Jump to content

So, me and a friend are making a country..

Would you move here permanently with friends?  

5 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

Some day, me and a friend of mine are going to start a Liberal-Democratic island funded by investor's money on St.Lawrence Island.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Lawrence_Island

 

220px-Txu-pclmaps-topo-us-saint_lawrence-1970.jpg

Essentially, we will import food and water from Alaska/Canada until we are self sufficient.

 

As stated before, this micronation will be Liberal-Democratic (Variant of democracy; wherein the people or citizens of a country elect representatives to create and implement public policy in place of active participation by the people.).

 

 

Funding might be actually likely given by rich men, due to the fact that if a deal goes sour/they need a nice vacation spot, they can go here.

 

Taxes will be fairly low, since we are running a fund-based Micronation. Once we are self sufficient and no longer need funding, taxes will steadily go up to a lowish-medium.

 

Money will be in both US Dollars and Euros respectively, with their values equaled.

 

Since alaska does not actually USE St.Lawrence for anything in particular, they will most likely care less about it, and buying it will be a piece of cake.

 

Given the fact that I am under 18, and thus unable to create a micronation, it will be many, MANY years before this can take place. Since this is the place where people moan and complain about problems in the US, I figured some of you may want to move somewhere where there isn't any corruption/bias.

 

St.Lawrence is a cold and harsh island; be prepared to bring some winter gear.

Copied and pasted from Wikipeda:

 

  • Daily max 12 °F (−11 °C)(January) 20 °F (−7 °C) (April) 50 °F (10 °C) (July) 34 °F (1 °C) (October)
    Daily min 3 °F (−16 °C) 10 °F (−12 °C) 41 °F (5 °C) 29 °F (−2 °C)

 

Hunting will most likely take place once we become self sufficient; military growth will be unnecessary, because since we will likely be such a small micronation, larger nations 'have bigger fish to fry'.

 

Did I miss any important details? Let me know in the comments below! I have never done a post like this before, so suggestions would be great.

Share this post


Link to post
Since alaska does not actually USE St.Lawrence for anything in particular, they will most likely care less about it, and buying it will be a piece of cake.

Just like how they don't use most of their land, but you don't see them giving it up to anyone who just stakes a claim now do you? I'm so sure that the 1,292+ people who live there will just gladly submit to the rule of a non-Alaskan Liberal-Democrat when they're predominantly Republican.

Share this post


Link to post

You might want to look into the definition of the government you're talking about making... It's a Democratic Republic... Same thing available in the USA. There really is no such thing as a "Liberal Democracy" unless it's a Democracy entirely controlled by Liberals.

 

As for military, if you don't have one, someone is going to take over. China and North Korea would love to get a nice little puppet country next to US soil.

 

The major problem with both locations you described is that they have populations on the islands, and all you need to block you from making a country is just 1 person that is unwilling to sell. (and there are a lot of people that will refuse to sell if they don't like what you're going to put there when they're gone)

 

If you're wanting the best location to make a new country, try privately buying some uninhabited islands, or make your own island, or go to space. Those are the only ways you're going to succeed in making a country in this age short of military force.

Share this post


Link to post

"Liberal democracy is a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of liberalism, i.e. protecting the rights of the individual, which are generally enshrined in law."

Anyway, as for your other points, yes! No way in hell will I ever be able to afford an island; investors are the way to go for this one. As I said before, the hebrides is a good place to start, as no one lives there and thus no one would be effected by loosing it.

 

EDIT:The Outer Hebrides has 50 uninhabited islands. Alot of these islands are uninhabited due to the difficulty of reaching them. This would give us a defensive advantage, because unless they go by air, we're practically invincible in terms of sea defense.

As for your post on Military, I suppose we could invest in some soldiers-for-hire, sounds easy enough to me.

Share this post


Link to post

For military forces, it'd be cheaper to just have a volunteer defense force with a lot of training, and good equipment. I can do some of the training myself, but I would require a slightly different form of government. (I can't stand governments that meddle in my private life, which is one of the fundamental Liberal ideals)

 

Look at this for determining whether you are more Liberal or Conservative... http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/

Take this test to see where you are on the political scale... http://www.politicalcompass.org/

 

As for air assaults, 99% of the major powers that would want an island near another major power would primarily use an airborne strikeforce, as naval assaults are far less efficient.

