11/06/24
I remain committed to the idea that starting from scratch a new laissez-faire country is a quicker path than attempting to transform an existing country. (The current US elections have only reinforced this belief.) In this context, I am studying the founding of Israel as an example of a newly established country in modern history.
Most Objectivists think that the project is impractical, and so were Jews who thought Zionism impractical. Instead, these non-Zionist Jews once believed that they could reform their existing countries to eliminate antisemitism. Objectivists too maintain that their current country can adopt laissez-faire capitalism through political means. But time and again, diaspora Jews saw that they are not safe anywhere from antisemitism, and so they embraced Zionism. It will also be a long time until our countries reject collectivism and altruism, and I hope that Objectivists will realize that starting a new country is not such a bad plan.
Zionism meant, in a single word, the creation of a new Jewish homeland in Palestine. A similar concept is needed to represent the creation of a new laissez-faire country founded on Objectivist principles. It must set itself apart from libertarian initiatives based on the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). (An example of one of those is the Free Society Foundation founded by Olivier Janssens.)
It's important to note that the term "Zionism" is derived from Mount Zion in the Old Testament, giving it a poetic quality and clearly linking it to the Jewish people. The new concept should similarly reference Objectivism in a recognizable way. It should function as both a noun and an adjective, as seen with "Zionism" and "Zionist," or "Objectivism" and "Objectivist." Additionally, it should have an elegant, poetic sound and not come across as linguistically awkward.
I am considering the terms "Anthemism" and "Anthemist," but I am open to other suggestions. This term references Ayn Rand's Anthem, in that the main characters escape a collectivist society to begin a new life. (Since I frequently communicate on this topic with Russian speakers, the term should also work in Russian, and "анфемизм" translates well.)
P.S. Interestingly, Weizmann recognized that Zionism alone couldn't rally all potential supporters. Many saw it as too politically radical to publicly endorse, yet they were still willing to contribute to practical efforts, such as investments and donations. To address this, Weizmann established the Jewish Agency, an organization dedicated to practical initiatives, while the Zionists continued to manage political matters, like negotiations concerning the British Mandate.
12/07/24
My method to acquire territory follows the Zionist example. It has worked, Israel was founded, it exists, and it's not going anywhere. I do not agree with the claim that if there hadn't been a Holocaust, then Israel would not exist. The reason for my disagreement can be found in the works of Chaim Weizmann, who catalogs the history of the Zionist movement. (I am still not too well familiar about how the war for independence went, but I am referring to the 30-year period preceding the war.)
Weizmann's memoirs cover the history from 1890s up to Israel's independence. The general pattern was that the British administration in Palestine, from the beginning, was not sympathetic to the Zionist project. As the years progressed, the British policy was that of backstabbing the Zionists. During WW2, the British government refused to allow Jews to escape Germany to emigrate to Palestine. Ships with escaping Jews were turned away from the Palestine coast, many of them sunk with people. For this frequent phenomenon these ships received the name of "coffins."
Will there be enough pull for people to come to a country founded on principles of freedom? We know from history that early America did attract a lot of immigrants as a land of opportunity. Further, we have already discussed in another thread that there are a lot of unhappy people living in 3rd world countries, under oppressive regimes, who would be eager to leave if there were some place willing to receive them.
12/09/24
I generally agree with Garrett Garcia. Taking over a small country or a state (Swiss canton, as was suggested in an earlier thread), and changing it from the inside would be a viable, but difficult, approach. It is difficult because there are few to none Objectivists in those areas, and therefore there is no one with boots on the ground to spread ideas there. Also, one needs to speak the local language natively in order to be persuasive.
Further, of the two approaches listed by Aquinas Hobor neither is my approach, and neither was the Zionists'. The religious pull contributed to the idea that Jews would want to move to an area with inhospitable land and to cultivate it. They rejected the plan to move to Kenya-Uganda, which was offered by Britain to Herzl as early as 1904. Because some Zionist leaders were ready to accept that proposal, but others outright refused, it fractured the Zionist movement for over a decade.
(A new country project today would be a no go, if the climate at the destination is too inhospitable. It won't work if it's Bir Tawil or Antarctica based on climate alone.)
During the Ottoman Empire years, the actual trickle settlement of Jews was too small to amount to anything and the whole approach was criticized by Herzl. In 1907, there were 80,000 Jews living in Palestine, compared to 600,000 Arabs. Half of these Jews were there not to make a new life, but to spend their last years before death, to die on the holy land. Thanks to Weizmann's leadership, more young pioneers moved to Palestine, and by 1914 there were 120,000 Jews living there in total. The pioneers started what later became the kibbutzes, they cultivating land, and made the case (according to Weizmann) that this immigration has a national character.
However, with the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and Palestine under the control of the British, the situation changed. Now, new Jews who would emigrate to Palestine were to do so to build up the population. There was a promise from the host state to grant sovereignty, so no war was going to be needed if the population increased and if it has shown the ability to organize itself as a peaceful society.
Money does not motivate any state to grant sovereignty. What motivates is a geopolitical environment. For the British, who granted the Balfour declaration, it was politically advantageous to populate Palestine with Jews. A set-up like this needs to be found now, and it usually occurs at the end of some war.
Curiously, it was also advantageous to Arabs who fought against the Ottoman empire. Here's the beginning of a letter written by Emir Feisal in 1919,
I want to take this opportunity of my first contact with American Zionists to tell you what I have often been able to say to Dr. Weizmann in Arabia and Europe.
We feel that the Arabs and Jews are cousins in having suffered similar oppressions at the hands of powers stronger than themselves, and by a happy coincidence have been able to take the first step towards the attainment of their national ideals together.
Full text of the letter,
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/feisal-frankfurter-correspondence-march-1919
12/15/24
I have now created a website to be the facade of Anthemism, the term I came up with to stand for trying to create a new country based on Objectivist principles and laissez-faire. The website is anthemism.org.
There indeed needs to be a new term, only using "Objectivism" is not enough. While Objectivism is a foundational philosophy, and laissez-faire is yet another term that's established, the idea of starting a new country is separate.
Similarly, when the term Zionism was formulated, there already was the concept of Judaism. And like the existence of Christian Zionists, who played an important role towards the Balfour declaration, there may be those who would support Anthemism while not being themselves Objectivists (yet). This particularly applies to those who are still on the fence in their political and philosophical views.
Binh Dang and Aquinas Hobor mention Somaliland as a potential territory of interest. What is needed is to gain the interest of select locals who could relay the ideas to the local population, in native language and familiar cultural forms. Because I speak Russian and Ukrainian, I plunged into various Telegram channels where various people of the former USSR regions communicate. For instance, I joined the Telegram channel of a libertarian party 5.10 in Ukraine, and a separatist party in Kaliningrad region (Konigsberg). In each case, I attempted to gain rapport with the local leaders of those groups.
Filip Bjoerner argues that a small place couldn't have open borders. Of course, in the long run, the border will be open, but I recognize that building a state from scratch is not a natural process, and that there must be some initial stage that will be different. This is a general statement. I still think that the border can be open from day one if there is good police force in place.