What do you think of micronations?

Post Reply New Topic

Well if you want to start one, learn the difference between a state and a nation.

That's just it. You DON'T convince governments to recognize micronations by using conventional models. You use existing models that governments WILL recognize. Setting up corporately-structured franchises to own/manage large land parcel developments and establish internal franchise-state governments is something that could gain multi-national recognition.


Exactly my point. You're not GOING to get recognition for micronations, at least not using a conventional nation-state or city-state framework.

FWIW, I'm not a businessman, either, at least not a good one or a very experienced one. What I'm trying to do is build within a framework that will work multi-nationally that WILL be recognizable by foreign governments. I believe a corporate business model will work before a conventional nation-state model, AND you can start on a MUCH smaller scale. You'd start with something that LOOKS something akin to Vatican City. No conventional nation-state in their right mind is going to allow you to expand more than that if they think you're nation-building. They'd see you too much of a threat. Which is why when you expand, your best bet is to accumulate land over a broad region. You'd still pay property taxes out the wazoo, but at least you'd retain autonomy within your OWN borders (unless you get recognized as a non-profit, but that would just be dumb).

Think Monaco. It was the gambling/tourism industry that MADE Monaco, and to this day Monaco attracts VERY wealthy visitors. You don't have to be a businessman, but you're going to succeed faster if you learn to think like one. I'm a small business owner, such as it is. I'm a master's degree holder in music composition, got out of school with high ideals thinking I was really going to MAKE IT in the new music world…well, that dream went to hell in a hand basket within five years, so I had to quickly come up with something that would allow me to stay in the game. I'm not doing well at the moment, but I haven't gone under yet. It's taken me a LONG time to figure out, but I've had to come up with a PLAN to offer creative products that, just now, only serve to keep me busy and from going insane--or at least keep me from being worse off than I am. I've got a plan, it'a a long-shot, but it's all I have, and it's crazy-stupid enough that it might just work. It's a whole lot better than NOTHING.

For a micronation to get off the ground NOW, I'm telling you, you're going to have to abandon the current model if you want to get started. Yeah, I suck as a business man. I have no idea what I'm doing…I'm just making this up as I go. If you want to start a new nation, you're going to be assuming a CONSIDERABLE amount of risk. And you can't do this alone. You NEED people. You need PEOPLE. You need young, wealthy, idealistic folks who are willing to come on board and share the risk. You also need to be willing to let go of any preconceived ideas you have for your micronation. "Suggest" to your people a direction to go, a governmental framework, and make sure at least one of your prospective charter members is a lawyer. They will all take your idea, rip it to shreds, and duck tape it back together with their own ideas drawn from their experience, and BOOM…a nation is born. You're still the leader, so you have nothing to fear. But that's what leaders do. The recognize their own ignorance and work with bright folks who know how to fill in the gaps. Plant the seed. Let THEM come up with a workable plan. Then you get more people on board who can move that plan into execution.

Any time you are working with risk, you are an entrepreneur. What YOU'RE doing is cobbling together a city-state out of Tinkertoys when you should be learning how to build a for-real log house. If you don't come up with a model that we KNOW can (and WILL) work, you are destined for failure.

You need a cheaper model that carries less risk and will generate revenue from its inception. You want a McNation or iRepublic. You want to spawn a trend towards micronations that doesn't rely on multinational recognition as city-states per se for its initial existence. You want to end up with a slough of micronations that peacefully coexist with host nation-states and work together with each other for common goals while retaining autonomy. Corporate models ARE recognized by the international community, already coexist with nation-states, and circumvent the need for formal recognition as states in their own right. If the McNation movement becomes strong enough and they earn a wide enough berth of autonomy, multi-national organizations will be forced to recognize them. If you build on a franchise-model and expand globally, and I mean if everyone does that, conventional nation-state borders will fade into irrelevancy. The nation-state will ultimately become obsolete if such a trend were to continue.

Buy up enough land to make another Disney World. Create a gated, self-governing residential theme park. Open it up to an industry or group of industries everyone will agree with as a real-estate scheme, make those jobs available to residents. Save room for tourist attractions, which will initially be your selling point. Create a residual cash flow AFTER you make good on goods and services to your residents. Repeat the process somewhere in a 500-mile radius. It could start out as a time-share/vacation spot for your charter residents, but eventually you want to attract new residents to the area. Repeat two or three times. Then go public. A couple of decades later, you'll be competing with copycats. Then you go global. The copycats will follow your lead.

And I have to emphasize this is NOT a profiteering scam. It's the realization of a vision. You don't care about the money. It's just you need the money to perpetuate a cycle. You want to see micronations get off the ground. You want recognition/protection from the international community. THIS is the way you're going to get it. And I don't pretend to KNOW that anything I've suggested is guaranteed to work…but if I were going to attempt it, I'd be looking for WAY brighter people than me who know what they're doing to run the show. THIS is what I want. YOU tell me how to get it. All I'm doing is throwing out ONE idea that I genuinely think could work. So far there haven't been any decent suggestions!

A one-world corporate-run government is what's being asked for here?
Sounds better than the state-run alternative.

lol

Where did you get that idea?