Share this post


Link to post
(I can't stand governments that meddle in my private life, which is one of the fundamental Liberal ideals)

 

A great big lie.

 

You might want to look into the definition of the government you're talking about making... It's a Democratic Republic... Same thing available in the USA. There really is no such thing as a "Liberal Democracy" unless it's a Democracy entirely controlled by Liberals.

 

See above.

 

As for military, if you don't have one, someone is going to take over. China and North Korea would love to get a nice little puppet country next to US soil.

 

1. They can't get there. It's because of this thing called logistics.

2. They'd have to violate US air and naval space just to get there.

3. Installing weaponry so close to the US would damage US-Chinese relations, or would be used as a pretext to attack NK or remove it from the islands it occupies.

Share this post


Link to post
A great big lie.

See above.

Please elaborate.

 

1. They can't get there. It's because of this thing called logistics.

2. They'd have to violate US air and naval space just to get there.

3. Installing weaponry so close to the US would damage US-Chinese relations, or would be used as a pretext to attack NK or remove it from the islands it occupies.

1. If the country can become self-sufficient, then there is very little need for logistics apart from the initial invasion, which is easy to do if the defending military is small enough.

2. Anything beyond 11 miles of a coastline is international waters... The second proposed island/islands would have it's own 11 mile border, and a median border with Great Brittan, this leaves a large area from which to attack with effective impunity.

3. As long as the weapons, no matter how close, are not fired, the US would not allow it to hurt relations, and would have no recourse or inclination to attack anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
A great big lie.

See above.

Please elaborate.

 

The only "meddling" that I could possibly think of is higher taxes and eminent domain. Otherwise, you're free to live out your life.

 

1. If the country can become self-sufficient, then there is very little need for logistics apart from the initial invasion, which is easy to do if the defending military is small enough.

 

You need to keep everyone fed, all ships fueled, all weapons stocked, etc.

 

2. Anything beyond 11 miles of a coastline is international waters... The second proposed island/islands would have it's own 11 mile border, and a median border with Great Brittan, this leaves a large area from which to attack with effective impunity.

 

No offensive to the OP, but micronations are almost never considered actual nations, nor would they be recognized as such.

 

3. As long as the weapons, no matter how close, are not fired, the US would not allow it to hurt relations, and would have no recourse or inclination to attack anyone.

 

Uh, no. Putting weapons there would be a sign of hostility.

Share this post


Link to post
The only "meddling" that I could possibly think of is higher taxes and eminent domain. Otherwise, you're free to live out your life.

And forced government healthcare... And forced carbon dioxide emission restrictions... And forced to employ minorities instead of the best qualified... And forced regulation of anything that has to do with money... And forced to use public schools instead of whatever teaching institution is best... And forcing everyone to use less plentiful and more expensive "renewable" energy sources... And forcing citizens to be unarmed if confronting someone trying to do bodily harm... And forcing people to become non-religious in public locations... There are lots more I can go into, but those are just from the first link I posted.

 

You need to keep everyone fed, all ships fueled, all weapons stocked, etc.

Self sufficient = they would already have the food on-site because they would use the existing infrastructure. 90% of all logistical needs would already be in-place.

 

No offensive to the OP, but micronations are almost never considered actual nations, nor would they be recognized as such.

True.

 

Uh, no. Putting weapons there would be a sign of hostility.

So would insulting your grandma, but it wouldn't make anyone currently in power react violently, or allow it to strain relations too much with a country that effectively owns 90% of the economy.

Share this post


Link to post
And forced government healthcare.

 

Not really, and even if it was it's not actually bad.

 

And forced carbon dioxide emission restrictions.

 

Which doesn't affect your life.

 

And forced to employ minorities instead of the best qualified

 

Lie.

 

And forced regulation of anything that has to do with money

 

Exaggerated.

 

And forced to use public schools instead of whatever teaching institution is best.

 

Privately funded schools are not the "best", or even close.

 

And forcing everyone to use less plentiful and more expensive "renewable" energy sources.

 

Which has long term environmental benefits, and isn't "forced".

