Now that the party has been hijacked by druggies?

Quoted: Now that the party has been hijacked by druggies?

Why is it people think that just because we are for drug legalization that we are all doped up all the time?  It is a fundamental libertarian belief that you own your body and no-one else either you or the government  has a right to it.

It hasnt, its just all that gets noticed..   Just like the Republicians arent all Right Wing Religious Zealots, and the Democrates arent all Pinko Fags.

Quoted: It hasnt, its just all that gets noticed..   Just like the Republicians arent all Right Wing Religious Zealots, and the Democrates arent all Pinko Fags.

Well your half right......not all Republicians are Right Wing Religious Zealots

Quoted: Why is it people think that just because we are for drug legalization that we are all doped up all the time?  It is a fundamental libertarian belief that you own your body and no-one else either you or the government  has a right to it.

I've been following your posts on another thread, and I agree with your position. I hate to see the ruined lives and wasted resources as our "get tough on drugs" policies fill prisons with small-time pot smokers.

It's just that the last several Libertarians I've met here in NH have been pony-tailed stoners that look like they escaped from a TV sitcom. I'm heartened to hear that others have not had the same recent impressions.

It hasn't been.  Its just that everyone who hears the word "liberatian" has been conditioned by the msm to think "druggie".  So the only issue anyone ever asks libertarians about is their stance on drugs when in fact it is only incidental to the larger issue of constitutional adherance.

I'm a Libertarian and I can assure you I don't resemble Cheech, Chong, or any variety of limp wristed pony tail wearing poetry major. :)  One thing you have to understand about the LP is that it is very new and very small. All such organizations are typically manned by the zealous ideologues at this stage in the life cycle. I call them the pie-in-the-sky crowd, because most of them think we can abolish all repressive anti-constitutional laws overnight and any other mission is a waste of time.

Galland

Quoted: Quoted: Now that the party has been hijacked by druggies? Why is it people think that just because we are for drug legalization that we are all doped up all the time?  It is a fundamental libertarian belief that you own your body and no-one else either you or the government  has a right to it.

Just have to pick your poison I guess, very few are going to agree with ANY political party 100%. I agree strongly with the idea that government should be removed from individual's lives. Pick your topic; prostitution, drugs, abortion, guns, etc.  While I may have a personal objection to someone's actions I have absolutely no right to tell someone else how to live if it does not personally harm me and the government shouldn't have the right to dictate personal individual behavior either.  

I too am a Libertarian, and I guarantee you would not confuse me with the stoner subculture, although I do tend to let my hair get a little long.

I believe strongly in personal responsibility, and hate the nanny laws, which include virtually all of the current drug laws.

The media tends to lump us with the stoners, because it sells papers.  After all, how could anyone think that recreational drugs should be legal, and readily available??

The conservatives and liberals marginalize us because we don't quite fit in with either viewpoint, by using the drug angle they can pull in anyone sitting on the fence, and of course, a lot of them in politics and government would be out of a job if Libertarians were able to wield any real power.

So where to go?  Nowhere.  Stay the course, and intellegently present the issues to anyone who raises the questions.  Logic and facts.  Time will tell.

You could try a "swingers" club.

I credit Neal Boortz for opening my eyes to the libertarian ideology.  For years I felt like I was the only one that had such ideals.  In high school I was president of the Young Republicans but I was an outcast because of my views esp. when we were to have a guest speaker talking about church, morals drug laws etc.  5 years ago the local talk radio station started playing Boortz and I finally saw the light.

I am a small "l" libertarian.

The Libertarian party simply holds too many positions that are in conflict with the original intent of the Founders for me to consider them a viable party. Their stance on open borders and military regulation are particularly stupid.

Quoted: I am a small "l" libertarian. Their stance on open borders and military regulation are particularly stupid.

Yep I think that is the killer more than drug legalization. And that is the reason that I seldom vote for them.  National security trumps anything in my opinion.

