint exterior lies a Napoleonic self-assurance that he will build a second Dubai on a seven square kilometer patch of land on the west bank of the River Danube as it runs between Croatia and Serbia.

In order to have a country of his own, Jedlicka first needed to find a piece of what is known in international law as terra nullius, or "nobody's land." That might sound like a tall order, but according to Jedlicka it was as simple as checking the legal term's Wikipedia page.

"Anybody could do the same as we did," he said. "Unfortunately, this was one of the very last pieces of terra nullius on the earth."

Perhaps the most obvious point of comparison for his experiment would be the Kingdom of North Sudan. Described by the BBC as "800 square miles of arid desert," North Sudan was a triangle of terra nullius more than one hundred times the size of Liberland that had lain unclaimed by either Sudan or Egypt—whose borders sandwich it—for more than one hundred years. That was until U.S. citizen Jeremy Heaton decided to put his daughter into the history books as the 21st century's most spoiled brat. Then aged six, Emily Heaton had asked her father if one day she might be a princess. Apparently not one to refuse the girl, Heaton set off to discover a kingdom to claim as his own—turning young Emily's seventh birthday party into a coronation ceremony. We can only pity her first boyfriend.

Whereas North Sudan was spawned from a cauldron of poor parenting and a little girl's hunger for hereditary rule, Liberland was not born out of a desire for power. "I don't want to be involved in the government of Liberland," said Jedlicka. "My task is to introduce this constitution and, as you can see, there is no place for presidents in that constitution. So after I introduce the first general election in this country I would like to retire from the government of Liberland."

Jedlicka's plans for early retirement strengthen the suspicion that this might all just be an elaborate ploy to stick it to the EU, an institution he's made no secret of his distaste for. Certainly, he wouldn't be the first person to take advantage of the cartographic anomaly that is Croatia and Serbia's borders running parallel-yet-not-flush to throw two fingers up at Brussels. Dusan Djuric, from Serbia, told me how just a couple of years ago he led groups of tourists to, in his words, "get a chance to safely pee on EU territory from no-man's land." That's sort of what Jedlicka's doing: setting up a regulation-lite tax haven from which to pee on the EU's doorstep.

And yet he's clearly not the only one to feel that something's rotten in the modern nation state. On April 13, Jedlicka and his compatriots planted a yellow and black flag in the Serbo-Croatian no-man's land and gave birth to Liberland. A little over two weeks later they have already received more than 300,000 applications for citizenship. Impressive, considering the only permanent residents for the last thirty years have been wild pigs; doubly so, given that the Croatian border police are refusing to let anybody into Liberland. This is something that triggers a ha ha ha from Jedlicka.

"That's great, that's great," he said. "We are thankful to the Croatian police for being the guardians of our borders, we don't have the funds for it yet. So everybody's invited, but they have to come with a boat."

Publicly, the Croatian government is dismissing Liberland as a bad joke—a "virtual quip" unworthy of comment, is the foreign ministry's official line. In private, however, Jedlicka insisted Zagreb is taking the issue very seriously indeed. Jedlicka claimed to have insider knowledge regarding an extraordinary meeting held last Sunday in the Croation government to discuss options for dealing with the country's tiny new neighbor. His insider source? Wannabe citizens present at the meeting, he said.

Whether the meetings are real or not, Croatia has been remarkably reluctant to claim Liberland for itself. Jedlicka claimed his presidential assistant is thrashing the issue out with an assistant to the Croatian president. Despite Zagreb's frostiness, Liberland's president is confident that "we will be able to set up good relations no matter what they do."

The Serbian foreign ministry was less equivocal. Its stance is that Liberland's formation was "a frivolous act which needs no further comment."

But that is apparently not a position shared across the Serbian government. When I spoke with Jedlicka, he had just come out of a meeting with the Deputy Speaker of the Serbian National Assembly, Vladimir Marinkovic. In this meeting, Jedlicka claimed Marinkovic endorsed Liberland's sovereignty.