 

And forcing citizens to be unarmed if confronting someone trying to do bodily harm

 

Lie.

 

And forcing people to become non-religious in public locations

 

Exaggerated.

 

Self sufficient = they would already have the food on-site because they would use the existing infrastructure. 90% of all logistical needs would already be in-place.

 

No, I'm talking about getting everything together, mobilized, and then get it to the destination (which is two oceans away and hold little value).

 

So would insulting your grandma, but it wouldn't make anyone currently in power react violently, or allow it to strain relations too much with a country that effectively owns 90% of the economy.

 

1. China doesn't own 90% of the economy.

2. Irrelevant in any case, hostility is hostility.

3. If it was NK, it would provoke violence.

 

Additionally, how are they going to sneak the weapons past US intel? What does China have to gain from it? Additionally, NK can barely move outside its own borders without half the world screaming.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Woah, woah, woah! I never meant for this thread to become a flame war or anything. I just wanted a civilized topic about me creating a micronation on an island somewhere, never meant to offend anyone.

Too late, we've expanded into reality now.

 

And forced government healthcare.

Not really, and even if it was it's not actually bad.

Can you show any evidence that forcing people to have health insurance, and fining them for twice the price of better coverage if they don't, isn't a bad thing? (and up to 10x the price of the best coverage after 3 years)

 

And forced carbon dioxide emission restrictions.

Which doesn't affect your life.

So brown outs due to insufficient power generation caused by forced co2 monitoring and regulation, and making electricity prices triple doesn't affect me? (that is exactly what happened when they put in co2 regulations here)

 

And forced to employ minorities instead of the best qualified

Lie.

No it isn't. If you don't employ a certain amount of a certain demographic, you are fined by the government. It doesn't matter that someone else from a majority demographic is better qualified, they aren't hireable if you don't have enough from the minorities. (look up "Affirmative Action")

 

And forced regulation of anything that has to do with money

Exaggerated.

Proof?

 

And forced to use public schools instead of whatever teaching institution is best.

Privately funded schools are not the "best", or even close.

Never said they were 'better'... You should reread the statement, and quit putting words where none were written.

 

"Best" = The best institution for educating the individual that needs education... The curriculum used by the particular institution is very much a factor in this, as I myself have the experience that the vast majority of public schools use a curriculum that uses a learning method that doesn't work with me.

 

And forcing everyone to use less plentiful and more expensive "renewable" energy sources.

Which has long term environmental benefits, and isn't "forced".

And where is the conclusive proof that this is the case? There is a 50/50 split between scientists concerning this issue.

 

And forcing citizens to be unarmed if confronting someone trying to do bodily harm

Lie.

Gun control laws, all the cases where the victim broke an attacker's arm or killed the attacker and then had to pay hospital fees and/or go to jail... Where's the lie?

 

And forcing people to become non-religious in public locations

Exaggerated.

Public schools banning prayer, or any religious gatherings on their property, and any mention of religious activities while on their property... Libraries doing the same, and even removing bibles from the shelves... Firing people that violate these rules... I can go on.

 

Self sufficient = they would already have the food on-site because they would use the existing infrastructure. 90% of all logistical needs would already be in-place.

No, I'm talking about getting everything together, mobilized, and then get it to the destination (which is two oceans away and hold little value).

First, it would take about 3 days for either country mentioned to mobilize a force that could perform an invasion of those sized islands, and even make it look like they were doing nothing.

Second, the importance is strategic in nature... Don't underestimate how much value there is in a strategic location. There are loads of governments that maintain holds on locations for no other reason than strategic military locations. (like the USA and Guam for a very long time)

 

So would insulting your grandma, but it wouldn't make anyone currently in power react violently, or allow it to strain relations too much with a country that effectively owns 90% of the economy.

1. China doesn't own 90% of the economy.

2. Irrelevant in any case, hostility is hostility.

3. If it was NK, it would provoke violence.

1. I'll admit, it was an exaggeration... It's actually a lot more complicated than "owning" a percentage of the economy. More like controlling the underlying systems that control the US economy in such a way as to control 90% of the US economy.

2. And that means nothing to countries that have the majority of their populous that wants to focus on their own internal issues, and the rest that just want good relations with the rest of the world at all costs.