Quoted: I credit Neal Boortz for opening my eyes to the libertarian ideology.  For years I felt like I was the only one that had such ideals.  In high school I was president of the Young Republicans but I was an outcast because of my views esp. when we were to have a guest speaker talking about church, morals drug laws etc.  5 years ago the local talk radio station started playing Boortz and I finally saw the light.

+1

I'm what you would call a Boortz Libertarian, which would be a Pro-War on terror Libertarian.

Where is a librarian to go? To the library of course you fool. Oh wait, you said...........never mind.

Quoted: Now that the party has been hijacked by druggies?

Most idiotic statement of the day.

Hell?

Thats because responsable people who use minor drugs are no different then responsable people who use alcohol and look, act no different.

I hate to say it but the libertarians have too many foil hat conspiracy loonies to take all that seriously. Some of their folks are like DUhers but armed.

If they attracted a more intellignent and less emotional knee jerk reactionary crowd, it would be nore enticing. I know there are some who are not like that, I have a close friend at home who is a libertarian but he seems to represent a smal portion of the majority.

Most I have ever met are the old rabid anti Clinton anarchists who thought the UN was building death camps all over the place and used papers like the Spotlight as legit sources of news. Its kind of hard to take the normal intelligent libertarians seriously when so many of their party members are howling at the moon.

I would prefer to see the Democrat party dissolve and the libertarians take it over. Actually I would prefer to see a 2 party system made up of Constitutionalists vs Libertarians.

Ask Larry Elder.  He was a Libertarian and then went Republican when he saw that there was not enough power in the Libertarian movement to get ANY of their ideas co-opted by the right or left.  Both major parties can simply ignore Libertarians until they have an issue (like immigration reform) where their ideas strike a common chord in the general populace.

The guy here in CA, Gilchrest of the Minutemen, at least got Republicans like Campbell to talk tougher about immigration.  Gilchrest got 14% of the vote running on the Am. Independent Party label for a vacant House seat  and forced a run-off but it remains to be seen if Republicans will answer the call on immigration or go with big business's preference for an abundance of low-wage illegal workers.  It's still a major difference of opinion in the Conservative element.  Democrats certainly care little about the issue so they are no refuge for opponents of illegal immigration.

Quoted: Quoted: I credit Neal Boortz for opening my eyes to the libertarian ideology.  For years I felt like I was the only one that had such ideals.  In high school I was president of the Young Republicans but I was an outcast because of my views esp. when we were to have a guest speaker talking about church, morals drug laws etc.  5 years ago the local talk radio station started playing Boortz and I finally saw the light. +1 I'm what you would call a Boortz Libertarian, which would be a Pro-War on terror Libertarian.

And Boortz supports closed borders.

Boortz does not really have much in common with the organized Libertarian Party. There was a strong movement last year from within the Libertarian Party to have Bootz banned for his political views and keep him away from the convention… so much for the free thinking Libertarian Party.

Boortz has made similar observations about the crack pot nature of some of the Libertarian Party platform… and quite frequently comments on the idiocy of the Libertarian Party.

And didn’t Boortz support Bush for President.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I credit Neal Boortz for opening my eyes to the libertarian ideology.  For years I felt like I was the only one that had such ideals.  In high school I was president of the Young Republicans but I was an outcast because of my views esp. when we were to have a guest speaker talking about church, morals drug laws etc.  5 years ago the local talk radio station started playing Boortz and I finally saw the light. +1 I'm what you would call a Boortz Libertarian, which would be a Pro-War on terror Libertarian. And Boortz supports closed borders. Boortz does not really have much in common with the organized Libertarian Party. There was a strong movement last year from within the Libertarian Party to have Bootz banned for his political views and keep him away from the convention… so much for the free thinking Libertarian Party. Boortz has made similar observations about the crack pot nature of some of the Libertarian Party platform… and quite frequently comments on the idiocy of the Libertarian Party. And didn’t Boortz support Bush for President.