I'm advocating for a plethora of corporately-run franchise-states that have the ability to set up shop anywhere, any time. Trends tend to start with ONE entrepreneurial effort and expand as more people adopt the same idea. Disney, for instance, doesn't hold a monopoly on amusement parks. No single corporation would hold a monopoly on franchise-states. Actual ownership/management of a franchise state would fall to a single investor whose responsibility would primarily be to attract new citizens and bring in materials and resources to be licensed through the parent corporation. The success/failure ultimately lies with these few individuals, and parent companies would have the power to revoke licenses should the local franchise owners fail to comply with policy and terms of licensing agreements.

Each company would bring something unique to the table. Apple, for instance, isn't threatened by McDonald's. People who work for Apple eat cheeseburgers, too, and McDonald's employees still use iPhones. Franchise-states would work interdependently, same as conventional nation-states do, and they wouldn't be restricted to the same geographic borders as conventional nation-states.

But, no, there wouldn't be ONE corporation to rule the world. It might START OUT as one corporation, but other corporations would hopefully form to do their version of the same thing once the idea really started to take off. McDonald's isn't the ONLY burger joint in the world, but it's probably the biggest and/or most well-known competitor out there. Apple isn't the only seller of computers…just the only one that sells Apple computers. Microsoft isn't the ONLY software developer. Just probably the biggest. At some point someone started the first burger joint, the first consumer-level computer manufacturer, the first software-development firm. There are tons of companies and individuals doing all those things. This wouldn't be any different.

Now, true, there is the possibility of the more successful and competitive corporations forming a conglomeration. I think that would be unfortunate, but at the same time a larger parent corp. might be better equipped to provide more attractive goods and services to citizens. Ideally these would be real-estate ventures with an autonomic twist--the main selling point--and the hope is that it would encourage a range of idea-men to realize their vision of the most advantageous government for anyone interested. A startup would mean collecting people together around common interests and building from there. The franchise-state phase wouldn't begin before an individual investor was ready to expand to a new area.

The potential for such a conglomeration might have some perceivably negative implications for traditional nation-states, but it could also compete as a small nation in its own right if it could consolidate a significant land mass somewhere and raise a significant security force. It could then vie for recognition as a nation-state proper and compete in the international theater, reconstituting and abandoning the franchise-state model entirely. This, however, would defeat the purpose of building a micronation…but it does demonstrate grander possibilities for the franchise-state model should its citizenry express such a desire.

Forget it. Artificial nations won't work. For a nation to work at all you need a critical mass of population and a proper mix of skills. Where do you plan to get it? At your local Wal-Mart?

ruveyn

The process for membership in the United Nations Organization is laid down in the Charter, but nowhere does that set out the basis for recognition of one nation state by another.

There are many territories whose status as nation states is not universally accepted. Taiwan is recognized by only a handful of nations, is not a member of the UNO, and yet has all of the indicia of being a nation state. Palestine is a non-member observer state of the UNO, but is only recognized as a nation state by a small number of states (though many more have diplomatic relations with the Palestinian Authority without recognizing Palestine as a nation state).

I am not. I won't ruin anyone's current territorial claims and it will all be legal.

For more info, pleas visit : http://www.reddit.com/r/panarchistrepublic/

Thanks

True. A nation is a group of people who share a common heritage or identity. Example Kurdistan. A state: a political entity that controls a certain territory.

I am not waiting on other nations to recognize me. I am moving in to said area and that is all there is to it. I won't violate any claims or such, thus it is perfectly legal. As far as having an idea for a micronation, perhaps you should consider starting a Subconsul. This is the whole point of this project, to create an open framework, open source if you will, form of governance. Read Panarchy by Paul Emile Puydt. Good stuff.

Not artificial nation. Actually a real nation.

Right. My idea would be more of an artificial nation or artificial state. But I fail to see how existing models allow for the formation of real/artificial states that use the conventional nation-state model.

Ruveyn is right…you need that critical mass. My plan would do away with getting that critical mass in the immediate time frame, work with TINY groups of interested people, and expand over time.

Incidentally, even conventional models allow for foreign annexes. Our embassies in other host-nations are treated as though they're are local US territory. Also, we control Puerto Rico, Guam, and Hawaii/Alaska are formally recognized as having full statehood, and they have next to zero geographic significance to the "lower 48."

To make an artificial state work, you need someone that works outside the conventional model in the short-term. I'd start with either a themed gated community real estate scheme in the sub-suburbs, or a MASSIVE gentrification program within a decaying urban area. You wouldn't NEED the critical mass to get started. It could build over time until it did reach the critical mass, and by then the privately held company could have developments spread out over just large enough a geographic area that attracting such a critical mass would only be a matter of time. As long as the company is profitable, it could accelerate the path to critical mass by publicly trading stock. Investors would have a vote in company affairs, so even if they weren't "residents," they could still be granted "citizenship" by virtue of owning their piece of the venture.

Why a white supremacist one?

To serve the latter purpose, what's needed is for autistics and autistic-like people to have a much bigger and better-organized subculture than now exists. Even that will be a challenge to build, but it's much more feasible than creating a full-fledged micro-nation.

My Nation would be where it is a Colonial Empire under a meritocratic government and it's economic system would be where small business and skilled laborer would control the economy under a national labor branch. It would have a program to professionalize and modernize small business.

Hahahaha

if the micronation has no concepts of "worthy versus unworthy" or "useless eaters versus decent people," then i'm in. as long as the weather is decent and there is affordable health care. hell, even if the weather is crap so long as there is affordable health care.