[Decky]

You forgot corrupt oligarchy

Well he did ask for libertarianism. Who do you think would end up running everything under such a system?

[SolarCross]

Well he did ask for libertarianism. Who do you think would end up running everything under such a system?

Your thinking of bolshevism.

[Eran]

Btw if you want white people then you shouldn't be a libertarian.
Libertarians believe in open borders so they can import cheap labor.

Not so.

If you want white people, you should be a libertarian. If you want people of all hues, you should also be a libertarian.

Libertarianism results in more people getting what they want than any other system.

In a libertarian society, those wishing to only (or mainly) interact with whites are welcome to form their own white-only communities (no anti-discrimination laws). However, those wishing to "import cheap labour", as well as (much more to the point) those wishing to improve their lives through immigration, can also do so.

That's not even true of all libertarians. Hans-Hermann Hoppe is actually in favor of restricted immigration.
He's an anarchist of course. If there were an anarchist society, he'd be quite willing to let the property owner decide who's allowed on his property but the entire situation changes if there's a state.

Hans Hoppe's positions are easy to misunderstand and misrepresent. To be fair, he isn't trying to make such misrepresentations difficult...

His position, essentially, is the one I wrote above. He wants people to have the freedom to exclude those they wish to from their immediate neighbourhoods, though only using voluntary means.

[emmitt]

In a libertarian society, those wishing to only (or mainly) interact with whites are welcome to form their own white-only communities (no anti-discrimination laws). However, those wishing to "import cheap labour", as well as (much more to the point) those wishing to improve their lives through immigration, can also do so.

He's an anarchist of course. If there were an anarchist society, he'd be quite willing to let the property owner decide who's allowed on his property but the entire situation changes if there's a state.

I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me since I said exactly the same.
I didn't misrepresent anyone. In fact, I quoted him and I mentioned his essay where he makes the case for restrictive immigration.

Edit:

I reread another essay by Hoppe and I actually came across a pretty informative footnote. I think it's best to quote it.

Against many left-libertarian open border enthusiasts, it is incorrect to infer from the fact that an immigrant has found someone willing to employ him that his presence on a given territory must henceforth be considered “invited.” Strictly speaking, this conclusion is true only if the employer also assumes the full costs associated with the importation of his immigrant-employee. This is the case under the much-maligned arrangement of a “factory town” owned and operated by a proprietor. Here, the full cost of employment, the cost of housing, healthcare, and all other amenities associated with the immigrant’s presence, is paid for by the proprietor. No one else’s property is involved in the immigrant-worker settlement. Less perfectly (and increasingly less so), this full-cost-principle of immigration is realized in Swiss immigration policy.

[...]

Theoretically bankrupt, the left-libertarian open border stance can be understood only psychologically. One source can be found in the Randian upbringing of many left-libertarians. Big businessmen-entrepreneurs are portrayed as “heroes” and, according to Ayn Rand in one of her more ridiculous statements, are viewed as the welfare state’s “most severely persecuted minority.” In this view (and untainted by any historical knowledge or experience), what can possibly be wrong with a businessman hiring an immigrant worker?

[Sithsaber]

Singapore if you're rich enough.

[SolarCross]

Singapore if you're rich enough.

Singapore is an interesting suggestion. Hyper-wealthy, economically quite free, english widely spoken, 1st class communication tech... but quite authoritarian in terms of freedom of speech and behaviour regulation. Land scarce, owning a car is made artificially expensive.. It is attractive to me more than it is unattractive though I think I would miss driving.

[Rothbardian]

Singapore is economically free. Just be sure you're okay with being caned for spitting gum out on the street.

[Paradigm]

Take your pick.

[SolarCross]

I've looked at Russia but apparently getting past the bureaucrats is a feckin nightmare and that rather spoils it.
Singapore is too authoritarian despite its economic freedom.

How about UAE?
Pros
- low / no-tax
- economically fairly free
- good communication tech
- warm weather
- near Iran
- english widely understood
- relatively easy to get residency though citizenship is not so easy.

Cons
- ?

[Soix]

How about UAE?

So long as you're not into buggery.

[SolarCross]

So long as you're not into buggery.

I don't drink alcohol, commit adultery or participate in sodomy so I should be ok.

[Soix]

I don't... participate in sodomy

Aw... that's too bad.

However economically free the UAE may appear to be, socially it is, clearly, very unfree (Sharia law). Not exactly a paragon of what a libertarian country should be.

[ronimacarroni]

>mfw people keep omitting the US for most libertarian country

[Eran]

If you want to be left alone, your best chance might be to find a relatively-uninhabited corner of the United States and set yourself up for semi-independent life there.