"Unfortunately," he said, "that was right after AFP [Agence France Presse] left, so it was not on the AFP camera, but I will try to get them to come back so we can film this endorsement again for AFP so you don't have to take it from my Facebook profile." At the time of writing, no such video had been released by AFP.

Jedlicka claimed Marinkovic even expressed an interest in travelling to Liberland for its first 'Liberty Day' party on May 1. What does a Liberty Day party look like, you ask? "It's going to be a big party," said Jedlicka. "We got Budweiser, the Czech national beer, supporting us. They told me they want to be the national beer of Liberland, so they will provide us with lots of beer. And we will raise the flag, we will repair the building that is there. Now the media laughs that it is broken down, so we will fix that building and raise the flag. Have a little party. And we will start a permanent settlement."

Liberland's one permanent structure has been a source of amusement to many. Bushes obscure any doors or ground floor windows that might exist and trees appear to be growing right through the center of the building. Jedlicka has high hopes for Liberland, though.

"I think over half a million could fit there if you do the same project as Dubai," he said. "And we do have people who built Dubai who have applied for citizenship and they want to build the same thing in Liberland. So I think we can make the place really nice, really a place of fully happy people."

There is a wonderful, childlike excitement in Jedlicka's voice when he talks about his plans. Mention electricity and he blurts out a memo to himself like a state-builder savant: "That's a good point, I need to get more solar panels."

I suggested to Jedlicka that he could be described as a modern-day free-market Moses. He replied: "Some people say that, some people want to make fun. I just wanted to be practical and introduce competition into the market of the states and this seemed to be the… easiest way. Now everyone's talking in the free market movement about competition but nobody really introduced anything to make this competition happen. You know, everybody tried to change their state for the better. I'm offering a superior product for a very low price, you don't even have to pay for it if you don't want to."

It's an enticing offer if you share Jedlicka's libertarian views: pay as many or as few taxes as you desire and be left alone to live as you please. That said, the new nation isn't fully libertarian: Liberland has a strict anti-drug policy since "you lose your free will when you start using them," according to Jedlicka.

Note: Jedlicka was arrested by Croatian police for trespassing on Saturday.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

99 responses to “Interview with the Founder of Liberland, a Possible Libertarian Paradise

  1. FoE, where art thou?

    1. A Libertarian DEA. Very interesting. How about firearms laws?

  2. They told me they want to be the national beer of Liberland…

    That jackbooted thug can’t tell me what beer to drink. I’m splitting off from Liberland and creating my own, freedom-based country. I will call it Panem.

    1. You better watch out for a courageous, plucky, resourceful young woman in District 12.

  3. Liberland has a strict anti-drug policy since “you lose your free will when you start using them,” according to Jedlicka.

    Say what?

    1. But not alcohol, apparently.

      1. I think its really so the neighboring countries won’t invade and shoot everyone.

    2. Say “I’m an inconsistent asshole”.

  4. http://www.theguardian.com/sci…..and-racism

    We can’t go to Mars without progs worrying about how they will be able to fuck it up. Sorry but running off to the woods or the ocean isn’t going to work either.

    1. There’s a book series about more or less this exact topic.

      1. If I am ever going to space or the ocean to start my own country, everyone is most certianly not welcome. Sorry, but progs and social justice warriors and any other form of idiot who spends their lives worrying about what everyone else is doing are not welcome.

          1. I am not an open borders libertarian Susan. You might get in but you might not. Depends on how large your propensity for butt hurt is.

            1. Honestly, I never thought you were interested in giving me butt hurt. I’m flattered but must decline.

              I’d actually prefer my own island (with the obligatory hookers and blackjack, of course).

              1. In fact, forget the island and the blackjack!

        1. Peter Keatings need not apply.

        2. Sorry, but progs and social justice warriors and any other form of idiot who spends their lives worrying about what everyone else is doing are not welcome.

          John’s Island? John of Mars?

          Either way, it sounds like, rather than being devoid of SJWs, it will shed Lisa Nowaks like nobody’s business.

        3. What happens when new people are born and decide to be liberals? Excommunication? Execution?

          1. You have a point. The correct answer is to never give the lovers of force a club with which to wield, not to prevent them from entering.

