A real liberal territory, can be possible? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15022619
Bir Tawil it's a landlocked territory between Sudan and Egypt, any country want this piece of land, so why we don't found a descentralized Autonomus territory there, this can be posible, everyone could join and add to this project, comment this post (what do you think about?) and hit me via message to join our telegram group.
#15022645
@DACBT

That isn't possible.

The territory is contested. This doesn't mean no one wants it, it means Sudan and Egypt both want it but have decided to keep it as neutral territory.

If there was any actual movement of people to Bir Tawil both Egypt and Sudan won't let it stand.
#15022646
Palmyrene wrote:@DACBT

That isn't possible.

The territory is contested. This doesn't mean no one wants it, it means Sudan and Egypt both want it but have decided to keep it as neutral territory.

If there was any actual movement of people to Bir Tawil both Egypt and Sudan won't let it stand.


Actually, neither side wants it.

Because of the ongoing border dispute between Egypt and Sudan, if either side recognizes ownership of Bir Tawil, they automatically lose the rights to a much nicer, bigger, and more lucrative piece of land: the Hala’ib Triangle.
#15022650
Pants-of-dog wrote:Actually, neither side wants it.

Because of the ongoing border dispute between Egypt and Sudan, if either side recognizes ownership of Bir Tawil, they automatically lose the rights to a much nicer, bigger, and more lucrative piece of land: the Hala’ib Triangle.

Exactly, there is the only habitable piece of earth that has a "Terra nullius" status, almost all the political system has a chance to be I practice, but a real liberalism ( with this I mean, government just for security, justice and education at some level) has never been tested
#15022655
Palmyrene wrote:@DACBT

That isn't possible.

The territory is contested. This doesn't mean no one wants it, it means Sudan and Egypt both want it but have decided to keep it as neutral territory.

If there was any actual movement of people to Bir Tawil both Egypt and Sudan won't let it stand.

I think is the contrary, because both sides are saying "this piece of Land it's no mine, it's yours" and a Eventually intervention to a settlement could be contradictory to this discourse
#15022672
In 2014, an American dad claimed a tiny parcel of African land to make his daughter a princess. But Jack Shenker had got there first – and learned that states and borders are volatile and delicate things

...
In June 2014, a 38-year-old farmer from Virginia named Jeremiah Heaton did exactly that. After obtaining the necessary paperwork from the Egyptian military authorities, he started out on a treacherous 14-hour expedition through remote canyons and jagged mountains, eventually wending his way into the no man’s land of Bir Tawil and triumphantly planting a flag.

Heaton’s six-year-old daughter, Emily, had once asked her father if she could ever be a real princess; after discovering the existence of Bir Tawil on the internet, his birthday present to her that year was to trek there and turn her wish into a reality. “So be it proclaimed,” Heaton wrote on his Facebook page, “that Bir Tawil shall be forever known as the Kingdom of North Sudan. The Kingdom is established as a sovereign monarchy with myself as the head of state; with Emily becoming an actual princess.”
...
There were two problems with Heaton’s argument. First, territories and borders can be delicate and volatile things, and tampering with them is rarely without unforeseen consequences. As Heaton learned from the public response to his self-declared kingdom, there is no neutral or harmless way to “claim” a state, no matter how far away from anywhere else it appears to be. Second, Heaton was not the first well-intentioned, starry-eyed eccentric to travel all the way to Bir Tawil and plant a flag. Someone else got there first, and that someone was me.
...
As the two of us cleared customs, we broke into smiles and congratulated each other. The auteurs had landed, and what is more they had Important Things To Say about borders and states and sovereignty and empires. We set off in search of some local currency, and warmed to our theme. By the time we found an ATM, we were referring to Bir Tawil as so much more than a conceptual exposition. Under our benevolent stewardship, we assured each other, it could surely become some sort of launchpad for radical new ideas, a haven for subversives all over the planet.

It was at that point that the auteurs realised their bank cards did not work in Sudan, and that there were no international money transfer services they could use to wire themselves some cash.

This setback represented the first consequence of our failure to do any preparatory research. The nagging sense that our maverick approach to reaching Bir Tawil may not have been the wisest way forward gained momentum with consequence number two, which was that to solve the money problem we had to persuade a friend of a friend of a friend of an Egyptian business acquaintance to do an illicit currency trade for us on the outskirts of Khartoum. Consequence number three – namely that, given our lack of knowledge about where we could and could not legally film in the capital, after a few days we inadvertently attracted the attention of an undercover state security agent while carrying around $2,000 worth of used Sudanese banknotes in an old rucksack, and were arrested – transformed suspicion into certainty.

