Hacker News Reader

Comment by denysonique | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com