            The club is government, BTW. Either the control-freaks will leave or come to the realization that they should quit being control freaks.

            Oh, but if all this property is owned by someone, then indeed, that person or those persons may dictate “immigration policy” as they see fit.

            1. The ultimate dream of the libertarian… to be a dictator in his own land. Not coincidentally, also the dream of many a teenage boy.

              1. The ultimate dream of the libertarian

                The fact that you refuse to see us as a heterogeneous group disturbs me more than it should. The only person I’ve argued with here that actually believes you should be a dictator on your property actually admitted that he wasn’t a libertarian because he didn’t like guns. So, he’s a “liberaltarian”….

                NAP is central to libertarianism, not absolute property rights. If I invite you onto my property as long as you “follow my rules”, and then I shoot you and claim that “those are my rules”, I’ve violated NAP.

                1. Even putting aside the definitional problems of the NAP (and the fact that someone has to enforce it), I don’t think we can easily dismiss a central irony of libertarian policy beliefs: in the name of increasing individual liberty, we turn CEOs and property owners into autocrats and basically ignore any of the interests of people who work or live under them, which is most people.

                  1. Except their interest not to be raped or murdered. How generous of you!

                  2. Self and pissed-off neighbors enforce NAP.

                    CEOs are not evil, at least, not any more so than average people. If the people didn’t want to work under them (or property owners), they can quit. There is no slavery here.

                    1. Unless by arguments that seem perfectly rational to the people making them it is decided that by virtue of some physical characteristic certain people are actually property. If such a proposal is intrinsic and vital to a national economy, it might become quite tempting to use the *arbitrary* label property in that way. This is in fact the very thing that motivated those in this country who first said “just leave me alone, feds!”

                      It’s repeated often, but it’s still an important point that libertarians can’t rebut: In your preferred society, legitimate force is employed to protect the luxuries of the rich, but no force is allowed to protect the basic needs of the poor. That’s what I mean by arbitrary, not to say completely assbackward immoral.

                    2. Unless by arguments that seem perfectly rational to the people making them it is decided that by virtue of some physical characteristic certain people are actually property.

                      Like fetuses? Or do you mean the doctors you want to make treat you? Or do you mean the bakers who have to serve you against their will? Or do you mean the pizza places that must cater your wedding? Or do you mean the taxpayers you rob at the point of a gun to pay for all the rest of this?

                      In your preferred society, legitimate force is employed to protect the luxuries of the rich, but no force is allowed to protect the basic needs of the poor.

                      It has been refuted every time it is charged. If no-one else will stand up for your rights, then I will, and dammit, I’m incredibly well armed and pissed off when your (yes, even your) rights are violated, pilgrim!

                      The rich are no more moral than the poor and vice versa. Your class warfare is provably wrong (empirically) and logically wrong (rationally).

                    3. Tony will never understand, it is incapable of deep thought. It can’t even come to terms with its own conflicting stances, adopting one or the other based on context of the conversation. Tony is very very stupid.

                    4. You don’t seem to grasp the point. Libertarians arbitrarily decide that force is legitimately employed if someone steals a Faberge egg from someone else, but force cannot be legitimately employed to tax the sale of that egg to feed a starving person. Why is one interest–minor in the grand scheme–worthy of protection, but the other interest–vital to basic survival–not?

                      And I don’t want you defending my rights. I didn’t vote for you. And it goes without saying that it’s nonsense to claim that society can function on the goodwill of neighbors alone.

                    5. Libertarians arbitrarily decide that force is legitimately employed if someone steals… but force cannot be legitimately employed to tax the sale of that egg to feed a starving person.

                      I grasp your point, your point is just wrong. Your property is part of yourself, it’s part of your past you (hopefully) worked for. Libertarianism states that the only legitimate uses of force on another human is either while they aggress you or after they aggress you. One is called “self-defense” and the other “justice”.

                      Why is one interest… worthy of protection, but the other interest…not?

                      Rights. Infringements (abridgments) of any kind are assaults on the person. As we know, darn well, that there is more than enough charity (true charity, meaning unforced) in this country to ensure that the only starving people are those unwilling to ask to be fed, your point is moot.

