Silk Road forums
Discussion => Philosophy, Economics and Justice => Topic started by: bynter on November 19, 2012, 06:05 am
-
Me and a friend were talking, and we came up with this really far fetched idea. But the more we thought about, the less far-fetched it seemed.
Basic Plan Outline: Get a bunch of meth addicts. Take them via boat to uninhabited coast of some South American country that doesn't have a government powerful enough to do anything about it. Start agriculture and drug manufacturing. As growth expanded, go back to the states and get more meth addicts. Repeat. As growth further expanded, get some skilled people in on the matter. When I got to the point where it became a settlement of respectable size, it'd take a shift from slave labor to an idealitsic utopia. (last two steps optional)
Why meth addicts? because when I come to them with an offer of an assured job, assured housing, food, an environment where they're accepted, and an endless supply of meth, they may very well be willing to leave their life behind for it. Additionally, they get put to work, well.... theyd almost constantly be on meth. and I'd be in control of the meth supply.
Misc. ideas I also thought of: Maybe I could make a deal with the cartels there?; Maybe some idealists like myself from some sort of community like this would want to join in?; if the government tried to stop me, (by the time they noticed me) I'd have an army of people constantly on meth; if not S america, maybe Iceland or Australia?
Some concerns I have: Am I overestimating how willing meth addicts would be to leave behind their lives?; Is there any(or even in 10 years from now) uninhabited South American coastline that belongs to a country too poor to notice or stop me?; any sort of legal regulations thatd prevent me from leaving the country with like 30 people that didnt have passports?; how would i trade(or not get fucked up by) cartels? How far south do they generally extend?; if not for the country itself or cartels trying to stop me, would the UN try to?
Is there even a modocom of feasibility or practicality to this?
Sorry for multiple threads, I wasn't anticipating that other one to keep getting bumped.
-
God damn man. You've got some of the craziest posts I see on here. Reminds of the rainmaker character from that new movie Loopers.
Is bynter a future shaker and mover, or a future burnt out washed up junkie?
-
There's a long history of people looking into creating new "countries" around the world, for various reasons. It's a lot harder than you might think. The most realistic possibility at the moment (though still an outside chance) is the "seasteading" project being pushed by Patri Friedman.
http://www.seasteading.org
-
Yeah what do you know John Humphreys, it's not like you have a Wikipedia article about you or anything. I mean for Christ's sake, John Humphreys, do you even remember what it was like to be a boy with a dream? I'm mean an actual one John Humphreys, not a hopelessly deluded fantasy brought on by your abuse of methamphetamine.
Do you John Humphreys?!
I'm in bynter. It doesn't take nightmarish hallucinations and constant paranoia to understand where you're coming from, and I'll do whatever it takes to help you accomplish your dream. Just tell me when and where to go, and I'll be there as your first legionnaire.
Be sure to bring the meth.
-
Yeah what do you know John Humphreys, it's not like you have a Wikipedia article about you or anything. I mean for Christ's sake, John Humphreys, do you even remember what it was like to be a boy with a dream? I'm mean an actual one John Humphreys, not a hopelessly deluded fantasy brought on by your abuse of methamphetamine.
Do you John Humphreys?!
I'm in bynter. It doesn't take nightmarish hallucinations and constant paranoia to understand where you're coming from, and I'll do whatever it takes to help you accomplish your dream. Just tell me when and where to go, and I'll be there as your first legionnaire.
Be sure to bring the meth.
I'm not quite sure if you're calling me, John Humhreys, or both of us silly. or maybe just the actual John Humphreys Either way, that was still beautiful.
-
I'm in bynter. That is one fucking amazing plan!
The only caveat is that you must supply me with d-amphetamine instead of d-methamphetamine :)
I think it's a fairly solid plan, although you've gotta have the initial capital investment of a shit load of meth to feed the addicts at first and commercial chem manufacturing equipment (shouldn't be too hard to source outside of countries that give a shit about that sort of thing). Many a military has fueled their soldiers with meth, so it's not a completely new idea ;) Delivery of product to other countries.