Only because of the war on terror and taxes

All 3 parties are undergoing or undergone hijack attempts by the fringe groups.

The real problem for the LP is they don't have a practical model for making a transition from a statist government to a libertarian one, a libertarian government would work fine once you got there, but how do you go about getting there? How do you undo the damage done by a century of statism?

Libertarianism is a consistent political philosophy, but as a movement it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. The issue that should be getting attention is monetary reform, rather than drugs. Get an honest monetary system and 90% of the platform takes care of itself, the state is entirely dependent on debt instruments as legal tender in payment of debts, that's its weakness and its downfall whether the LP is there to fill the void or not.

Quoted: Now that the party has been hijacked by druggies?

Hasn't been hijacked by druggies, it is justy the lefty issues are at the forefront right now.  Hopefully something happens soon that implodes the Democratic party and the Libertarians become viable.  Like the previous poster said fags or hypocrite zealots are the only voting options right now.  

Border issue- Libertarians generally say open them, bad idea right now.
Military- Weak and defensive only (this is whereI diverge, and I am a libertarian)
Foreign policy- stick fingers in own ears and start screaming hoping things will stay nice(Another divergence of mine)
W.O.D.- End it I agree here but not popular with largest voting bloc (Senior Citizens)
Gun Rights- Total freedom, I agree  Dems are anti and the G.O.P. is the only other option and they are not helping.
Abortion-Social issue not Gov. issue,  the correct view.


These are just A few big issues

I'm a libertarian and I don't think we should have a weak military.  But I do think it should be defensive only.

I have read their platform.  I agree with some of it, but disagree with most, especially when it comes to the UCMJ and their idea that a person in the military should be able to quit whenever they want.

I also can't get past the fact that Harry W. Browne said we deserved Sept 11.

No kidding Rodent. I ran for state office on the Libertarian ticket when I lived in Los Angeles. I happened to be in the Hollywood chapter of the party and let me tell you, it was full of raving moonbats and twitchy old hippy chemists. I'm sure it wasn't typical of the whole party, but it was enough to bum me out.

Seems to me the LP suffers from the same disease the DNC and GOP do. Fringes have taken over the leadership. The LP leadership is dominated by drug freaks. It just is what it is.

The LP really pissed me off after 9-11, when they were all wishy-washy about the attacks. They seemed to be closer to the Chomsky camp than the Pound the Enemy camp. That said a lot to me.

I just got a letter in the mail from the North Carolina secretary of state this week that said the LP sucked so bad in the last election it is no longer considered a major party by the state and I have to re-register as a Stark Raving Communist, a National Socialist where Jesus is Lord, or unaffiliated.

I guess I am unaffiliated now. It really seems if you want limited federal government and true individual freedom, there aren't any real choices anymore in the political USA.

Quoted: ...and I have to re-register as a Stark Raving Communist, a National Socialist where Jesus is Lord, or unaffiliated.

Haha

Quoted: ...I have to re-register as a Stark Raving Communist, a National Socialist where Jesus is Lord, or unaffiliated...

LOL, sig line material if ever there was!

I was Kind of interested in the LP party last year, so I watched some of thier convention on C-Span.
One pot head after another, lost intrest real fast. I wouldn't care if they legalized that crap, but you can't build a political party on it.
That's what it looks like they are trying to do.

As someone who once had ;'libertarian-ish' beliefs, but never really dis-associated with the GOP, my angle is this:

1) Trying to be the 'real party of smaller government' attracted the interests of folks like myself, on the conservative side of US govt...

2) Trying to broaden out and attract disallusioned leftists by embracing drug legalization, legally open borders, and fighting common-sense law enforcement measures & business practices in the name of 'privacy rights' may have broadened the constituency, but made alot of 'curious' folks alot more comfortable staying GOP

3) End result is that the LP has developed (quite legitmately) a reputation as the 'Kook party'....

Sad, maybe, but the LP has become way too liberal for any law-and-order conservative to justify even the slightest affiliation...