                      And I don’t want you defending my rights.

                      Too bad. If I see you getting beaten on the street corner I will absolutely defend your rights unless you tell me specifically to let them beat you to death.

                      And it goes without saying that it’s nonsense to claim that society can function on the goodwill of neighbors alone.

                      No, it doesn’t. Life goes on with or without governmental force. Also, I care nothing for the functioning of society, only the individuals in it. And I will protect them if they only ask.

                    6. Your property is part of yourself

                      No it isn’t. It’s distinctly separate. You cannot seriously argue that property rights protection doesn’t involve the employment of (sometimes deadly) force, which if it’s legitimate at all is funded by taxpayers. Even if it is part of you, whatever that means, it doesn’t automatically follow that this is a legitimate concern of society while starvation is not. Seems like the latter is a far higher priority. Who cares if someone got his yacht stolen if there are starving children? If you had to address only one problem, the libertarian would choose the yacht. It’s downright abysmal in its immorality.

                      it’s part of your past you (hopefully) worked for.

                      Or not. Daddy could have given it all to you. But it’s still OK to tax me (or charge me in some way) to protect it. Starving child? Fuck off and die, mooch.

                      As we know, darn well, that there is more than enough charity (true charity, meaning unforced) in this country to ensure that the only starving people are those unwilling to ask to be fed, your point is moot.

                      We know nothing of the sort, as if this were true, nobody would ever have had to implement a social safety net. Places without them have lots of starving people. Where be the charities in Haiti? Oh, all over the place, and they aren’t adequate because they lack a decent government setup.

                    7. Life goes on with or without governmental force.

                      Indeed, only with nongovernmental force. Guess I should be glad you’re around to police everything and ensure good order. I wouldn’t want to be bothered; paying taxes and voting for legislators seems fairer and more efficient.

                    8. Honestly, Tony – do we HAVE to go over this same thing, every time? You already know the libertarian response – we have told you many, many times.

                      So – knock it off. Lest I revoke my prior comment about your ‘reasonable intelligence’

                    9. A tax on an egg to “feed the starving person”.
                      Tony, Tony, Tony. When I quit buying eggs, and my friends and neighbors quit buying eggs, what then?
                      Your starving person is dead, Cupcake. And your former chicken rancher is bankrupt.
                      Do you get it now?

                    10. Spare me Ayn Randian narcissistic fantasies. If you, as a gazillionaire, stops spending money, then a few servants will be out of work and a few shops won’t have your monthly business anymore. Far more important is to ensure that everyone else has some spending money. First, so they don’t starve to death. Seventh or so, so the economy continues to function.

                    11. Okay Tony. Have it your way. This conversation is pointless. And you’re not worth it.
                      Your long-winded bullshit is still bullshit. You have not convinced one libertarian here to become a “former” libertarian, see the “error of their ways”, and join you in your statism. Not even one. Despite all your pleadings, you’ve not made one convert. Even the Mormons have a better record.

                    12. And it goes without saying that it’s nonsense to claim that society can function on the goodwill of neighbors alone.

                      Right, because the Amish never have barn raising parties, and the wild west wasn’t tamed by Laura Engel’s dad and all his kind voluntarily building the church/schoolhouse and figuring out how to get a teacher for the kids without armed thugs robbing people for the unions.
                      Nope, no society has ever, ever, ever existed without armed men having a monopoly on force.
                      Why, when Plymouth was settled, if it wasn’t for the armed state being the first thing established, America wouldn’t even exist.

                    13. Stealing is immoral, sir. And I don’t believe in positive rights.

                      So, too bad. If you want to help the poor, your arm is not broken. Get off your lazy ass and help them.

                    14. Except the positive right to be reasonably protected from having your stuff stolen or your body harmed.

                    15. You don’t have that right. You have no right to protection, that requires either slavery or theft.

                      You have the right to not be aggressed. How you protect that right, by self-defense or paying someone to do it for you, is up to you.