I'd steer as far clear of cartels as you possibly can, if that means avoiding certain markets so be it. They are very much in bed with various government authorities.
-
Looks like the tribe has spoken John Humphreys, guess you won't be quashing any more dreams anytime soon :) !
I mean seriously John Humphreys, if men like you had the last say in everything, we'd still be living in grass huts. Yeah that's right John Humphreys, grass huts with no electricity or running water (that means no ipods, playstations, or internet porn). So the next time you attack a dreamer like bynter, remember how much you owe to men like him.
Electricity today; tiny micronations run on the slave labor of meth heads tomorrow. Dare to dream, John Humphreys!
-
lol. Methheads... who whould have thought? Genius :)
go play bioshock, I think you would like Andrew Ryan
A big, anarchist underwater city in the middle of the atlantic
-
<removed>
-
Why can't you try and apply to psychedelic people such as myself instead of meth heads?
We're not addicts, we'd ultimately work very hard to make it a success, and we could build possibly one of the most profound cultures in human history. Think about it - a group of disillusioned hippies and intellectuals get together, produce LSD, mushrooms, peyote, 2C-x, etc, endlessly tripping and we all dedicate ourselves to our area of interest. I think it would be far more interesting.
-
I have done some research on how you can create a new country. That was not aimed to create a safe haven for drug users (although i would it see it feasible not to ban any substances in said country).
There are basically 2 ways to create a new country and get it accepted as such:
- terra nova
- civil war leading to separation
The terra nova approach involves claiming a landmass (such as a small island) that has not been claimed before by any other nation. If any existed outside territorial waters of existing states, this would be possible. Practical downside is that they do not. The way to circumvent that would be to actually -create- the landmass, for example by depositing sand until the whole thing rises above the ocean surface. The downside of that idea is that there is very little shallow water outside of existing countries territorial waters.
The civil war route is quite different. This would require you to take control of an area of an already existing country. It also requires the country you are taking that land from agrees with you doing so. A scenario like that could happen in Gaza, forning a new country out of land taken from Isreal. That particular example doesn't seem overly likely. The principle applies all over the world though, and it could work if you wanted to 'liberate' a piece of land that is of little importance to the country you took it from.
Also, countries can be split under some circumstances. If you look at the former Yugoslavia in Europe, you will find that it has now been split into a handful of sovereign states that are recognized by virtually all other countries in the world.
In the US, i suppose it would be feasible to separate a state from the federal government as well. They key to doing so is making the rest of the states believe that keeping that state is not worth the effort. Practically it would boil down to denying federal governance in that state. If you do that on a state level, you can basically keep out any federal oversight, and detain any federal agents entering that state a prisoners of war until the dispute is settled.
All of this is mostly unprecedented, but that does not mean it is impossible at all. Isolationist movements have booked some succeses in creating new states out of crumbling ones in Europe. Most of them aren't particularly successful at anything, but they did manage to create a new country on the bottom line.
-
@PsilocybinReality I don't see why not, although having meth heads and psychedelics fanatics like yourself isn't mutually exclusive. The key idea behind the meth heads is that theyll be unkskilled laborors who i should be able to get a lot of and be able to control them by controlling the meth supply(and if i keep it coming, they shouldnt even mind). Sure, there will be a need for skilled laborers like yourself, but thats not the foundation of the idea(though the higher level workers will still be significant part of it)
@ben @stexo
I was thinking A poor country in South America or Africa. Probably South America, since it's more fertile and less Africa. Also, I have to imagine many of the countires there are too poor to do anything. By the time I become significant enough to be a concern, ill be able to put up enough resistance that stopping my nation wouldnt even be worth the trouble. Is there anywhere in SA like that?