On the date Omar and I were incarcerated, millions of citizens in South Sudan were heading to the polls to decide between continued unity with the north or secession and a new, independent state of their own. ...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... -bir-tawil
#15022684
@Prosthetic Conscience
Of course gonna be a lot of challenge, but a well structured plan, could work, I am not dreaming about a kingdom's, I believe that with the right politics ( and money) you could become that piece of Land in a prosperous territory
#15022747
@DACBT , that kind of idea seems to be based on a concept that all existing nations are, overall, bad for their citizens. You're saying that a piece of land with no agricultural value, a long way from where most people live, with no infrastructure (eg an airstrip that you'd need to go anywhere, unless you fancy a four-wheel drive across a desert) and no population would be a better place to do something than any existing country. Unless it happens to have a particularly desirable ore to mine, or as others said on your other thread oil, I really can't see what you'd gain from being there.
#15022750
Bir Tawil's appeal is that it is potentially a legal blank slate but the physical fundamentals are really poor. Legal regimes are inherently arbitrary and whimsical. They are consequently relatively easy to change. The physical fundamentals such as the soil quality, proximity to other settlements, water resources etc are very much less easy to change. You should prefer to gain good land with a bad legal regime rather than bad land with a clean legal regime. Just because legals are easier to change to something better.

If you are keen not to do any fighting to get some land then buying is an option. The Tsar of Russia sold Alaska to the US for chump change. The Brits gave Palestine away to the jews as a favour. It happens.

Legal regimes might fill up the whole world but a lot the actual land under those regimes is very often empty, barely used or not that much wanted. There is a lot potential for spinning off enclaves with the blessing of the pre-existing administrators if you are willing to grease some palms. There is still plenty of good land out there virtually unused that might be saleable by the relevant authorities.

If you don't like fighting then you might consider not aiming for full sovereignty. Full sovereignty means having to take responsibility for your own security needs.

There have been and are still are many polities which have a semi-autonomous status being basically self-governing but under the protection of another more powerful military establishment. The UK is protector of quite a few: Falkland Islands, British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, Anguila etc

You could look up Charter Cities for a medieval example.

Or you could just stay exactly where you are and use the existing mechanisms for modifying the legal regime to something more liberal. If you live in a democracy those mechanisms are probably quite well developed.
#15022786
@Prosthetic Conscience
@SolarCross
There is a lot of examples of countries with no naturals resources and successful economies, take a look to the "miracles economy" "tigers of Asia" of course any of this examples is in a landlocked country, but do you have Switzerland and Botswana in Africa it's another example to see, The fact to be anyone living there is an advantage in a long term thinking, because you can fully apply a land taxes, land lease, like the only kind of taxes, this taxes has the less effect on the economy efficiency, you could see the positive effects of this kind of taxes in Hong Kong and Singapore, where almost all the land is state owned, yes in two of the more Liberal territories in the world, Development of a society in a territory with the conditions of bir Tawil it's very hard, you had a lot of cons, and a few of pros, but I don't see like a impossible thing, the question of how could you bring people to live there it's to become in attractive destiny, if there is a lot of people wanting to live in Mars I don't see why not in bir tawil
#15022802
The Asian tigers, Switzerland and Botswana all have extensive natural resources. People chose to live in them all before there were such things as countries. They are also close to other centres of population, enabling trade. Hong Kong and Singapore are built on trade - they're important ports. Bir Tawil has no 'pros' at all. You've noted its fatal (literally) lack of water. You'd have to pipe in water from hundreds of kilometres away, at great expense, across at least one other country that would ask "why are we sending water to other people? We need it".

Practically, the moment you'd spent all your money making the place liveable, then one of the neighbours would annex it after all. Or maybe both of them.

Yes, it might be preferable to living on Mars. That's because only idiots want to live on Mars. Some people may want to explore Mars, or practice science there, but anyone who wants to live there thinking it would be better than on Earth hasn't thought it through.
#15022809
@Prosthetic Conscience
Solid argument, if you get it, I mean do it this place liviable, the anexation by one of the neighbors its almost a secure destiny
@Palmyrene
I agree with you, but the actual system is very corrupted and the people are becoming more and more ignorants
#15022811
DACBT wrote:@Palmyrene
I agree with you, but the actual system is very corrupted and the people are becoming more and more ignorants


If more and more people are corrupted then there's no reason to start a country since you need lot's of people to start one.

You can rebel against the system instead of starting a new one.
Election 2020

So we should just surrender to the libtards fanat[…]

So how deadly is it?

Yeah, the death count has been wildly inflated, t[…]

synagogue discipline? One can see you are not a […]

You and I don't agree here. Putin is making the […]