                    16. At least anarchy has a modicum of consistency, to which my major complaint here, I guess, doesn’t apply.

                      But who says? You? Guy who wrote a book once? No doubt the violent psychopath with a different view of how society should work won’t heed your principle. And it’s not the nice people we have to worry about so much (until they begin starving due to lack of basic civilization).

                    17. Lack of basic civilization = starving.
                      Now, that is funny. Did you come up with that all by yourself?
                      Me thinks you stole that little ditty from your comrades at Salon .

                    18. But who says? You?

                      You logically cannot have positive and negative rights. I could prove it, but Rothbard already did. Basically, if you have the right to another’s property or labor, then they have no rights at all.

                      No doubt the violent psychopath with a different view of how society should work won’t heed your principle.

                      Nope, and that’s why you need to protect yourself or pay someone to do it. I already volunteered to do it for free!

                      And it’s not the nice people we have to worry about so much (until they begin starving due to lack of basic civilization).

                      Civilization is possible without governmental force; that’s your big stumbling block. But even if there were no “civilization” without governmental force, I could still not use it, because it’s aggression (by definition). It’s immoral to use.

                    19. if you have the right to another’s property or labor, then they have no rights at all.

                      Obviously untrue. If I have a right to some of your property (as all restaurant proprietors do once you’ve ordered your food), you retain all rights and liberties previously held except the liberty to spend that money on something else. Many find it a reasonable price to pay for the benefits of civilization. It’s also technically you doing the stealing if you use civilization without paying your part. This shouldn’t be hard to understand, even though it’s a sort of backwards-way in to paying for what you buy. Merely a consequence of the way human beings come into the world–as benefiting from civilization automatically.

                      Governments were not established to protect rights, of course, except the rights strong-men took for themselves. But we’ve backward engineered a convincing ethical narrative for how a decent democratic government can legitimately exist, namely the social contract. It’s as good as any other ethical framework (and as reliant on some unprovable assumptions).

                    20. Civilization is possible without governmental force

                      All we lack is a single shred of evidence.

                      But even if there were no “civilization” without governmental force, I could still not use it, because it’s aggression (by definition). It’s immoral to use.

                      An ethical framework that snuffs itself out in a puff of complete impracticality.

                      A step further–it’s also illogical. There will be force in the absence of government. Much, much more force, and none legitimate. That’s the whole point of government–to deposit all the force that humans would commit in the absence of rules into one place for safekeeping. Doesn’t go perfectly; people still commit lots of illegitimate force. But that’s hardly an argument for bestowing upon us even more liberty to do so.

                    21. And see, this is why I believe the Tony handle is being passed around like a cheap drink at UVA. This a well written argument for the state like might be found in Antigone. I disagree with it, but it’s not badly written. Must be a junior history major got the job tonight.

                    22. * cheap drunk, maybe. I think I meant to say something misogynistic

                    23. All we lack is a single shred of evidence.

                      Except the historical record… (One example, the book of Judges.)

                      An ethical framework that snuffs itself out in a puff of complete impracticality.

                      So you claim it’s for practicality’s sake that you send men with guns to shoot me for not consenting to your theft? I don’t care, a moral person wouldn’t do it even if it didn’t “work” (whatever you may mean by that…).

                      There will be force in the absence of government.

                      Yep, for self-defense and justice. All else is illegitimate and would be met by self-defense and justice (by me, if by no-one else).

                      That’s the whole point of government–to deposit all the force that humans would commit in the absence of rules into one place for safekeeping.

                      There are rules without government. You rape my wife, you die (for an example). You steal from me, I take it back. Also, as you’ve defined government as the only “legitimate” use of aggressive force, you recognize how evil it otherwise is.

                      that’s hardly an argument for bestowing upon us even more liberty to do so [illegitimate force].

                      You have free will, so you can always commit it. The government claims it is the only entity that can “legitimately” combat it, when the historical record and simple logic proves otherwise.

                    24. Four questions for Tony:

                      Is it ethical/moral for me to put a gun to your head and take your stuff?

                      Is it ethical/moral for me to hire someone to put a gun to your head and take your stuff?

                      Is it ethical/moral for me and my friends to hire someone to put a gun to your head and take your stuff?