How much would an investment like this require? I was thinking around $300k for the first batch of 30 or so people if bring. How would I go about getting that any vaccines for all the South American stuff? I need to be sure to do everything in my power to minimize biohazardous contractions, God knows meth addicts wont have a competent immune system.
-
@PsilocybinReality I don't see why not, although having meth heads and psychedelics fanatics like yourself isn't mutually exclusive. The key idea behind the meth heads is that theyll be unkskilled laborors who i should be able to get a lot of and be able to control them by controlling the meth supply(and if i keep it coming, they shouldnt even mind). Sure, there will be a need for skilled laborers like yourself, but thats not the foundation of the idea(though the higher level workers will still be significant part of it)
Sounds quite authoritarian, the fact that you intend to manipulate them by controlling a meth monopoly. Is there any moral ideal to this, or is it just a power grab? Besides, you should think it about it more carefully, methamphetamine is relatively easy to produce, so long as your government were not waging another draconian drug war, most communities would be able to produce enough meth for themselves without your help. I agree that having psychedelic people and meth addicts in one country isn't mutually exclusive, but don't be so naive as to think you can control the addicts that way. Give them incentives, like the ones you mentioned, housing, food and jobs, no punitive drug laws.
The main problem with starting a country full of addicts is that it isn't going to receive much foreign investment, and no one's going to want to come on holiday there if everyone is off their heads on meth.
-
The required investment would probably be very, very large. If you want to separate a piece of land from an existing country, that basically means you would require the means to fight off the military of that country. 300M would be more likely than 300k to liberate any substantial piece of land, regardless if you attempted that in southern america, africa, or south-east asia.
The best target would probably be an island though, preferably without much population on it. Having a land border with the country you are trying to separate from makes the whole ordeal more expensive since ground troops could try to put a stop to it, using heavy artillery if need be.
Apart from the money, actually obtaining the military hardware to achieve your goals would be another problem. The feasibility of that would depend mostly on what nation you are planning to taking the land or island from. Taking it from a nato or ssr country would be very difficult, since neither side would be willing to sell you weapons systems to achieve it regardless of how much you pay.
I suppose the best chance would be to take an island from a state like the Philippines or Indonesia. Both countries have a number of hardly inhabited islands, and lack the funds to put up a defense comparable to what western countries could.
All that said, it would still be incredibly difficult even if you had the funds. Defending an island against a WW2 level army would still be extremely difficult, and require modern weapons that could only obtained from countries like isreal. Shooting down 70s era bomber is by no means an easy thing to do - something like a stinger missile will probably prove ineffective/
-
@PsilocybinReality I have an ideal set I think most people on here would agree with, but ideals are just going to get in the way when I need to have huge efficiency for this to work initially. 1920s capitalist America did basically what Im proposing doing, but with money instead of meth. If I try and stay away from other countries and carefully lock down meth ingredients, are there any other obstacles that would lay in my way of maintaining a monopoly on the meth? I'm thinking I'd have to run the growing first few years like a communist government.
And I guess theres not a single South American country that is poor, fertile, and coastal? I'm thinking really South. Below Brazil South. I'd like to start up through means of Stealth rather than force.
-
Another major angle that needs to be examined is European/US politics. Lower economy = more people desperate and willing to join in, as well as a lower chance that those older brother countries might feel a need to assault my country/intervene with drug market channels.
-
There's a lot of ice melting - how about a corner of Greenland or a newly separated Antartic island? You probably won't need to monopolise the meth production - just make sure you have a dedicated team planting shiny objects here and there
-
I doubt that any land gained by melting ice would be that good - all of it would be in the territorial waters of nato countries, and very hard to defend for that reason alone.
Taking some islet from an asian country would be easier. They would not have the entire nato to back up the effot to regain control of it, nor would they be -that- driven to defend an island that hhas little intrinsic value. If such an island is inhabited it would be important to offer opportunity to the native population though. Converting $100 an acre corn farmland to $10.000 an acre cannabis or poppy plantations would probably gain a lot of public support with the inhabitants.
vThis route would most importantly be one that benefits both you and the people already owning the land, resolving many problems before you even deploy the concept.
