Hacker News Reader

Comment by Oletros | Hacker News Reader

> Hi there friends . Our country is a new establishment . Many people are asking me for citizenship. Our country is so small only 3.000-4.000 people accepted. We are expanding to fill the Danube. Please; Syrian, Kurds, Arabs, Russians and Chinese are not write me. Because we will not accept them.

A good start for a country called Liberland, I expect that it is just a trollish post

View on HN

Indeed this is a trollish post, actually one of the many on the forum (which is a disclaimer about official statements)

From their website: Liberland will accept anyone of any background as long they are not Communists, Nazis or other types of extremists.

What is the problem with accepting Communists and Nazis, a libertarian country should accept and respect any ideology.

This is why Liberian country is an utopia. Same with Communist or Capitalist country.

Those countries tend to forget one thing - human factor. That humans are not the same and they might not be a "perfect" citizen.

I know its a typo, but I can't resist...

Liberia did start out as something of a utopia[1]...

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Colonization_Society

If you take people who feel so strongly against libertarianism, the country won't remain libertarian for long. Of course, it means the person is charge is shaping his society, which is non-libertarian, but it's a sort of trade off.

A tolerant ideology does not require one to tolerate people who are actively trying to destroy that ideology.

There's nothing to say that a communist or a nazi is going to do anything to take down Liberland. Isn't excluding someone for their beliefs a thought-crime kind of situation?

They wouldn't be a communist or nazi if they were trying to join. The only reason would be to destroy it.

There's already too much tolerance of people that would enslave and destroy.

Nonsense. A pure voluntaryist country would be a great place to start a commune. You'd just need some seed capital to buy the land, and then you could live in a moneyless society free from wage-labor and other capitalist practices.

I see what you're trying to say, but at this point in history there is not a lot of intersection between "advocate for commune living" and "communist." Politics is an odd thing.

It will not last, as kibbutzes (examples of such communes) did not last in Israel. Ayn Rand has illustrated why in her book "Atlas Shrugged" with the example of Starnesville.

The reason is that people who are doing better than others (and who are forced by the communist _ideology_ to share so that everyone is equal), would leave the commune.

That is why North Korea and USSR kept their citizens inside the Iron Wall border. It "worked" only by forcing the able to their knees.

I see no possible way kicking people out for thinking stuff is compatible with libertarian freedom-based ideas. Do they break libertarian law? Exile them. Do they talk about breaking libertarian law, or changing the laws there to reflect what they want? On what basis can you exclude someone for talking?

It doesn't make sense, a libertarian country should accept any race.

What, you expect consistency from libertarians? ;)

Well, if you take the maxim of propertarianism to its limit, then you should be able to exclude anyone for any reason. This is what people like, e.g. Hans Hermann-Hoppe advocate, with proposals of anarcho-capitalist societies that end up sounding like isolationist dystopias. His views on democracy are interesting, however.

Either that or I suppose not even libertarianism can trump Balkan relations.

That latter is a force to be reckoned with.

In theory, but for an early country it's a long shot. With many races, you'd have to handle many different cultures and give out some of that freedom in exchange for equality.

They are liberals not libertarians.

You are probably right, two very completely different ideologies.

There are a lot more than two ideologies in those terms.

The word 'liberal' in a European context ranges in meaning, and often encompasses many aspects of what those in the US would recognize as 'libertarian'. It just really depends on the context though. Depending on the country, 'liberalism' may be associated with center-left, center-right, or both (see UK LibDems as an example). In general, though, it is typically used in contrast to both right wing conservative parties and left wing social-democratic parties.

They are not liberals. Not even the most hardcore European liberals would say these things:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%ADt_Jedli%C4%8Dka#Quotes

They also don't accept nobody with a criminal record. Like everybody who was convicted of a crime is a danger to society.

Where did you find that snippet?

I did a site search on Google and it has been pasted on their forums a few times now. The following thread quotes what appears to be the first mention: http://liberland.org/en/forum/?threadID=2120825992553118a8c4... (CTRL-F roman94)

I surmise from the other posts in the thread that a troll signed up with the username "admin" and posted that; the post no longer appears to be extant. Note, of course, the disclaimer on top of the board:

> Purpose of this forum is to allow communication between registered users on Liberland.org. Liberland officials don't make statements in this forum. Entries pretending to be official statements are all fake.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com