                      Is it ethical/moral for me and my friends to elect ourselves into the majority and hire someone to put a gun to your head and take your stuff?

                    25. This may actually be the most reasonable and historically accurate thing I have ever read under your handle, as far as the part where you said “Governments were not established to protect rights, of course, except the rights strong-men took for themselves. But we’ve backward engineered a convincing ethical narrative for how a decent democratic government can legitimately exist, namely the social contract. It’s as good as any other ethical framework (and as reliant on some unprovable assumptions).”
                      The problem is above that, where you speak of the eatery owner. Once I enter into a contract by ordering food, the money to pay for that dinner is no longer mine, it’s yours, whether I still retain possession of it or not. If I owe you 30 bucks for grub, that cash belongs to you not me. You still don’t have a claim on my property, you have a right to your property.

                    26. If I have a right to some of your property

                      You don’t have a right to it until we’ve come to a voluntary exchange of goods/services. Until it is yours, it is mine.

                      Many find it a reasonable price to pay for the benefits of civilization.

                      I don’t. You use force of arms against me for daring to disagree.

                      It’s also technically you doing the stealing if you use civilization without paying your part

                      Civilization isn’t the same thing as government.

                      Governments were not established to protect rights

                      That is their only possible legitimate purpose. If it were not so, we would have thrown off this one like the Rich, dead white guys did in 1776.

                      But we’ve backward engineered a convincing ethical narrative for how a decent democratic government can legitimately exist, namely the social contract.

                      I don’t agree to your contract. Shoot me (you know you want to).

                      It’s as good as any other ethical framework

                      No, it’s not. NAP is better because it doesn’t involve shooting you for daring to not consent to theft and assault.

                    27. Tony has been told this many times. He is just playing the Village Fool. He’s so damn good at it.

                    28. Still not a positive right.

                  3. Your problem is that you expected them to care. You need to grow up.

                    You get a paycheck, no? What more do you want – a shoulder? Tissues?

                    God, you are a pussy.

              2. Right. And you don’t have to live there.

          2. Exorcism.

    2. Fuck it up by talking about how to avoid rape and racism?

      1. “How to avoid rape and racism”.

        Tell me, Tony – has your Big Government Utopia avoided ‘rape and racism’?

        1. Better than the libertarian paradises of Somalia and the Old West, I’d presume.

          1. Source? Your ass does not count.

          2. Dude, read some real history about the old west. There are mining camps, and there are farming and ranching communities. Do you really believe that Pa Ingalls and his neighbors would just let a bunch of rapists and rustlers take over their town? That only Clint Eastwood can protect them? The wild west had a lower murder rate than modern day Washington D.C.
            Historical research, how does it work?

            1. Sorry, that last line was argumentative. I’ve decided to try to be nice to everyone for personal reasons, and I would ask the Squirrel Gods for an edit button if I weren’t Agnostic.
              The rest I stand by.

          3. Somalia was not too nice, but it was refreshing to be somewhere where there is no law.

          4. Somalia is made up of rival factions (states) fighting for control of the region, now the part of Somalia where there isn’t any fighting (and the media like to not bring up) is actually thriving with little laws and restrictions on personal freedom. Nice strawman though but its been tried before. Get some new material.

    3. On a related note, when the science types were talking about forming a cloud city in the habitable zone of Venus’s atmosphere, the greenies shit themselves because they didn’t want us to pollute Venus and introduce global warming. I kid you not.

  5. Nothing says liberty like prohibition.

    1. They have no cops, sugar. So who will enforce the prohibition?

      The wild pigs?

      Like I said, they have no cops.

  6. Not “fully” libertarian? Losing your self-ownership to a false consciousness fallacy means it might as well be North Korea.

  7. The government of Liberland is quite simple: They take it in turns, to act as sort of executive officer for the week, but every decision by that officer have to be ratified by a special bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of major policy decisions.