-
what you're describing is a cult
-
huge areas in Himalayas not controlled by anyone, people coming here and living all their life here, growing weed.
another example of country inside the country is Maoists in India. Maoist expanded significantly in recent years. completely controlling about 150 districts. Indian Maoists exporting huge amount of iron ore to China. It is realistic and accomplished country inside the country with own taxation and economy based on export of iron ore. Indian government cannot do anything about them.
the project proposed by OP is sort of insurgency too, so all rules related to insurgency will apply too. One thing is for sure, no any insurgency survived or succeed without massive out of the country support.
-
Better yet, instead of meth slave labor. Use a bunch of acid-heads that are keen on bettering the world for the future of mankind. If so, I'm in.
The idea of "oh, it'll be hell now and a utopia later" has never worked. It's just human instinct to fuck over everyone to keep the power they have.
I have seriously been thinking of doing this on a small scale if I ever get a load of money ($100 million+). I would simply buy some land and build a gated community with maybe 50-250 households. There would be interviews required and I would have to objectively judge that each person was a truly good person with the best of intentions (ironic that I would be JUDGING someone as to them being good). Aside from this I would be sure that they were 100% in support of the legalization of all drugs and completely against organized religion (sorry if you disagree). Theoretically we would not allow an law enforcement or government officials in so you can do all the drugs you want openly. Not to mention I'd make sure there was at least one grower/manufacturer of each drug so we would be self-sufficient in that aspect, as well as semi-sufficient in food, water, electricity, etc. There would be a small number of security people, but there would be a zero-tolerance policy for actual crime within the community (violence, theft...). One strike and you're out!
This is all in theory. I could see problem with people inviting people in and them blabbing about it, so measures to combat this would have to be instilled. It would be a challenge but I think it is truly do-able.
Opinions?
-
I did some more research, and a pacific island would be best. Indonesia would be ideal, but I need to think about the gas required to get people there. and it's for that reason that South america or the Pacific seem viable. If i just kind of set up shop in chile or Argentina and tried not to bother anybody in the area, I imagine I'd be alright. If I went farther North, cartels, wheter or not they were in collabortaion with a government, would probably be happy to work with me if they knew I'd be profitable for them.
-
I wouldn't be overly worried about the transportation costs - that'll be nothing compared to what it actually costs to operate a country.
At first glance, indonesia seems like a really good target with its thousands of islands, many of which not even permanently inhabited, or inhabited by a population that would not care much about the whole ordeal as long as they can go along their business as usual.
The problem with indonesia, however, is that the central government is very reluctant to allow any part of the country to separate. This is not because they care about the particular islet you are trying to isolate, but because of the example that would set. Being the collection of rather diverse ilsands indonesia is, the government there is very afraid of losing control over the islands. The government on java will never allow any island to gain independence, no matter how small or insignificant it is. The problem there is that once they do, others will follow. Indonesia is governed from muslim java, but has several islands in its territory that prefer more independence too. One of these islands is Bali, which brings in enormous amounts of revenue from tourism, but has a population that is mostly hindu. If some islet managed to gain independence from indonesia, they would be likely to pursue that as well, as would many islands like the mostly christian flores.
Governments are often afraid that granting independence to even the most insignificant speck of their territory will inspire other parts to follow suit. China is also a good example of a country that doesn't let go of anything, even regaining control of hong kong.
This doesn't end all options though. Legislation can differ between parts of a country, just like it does between US states. Perhaps in the US the federal legislation is stronger compared to other countries that are composed of pieces of land that only share the same national flag. I'm not an american myself, but if i were, i would wonder what it would take to separate a state from the union. I'm sure this should be possible if the inhabitants of a state agree to do so by a large majority, though i'm not familiar with the mechanism behind it.