3. Can you provide proof?

 

Additionally, how are they going to sneak the weapons past US intel? What does China have to gain from it? Additionally, NK can barely move outside its own borders without half the world screaming.

They wouldn't need to sneak anything after an invasion, it would be their soil at that point.

China would gain a strategic location from which to stage an attack on other countries, provided they wanted to. At the very least it would make for good staging point for relaying goods.

That's only when they try to attack someone who has allied with several of the world's superpowers.

Share this post


Link to post
Can you show any evidence that forcing people to have health insurance, and fining them for twice the price of better coverage if they don't, isn't a bad thing? (and up to 10x the price of the best coverage after 3 years)

 

The latter is an issue, the former is not.

 

So brown outs due to insufficient power generation caused by forced co2 monitoring and regulation, and making electricity prices triple doesn't affect me? (that is exactly what happened when they put in co2 regulations here)

 

Cannot verify.

 

No it isn't.

 

Yes it is.

 

And forced regulation of anything that has to do with money
Exaggerated.
Proof?

 

Where's your proof?

 

(I'm just feeling ill right now, and don't know where to look.)

 

And where is the conclusive proof that this is the case? There is a 50/50 split between scientists concerning this issue.

 

Another lie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_scientific_organizations_of_national_or_international_standing

 

Gun control laws, all the cases where the victim broke an attacker's arm or killed the attacker and then had to pay hospital fees and/or go to jail... Where's the lie?

 

Gun control laws haven't surpassed banning the sales of automatic weapons. Don't know about the latter cases.

 

Public schools banning prayer, or any religious gatherings on their property, and any mention of religious activities while on their property... Libraries doing the same, and even removing bibles from the shelves... Firing people that violate these rules... I can go on.

 

Schools are funded by the Government, therefore prayer should not be allowed. Don't know about libraries though (aren't they privately owned institutions?).

 

1. I'll admit, it was an exaggeration... It's actually a lot more complicated than "owning" a percentage of the economy. More like controlling the underlying systems that control the US economy in such a way as to control 90% of the US economy.

2. And that means nothing to countries that have the majority of their populous that wants to focus on their own internal issues, and the rest that just want good relations with the rest of the world at all costs.

3. Can you provide proof?

 

For #2, what is that supposed to mean? And really #3 doesn't matter anyway since we have never seen a situation similar to the described, so I couldn't get any proof even if I wanted to. (that means I admit that I'm wrong with #3 by virtue of never having a situation like it to demonstrate)

 

They wouldn't need to sneak anything after an invasion, it would be their soil at that point.

China would gain a strategic location from which to stage an attack on other countries, provided they wanted to. At the very least it would make for good staging point for relaying goods.

That's only when they try to attack someone who has allied with several of the world's superpowers.

 

Cuban Missile Crisis was similar, yet the US made a big deal out of it.

 

I love how we're talking about politics and hypotheticals on a micronation that doesn't exist yet. :P:)

Share this post


Link to post

You mean you're trying to defend the Liberal agenda with absolutely no sources apart from one outdated wiki article that doesn't actually say that co2 emissions are causing "climate change"...

Share this post


Link to post

@Rocket Propelled Gordon:

 

What is the plan for making it self-sufficient?

 

Clearly, in those latitudes it won't produce all of its own food, so will have to import from somewhere. What are you planning to export in order to be able to trade internationally?

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post

Well, if you start with enough capital, you could make a 14nm chip manufacturing facility, and you'd be in extremely high demand... Or you could do server hosting and power generation with Thorium reactors... You might even be able to trade off for raw resources if you find some good ones on the island.

 

There are many ways you could trade initially, but you'll definitely want to build towards an underground hydroponics facility, and do a lot of fishing. (fishing can cut the required trade resources down to almost nothing if properly done)

Share this post


Link to post
You mean you're trying to defend the Liberal agenda with absolutely no sources apart from one outdated wiki article that doesn't actually say that co2 emissions are causing "climate change"...

 

I detect hypocrisy...

Share this post


Link to post
I detect hypocrisy...

Then you need to check your sensors since all I did was state the Liberal agenda's actions, and provided two separate sources for my statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.