    1. I prefer governments led by men chosen by watery tarts or moisten bints.

    2. How’s your mud production?

  8. Liberland sounds like a nightmare state. Life without city councils and planning commissions? ELL OH ELL

    1. It sounds like a swamp the size of two city blocks sitting between two countries that hate each other.

      1. And no drugs!!! Thanks, but “no” to Liberland. I have already lived in Utah.

  9. “But no drugs allowed”

    Fuck that. Why do so many libertarians turn out to be such fucking fascists when it comes to things they personally disapprove of? Is it newsworthy that another European right-wingers thinks he’s extra-special special?

    1. Even your strawman libertarian is better than the all-fascist-all-the-time actual socialists.

      1. He’s also on record as saying communists and– more appealingly, I admit– neo-nazis need not apply. So a wannabe Fabianist doesn’t want communists or druggies to sully his riverboat settlement. Boy, there sure are a lot of rules already for a place that doesn’t have any population. I’m not a communist, but I am in favor of a robust welfare state paid for by progressive taxation. Maybe I can get in, but I’ll probably have to wear a red star.

        Seriously, if I wanted to live outside the EU in a cranky micro-state why wouldn’t I just move to this place… http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki…..hristiania

        1. If it’s his property, then he can decide who goes in and buys. He’d have to improve it first (Lockean property rights).

          If you don’t like it, don’t move there. My concern is the drug nonsense. Your is (of course) the fact that no-one looks to be stealing from others to protect the lazy.

          You must produce if you are to consume.

        2. He sounds like a Mormon. A beer drinking Mormon.

    2. No a true libertarian. Or never smoke dope.

      1. “Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good”.
        – Some Dead White Guy

  10. Complete nonsense. That place isn’t called no-man’s land for nothing. It is a killing field. The next time the neighbors fire up their ancient blood-feud everyone there will be slaughtered.

    1. I dunno, Croatia and Serbia are kind of shitholes, if any actual libertarians move there they might end up being more heavily armed than both of their neighbors.

      1. Freedom breeds prosperity (by definition). Prosperity breeds cool toys. Many cool toys exist to blow stuff up.

        If this place turned into a bigger economy than Dubai, what incentive would anyone have to invade it (other than irrational hatred)? It has no natural resources nor anything at all valuable once you kill off the defenders. It would be like invading Switzerland.

      2. Croatia is not at all a shithole. Serbia, while quite beautiful in the countryside, could be described as such.

  11. Anyone here know a bookie who will give odds on when the first law will be written that grossly overrules Liberland’s constitution?

    1. Hmm *puts away calculator and visor*, seems there is a 100% chance that their constitution will be worthless within 2 decades. If the country itself lasts more than a week.

  12. I haven’t heard Vit make any definitive statements in favor of drug prohibition. I would tend to think this is just his personal view and might even be to avoid trouble with the Croat and Serb police at a very sensitive time. Drug freedom is in fact in the Liberland constitution.

  13. self proclaimed Liberland president…. sounds like a dictatorship.

  14. “My task is to introduce this constitution and, as you can see, there is no place for presidents in that constitution. So after I introduce the first general election in this country I would like to retire from the government of Liberland.”

    That’s what they ALL say, dude…

    1. Yep.

      This creator might be an angel of freedom. But smart money says his successors won’t be.

  15. No drugs? What if I get a headache?

  16. Emma . if you think Troy `s posting is something, last week I bought a great Fiat Panda after having made $9865 this last 4 weeks and over ten-grand this past month . this is actually the most financially rewarding Ive ever done . I started this 7-months ago and pretty much straight away startad bringin in over $84… per/hr . visit homepage……………
    ………………. http://WWW.WORK4HOUR.COM

  17. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.work-cash.com

  18. Everyone, consider “signing” the petition for the US to recognize Liberland. Yeah, it’s a tool of a statist president, but hey, you never know: https:// petitions.whitehouse.gov /petition/ recognize-liberland-sovereign-nation. Even if there’s no prayer of it succeeding, if the petition gets big enough that in turn could generate more news and let more people know about this crazy, cool, if imperfect idea.

  19. Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super… I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I’ve ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h….. ?????? http://www.Jobs-Cash.com

  20. Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super… I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I’ve ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h….. ?????? http://www.Jobs-Cash.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.