-
Sealand is an interesting case when looking at legislation.
The place itself is, however, not that interesting since its little more then a deteriorating piece of concrete on pillars on the UK coast.
Also, it doesn't really apply to the modern situation anymore, since nowadays such a platform would be territory of whatever country built it, albeit not expanding territorial waters and such just by building it.
If you look at countries created since WW2 that are internationally recognized, all of them resulted from an area splitting off, or the dis-assembly of a state into several pieces. The amount of violence involved in that process widely varies, but it usually takes at least the threat of violence to make a start.
-
im in. im not a methhead tho. but im willing to work for food and shelter if i can grow weed and mush.
-
I suppose that would be fine after the split-off is completed, but before it its, it will take great effort of everyone in the area to be separated for such a plan to work. This by no means requires you to be soldier, but some for military purposes would be required, or if you prefer taxation to have someone else do that work for you.
I presume that defending a piece of land will be a more and more technological operation though. This would allow many people to contribute, also those not physically fit for duty as a soldier at all. After all, you would need a whole lot of people working in anti-missile, anti-nival and anti-aircraft defense work, especially if you want to split off an island and ground forces are not that big a threat.
-
One point of concern I think is being overlooked is: Am I overestimating how willing meth addicts will be to drop their life to come farm in South america?
-
How about buying a big f^&k off cargo ship. Keep it in international waters. Advertise it as a busmans holiday. I think most addicts will want to be part of something that makes it easier to feed their habit and lets them see the world. I'd do it just for the chance to wear an eye patch and own a parrot
-
A ship would still fall under the jurisdiction of its flag country, though i suppose enforcing law would be rather complicated if passengers and crew disagree with that.
If all you want is to use drugs without being interrupted by police, there are plenty of places on land where you can do that - as long as you refrain from interfering with others through theft, robbery and such.
If you want to take opiates, why not move to an area of suitable climate ad grow them in your backyard? Police aren't usually looking for poppies with scars on them in western countries at all.
-
After you get settled declare war on the U.S.. We will pay you billions of dollars a year to "be nice to us"
-
I doubt the US would be that welcoming to a separatist country really - depending entirely on which country you intend to take the land from of course.
The best way to successful country formation is to make friends, not enemies, nor nations scared of you.
Posing a threath to the USA is a difficult matter for any country, but one not worth fighting when just setting up shop. Fending off an attack by the US or Russia would be overly costly. It's not that much of a problem to hit large countries like these where it really hurts, but its defending against their counter attacks that is to be avoided.
-
There are some people that have done this in the capitol of Denmark, Copenhagen. Its a place which isn't regulated by the danish drug laws. Its called Freetown Christiania (clearnet link!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania
-
Better yet, instead of meth slave labor. Use a bunch of acid-heads that are keen on bettering the world for the future of mankind. If so, I'm in.
The idea of "oh, it'll be hell now and a utopia later" has never worked. It's just human instinct to fuck over everyone to keep the power they have.
I have seriously been thinking of doing this on a small scale if I ever get a load of money ($100 million+). I would simply buy some land and build a gated community with maybe 50-250 households. There would be interviews required and I would have to objectively judge that each person was a truly good person with the best of intentions (ironic that I would be JUDGING someone as to them being good). Aside from this I would be sure that they were 100% in support of the legalization of all drugs and completely against organized religion (sorry if you disagree). Theoretically we would not allow an law enforcement or government officials in so you can do all the drugs you want openly. Not to mention I'd make sure there was at least one grower/manufacturer of each drug so we would be self-sufficient in that aspect, as well as semi-sufficient in food, water, electricity, etc. There would be a small number of security people, but there would be a zero-tolerance policy for actual crime within the community (violence, theft...). One strike and you're out!
This is all in theory. I could see problem with people inviting people in and them blabbing about it, so measures to combat this would have to be instilled. It would be a challenge but I think it is truly do-able.
