A country: can it be set up just like that ? Yes.

   What is the "magic" (nothing magic about it) ingredients of a country ?
   Can you just sit in your bedroom and say: "I start a new country
   right now" ?

   Some people may erroneously think that a new country starts when you
   capture the flag of the old country. That then magically everyone
   starts listening to you, that it is a matter of occupying the soil
   from where orders where previously emanating. That is nonsense.

   To start a new sovereign country you need:
   - Large majority support in a large area.
   - You need to print your new currency, distribute it, take in back
     under force as taxation income to cover the costs of the new state,
     make sure the currency is not counterfitted (too much), and make sure
     it is actually widely used (which taxation pressure will make more
     likely, since it creates a demand for the money in everyone, and
     demand created demand in this case, etc).
   - You need to make, build and maintain a structure: a government,
     police, and a Justice system, and run the whole deal with sufficient
     competence so that it is better then a) chaos and b) alternative
     states that may try to do the same (win the game of competition). This
     point means: you need laws and procedures for getting people into
     positions where they service the needs of the state and the society.

   Once you are there you can go look for the arbitrary parts like: make
   up a flag, make up a capital location (if any), define your area,
   start to make society profitable for itself, generate ties with other
   countries and I suppose initiate trade with them where useful.

   It is not that difficult ! However, the quality of your state design
   matters everything. It will determine if you will get support, it
   determines if you can even start it up, how well it will do and how
   long it will last.

   If you start a new state within the old, you get a dual power
   situation for most of above mentioned points. Who its money will get
   used ? Will the other side initiate a currency war by starting a
   professional counterfitting campaign ? What laws do the judges
   enforce, to what courts will people go for solutions. Will police
   carry out orders to arrest the members that make up the new state, or
   will they instead arrest the members of the old state, or do something
   else ? If there are two police forces created, how do they relate to
   each other ?

   In general I think it is all quite simple: behave honorable, and we
   will win. If you set up a new police: make it completely professional,
   make it nice in relations with the other police and invite them in. If
   the other side initiates currency wars, let them carry the cost of
   that attack as loss of honor and don`t treat them the same. Enforcing
   taxation can be a problem in the beginning if there are two states
   through each other. So that is simple then: being honorable says of
   course that you should leave taxation an act of free will at first. If
   people support that by paying their share, that would then act as
   political support and maybe it could be the final push to win. If
   people withhold their share of the tax burden, maybe they themselves
   don`t deserve to live in a better state ...

   It does not have to go right immedeately, and it is possible to do
   lots of non-sovereign experimentation with this kind of thing.
   posted on Monday, December 15, 2008 7:28 PM

   Comments
   # re: A country: can it be set up just like that ? Yes.
   jos boersema

   This can result in multiple states through each other. That is not
   ideal and on some points dysfunctional, however it is probably much
   preferred over having no state or only a criminal/dictatorial one.
   It makes sense to expect you can end up during a strike - revolution
   with multiple genuine states and with a more reactionary old state
   that was so bad it needed to be forcefully overthrown, and with one
   (or more) not genuinly meant new states sponsored from positions in
   the old state using these theories here as an infiltration and
   confusion method.

   All that should not be as much of a problem as it appears to be:
   - The end goal is a new proper Constitution, the multiple states can
     merge to being one state under the new Constitution. In so merging the
     previous states roll over into the procedures of a new larger
     Constitutional state. After the roll over the previous states
     evaporate. Then the revolution has succeeded. Because not genuine and
     criminal states realize they will lose much or all power in this roll
     over they may be against it. If they are against it but the public is
     in favor, such states fall through as being oppressive /
     non-democratic. If they want to make extensive changes to the given
     system of laws, so that it becomes a DAVID model with true democratic
     protocol (say at least referendum law 3.1.b) to give enduring power to
     the people, it might be a good idea to invite them to go ahead and do
     that without giving up newly set up states. This is because the
     smarter of the criminals know that in order to retain power you "have
     to go along with the people enough to have them give up their power to
     you." With the previous state busy implementing a DAVID model
     economy/society, other new states can go on pulling on society in that
     direction. If the old state goes far enough into a DAVID model, at
     some point the old and new state start to resemble each other,
     resistence to change in the old state could break down. Then it there
     may come a moment to roll over into new protocol of a new
     Constitution, and to change the capital, and to change many of the
     master / puppets, not only in the state, in order to get rid of the
     professional people-deceivers that have grown up in the old state. At
     that point and with strong procedural power in hand the new state
     "becomes the problem." That is because all corrupt people now want to
     be in the new state, and it will probably corrupt to some degree. The
     long fight against corruption and for truth continues. But the system
     was changed to what it should be: that is hopefully a permanent plus.
     Note that a state and society can be quite an opaque thing (black
     box), to make it transparent takes effort.

   - Before the roll over into the new state several constructive states
     that may exist through each other or side by side each other in a
     larger area that was and wants to be one nation: not all
     decisions/work have to conflict.

   Much will depend on the people. I expect the people will be well
   behaved because they realize the seriousness and their own impact.
   Because the people will be well behaved it will go easily. Some
   confrontation with the upper rich is to be expected, worse where
   division in society is worse. Some confrontation with the powerful is
   to be expected since they will lose that power (industry, banking).
   They don`t like to lose their wealth/power and complain about it, but
   are helpless and so they march a bit and whine but get no ear and make
   no sense, hopefully that is the end of that.

   In states currently divided strongly in rich/poor this struggle may
   become a civil war against state/police (new or ongoing) oppression.
   If so that struggle is to be won.


   # re: The side of decency.
   jos boersema

   Waar de aardappel groeit en de rechtvaardigheid bloeit: daar is het
   rijk van de rijken.

   Posted @ 12/16/2008 11:18 PM  

Post Comment