While in principle under the jurisdiction of both state and Federal oppressive laws, in practice you are more likely to be left alone (if you keep quiet) than almost anywhere else.

[SolarCross]

Soix - It is a matter of perspective; I'd rather be free from having to interact with in-your-face alcoholics, adulterers, porn-obsessives and bum-prodders, so for me UAE would be decidedly more socially free than say the UK.

Roni - Some US states have been suggested: New Hampshire, Texas and Wyoming. However while many people in the US have a strong libertarian sentiment, the Washington mob effectively nullifies it in practice. I won't go anywhere under their dominion.

Eran - I don't want to do the off-grid, grow your own veg, hermit thing. I want to do business without being parasitised, patronised and paralysed by bureaucratic cretins. I'm fizzing with ideas for enterprises and so I want to go somewhere hot for business action.

[Kman]

Soix - It is a matter of perspective; I'd rather be free from having to interact with in-your-face alcoholics, adulterers, porn-obsessives and bum-prodders, so for me UAE would be decidedly more socially free than say the UK.

I seriously doubt the UAE has political freedom and freedom of speech so if you move to this "libertarian" country you probably shouldnt be bragging too much on the interwebz about your libertarian tendencies or your anti-religious attitudes (if you have those), otherwise the religious police might pay you a visit.

[SolarCross]

I seriously doubt the UAE has political freedom and freedom of speech so if you move to this "libertarian" country you probably shouldnt be bragging too much on the interwebz about your libertarian tendencies or your anti-religious attitudes (if you have those), otherwise the religious police might pay you a visit.

UAE has no less freedom of speech than anywhere in europe or the US for that matter. Just as Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, David Irving, Norman Finklestein and whole hosts of others would tell you if they had the chance. UAE doesn't have religious police, they just have police some of whom are more or less religious. UAE is ruled by merchant princes like the Italian city-states of the Renaissance not by Imams. Not that I mind religious rulers; I have lived in Iran where there are religious police and lots of religious people in government. They are mostly a really good bunch of people actually; courteous, wise and kindly though you do get the odd flake and the odd faker (Rafsanjani).

[Roza]

UAE has no less freedom of speech than anywhere in europe or the US for that matter. Just as Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, David Irving, Norman Finklestein and whole hosts of others would tell you if they had the chance. UAE doesn't have religious police, they just have police some of whom are more or less religious. UAE is ruled by merchant princes like the Italian city-states of the Renaissance not by Imams. Not that I mind religious rulers; I have lived in Iran where there are religious police and lots of religious people in government. They are mostly a really good bunch of people actually; courteous, wise and kindly though you do get the odd flake and the odd faker (Rafsanjani).

So it's ok to have religious rulers just as long as you don't have to pay any taxes?

On the topic of the most libertarian country with warm weather, either one of the many British owned tax havens, somewhere like Switzerland or a relatively safe developing country. I can't think why people would suggest that someone should go and migrate to Somalia.

[AFAIK]

Cambodia has no zoning laws, licensing is minimal. Businesses are free to operate whatever hours they choose.
The society is very conservative- stripping and sex shows are illegal.

Thanks to USA imperialism prostitution and pedophilia are illegal and largely ignored by local authorities whilst foreign funded NGOs make a big deal if foreigners are involved. This law led to a reduction in condom use as they are considered to be evidence of prostitution. Prostitutes operating in public spaces are regularly harassed by low paid police.

Adultery was made illegal in an attempt to imprison one of the prime ministers political rivals. It turned out that he wasn't married to the woman he was living with. It is rare for anyone to be charged with adultery because both your spouse and his or her lover would be prosecuted. I believe there has been only 1 prosecution to date.

Property rights are routinely ignored by elites who profit from land concessions and expropriation of resources in national parks.

Corruption is endemic. Almost every institution and business has been co-opted or compromised. Students routinely bribe their way through school.

The few taxes that exist are much lower than other countries with the exception of imports. Cars are subject to a tariff 100%. This is the states primary source of revenue after donations.

[SolarCross]

So it's ok to have religious rulers just as long as you don't have to pay any taxes?

Well I am an anarchist so I have no use for rulers of any kind, but I have no special antipathy towards rulers guided or disguised by a religious sentiment.

Iceland - I am adding Iceland to the list of candidates for emigration. It might seem an odd choice since I said I wanted somewhere warm, but since I am getting more and more interested in crypto-currencies including the mining thereof, somewhere with cheap electricity and cool to cold environment is attractive in order to make mining more profitable. Iceland apparently also has a top notch internet infrastructure. In addition to that it had been a stable anarchy for some 300 years in the past, and surely must retain some of that culture today.