Opinions?
It's kinda reminiscent of a Mormon segregated community (sans drugs, etc.). You seen the Vice doco where they go see Mitt Romney's Mexican family?
-
I think there is two premises that have to be fulfilled.
1. You have to be more trouble to get rid of than what it is worth. This might be obtainable by settling into one of those US gold ghost towns or an other uninhabited area that no one really cares about. This premiss is probably easier than the next one.
2. Your society have to be able to fend for it self. Christiana is located in the middle of Copenhagen, and this connected it closely to the danish infrastructure which made it a sustainable society. So you have got to either connect it closely to a foreign country's infrastructure or make your own. If you get to close to an other country it will be hard to stand on your principles because you will be very dependent on this country and it will be hard to stand against what it might want to force upon your nation. If you want to fend for your self you should know that most people who sign up for an utopian society don't expect to work much. And to make a society with its own infrastructure requires a shitload of hard work.
-
Those two factors are always hard to combine. If you consider taking an uninhabited island there is a fair chance its previous owner doesn't care all that much if nothing of value were on or around it. Downside is you'd need to construct everything from scratch, though that's a matter of money and outside contractors mostly.
Taking existing, inhabited territory like Copenhagen or a deserted US town poses its own problems. Mostly, it would be small and landlocked, not an unpleasant condition when you are fighting the country that envelopes you.
Considering all of it an island would be good, a peninsula with a narrow stretch (or future potential for a bridge) to the mainland best.
Even in the best case it would be an extremely costly ordeal though. I figure the cost of defending it against a modestly armed nation wanting in back (but not desperately so) would be at least a billion. That would quickly escalate a hundredfold if the territory had any use however, or if the country you took it from wants to prevent a precedent.
-
The meth addicts seem to be the weak point of this plan. Pretty soon your utopia is going to be ruined by all the addicts going on welfare and disability.
-
Whhhhhhaaattt????? Why would they ever feel the need to do that when I'm supplying them with somewhat perpetual meth.
-
Who said anything about healthcare and disability payments?
If you want to break off a piece of land to form a state, those are not things you will have money for. I suppose any freshly formed state will attract those seeking freedom, also from taxation. Obviously running a state costs money (infrastructure, defense, etc), things like state-provided healthcare are only available in mature states with very high taxation today.
-
Ben, there would have to be some sort of healthcare because the meth addicts would be sick all the time. They would also be poor workers. They would probably consume so much meth there would be nothing left to export.
Exporting would be a problem. If you kept it domestic, and made sure it wasn't exported, the maybe this utopia won't be invaded by a foreign country. The USA would definitely invade if they exported to the USA.
-
There are some people that have done this in the capitol of Denmark, Copenhagen. Its a place which isn't regulated by the danish drug laws. Its called Freetown Christiania (clearnet link!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania
aw man i love that place! Lightin up under the green lights...... No photography.
-
I don't see why a public healthcare system would be required really. Surely, people doing nothing but meth all day long would die without it, but i suppose that's just what happens if there is no state available that remedies all your problems. It happens all of the time in second and third world countries, and noone seems to care much about that.
As for exporting to the US: That is a difficult problem. I suppose the policy is to bomb the shit out of every country of production whose drugs eventually reach the us - even if the transport route is indirect. It's not like planeloads of opium are flown directly from Afghanistan to the us. The actual route goes through europe mostly with several stops in between.
I suppose the only thing that will make a change in this is US public opinion. It is really pointless to destroy some country that produces narcotics that end up in the states. This is an international market, and production will just shift elsewhere, leaving the distribution network mostly intact. Eventually this will push production into countries the US cannot attack - nato members or russia and its friends.
-
for distribution, I'm really starting to think cartels might be the way to go. Sure, you don't want to be fucking around with that kind of thing, but they're going to embrace a symbiotic relationship.