Oh, and BTW, fingerprints on a DL (in the same smartcard manner as the DOD's CAC ID card) would be a great way to cut down on ID theft & CC fraud... You do realize that the whole right to privacy was invented by the USSC in Pleasy v Furgeson (sp?), the precursor case to Roe v Wade....

IMHO, the libertarians seem to have a 'Back to 1878' mentality, where they oppose not only the growth of government social programs, but also pretty much everything required for a modern 1st world economy, from foreign military deployments, immigration control, and positive ID, to drug control and neccicary taxation.... Heck, some libs have even been for nuclear disarmament...It often seems that some would go back to the Articles of Confederation if they could....

Also, the ultimate-no-government anarchist philosophy proffered by the current LP is about as realisticly viable as Marx's Communisim. It ignores the inherant evil in humanity, and gives us all free rein to expose said true nature...

NO is a good example of what man does when government control is released...

I was a Libertarian; until I read the Diamond Age, Snow crash, and Economics in One Lesson. Then I became an Annarco-Capitalist. I think there are 3 of us in the world, Me, My dad, and Neil Stephenson. Another reason I decided to no longer be libertarian is that they seem like such democrats on their website. They also take strange views, like they hate Bush, which is odd, because with the sole exception of the Patriot act he has done nothing to expand federal powers, whereas a democrat would have screwed us all.

I am also confused as to what the whole problem is with open borders, A free market makes it so that you can compete for jobs with whoever you want, and guns for all prevent terrorist attacks. The fact the people are willing to cross a border illegally makes us the best. If you had a large piece of land, and people were willing to break the law to get on you land, you have some awesome land. The problem with open borders now is that the taxpayer has to support the people. If we got rid of welfare, then we have a bunch of immigrants in our country. That's happened before and we came out better for it 'cause we got all the smart people who realized our country is the best.
Third, we won in Iraq, now people are dying to keep that place under control. We won, we got Saddam, and Oil, now it’s time to get out, not all of us, but we don’t need everyone to be in a piece keeping role.

Fourth, there is one political party where you have to agree with their views 100% to be in it, that party is objectivism, the party that Ayan Rand made. They got stuck on everything should be voluntary, and never got past that. They had no idea how to fund a government after that. The simplest way would be to make it like a Corporation. In return for your money, you get to use their product, which is retaliatory force. If you don’t like how they run their government, you make your own, or you switch to a new one. Each government can to what they want, so long as they don’t initiate force. You can tell in this world which governments are most successful because they will be the largest and richest.

If this were to happen, I’d predict five major splits.
One would be a Conservative government where the constitution is followed, but you generally don’t have copious amounts of personal freedom (No drugs, no abortions) they would advocate, not a theocracy, but a government based on some religious values, Tied Second best place to live, for everyone, there would be a very low crime rate because of the Guns and the moral values, only some people would prefer more personal freedom.

The second would be a Liberal government. Here there would be no constitution and no free market, and roughly the same personal freedom as a conservative government. Their economy would suck and crime would be high. This is the second worst place to live.

Third, there would be a libertarian Government. Here there would be the constitution and the free market, with total personal freedom. Here the crime would be low and the economy would be high; however, some liberal may come over because of the pure personal freedom and ruin the near perfect government. Tied for second best place to live.

Fourth, there would be various socialist governments. Crime would be high, and their economy would suck more than the Liberal one, these would collapse quickly. The worst place to live.

Finally, there is the Republic of ones Self. Here your property is your land, and you in total control of it, you may work from home or go to another country to work, you keep all your money because you are the retaliatory force, and how you rule, suits your preference. The best place to live.

Quoted: NO is a good example of what man does when government control is released has created an unthinking, unmotivated and uncapable dependent class through socialism and identity politics...

Fixed it for you...

Quoted: Quoted: NO is a good example of what man does when government control is released has created an unthinking, unmotivated and uncapable dependent class through socialism and identity politics... Fixed it for you...

Where did you come from? I haven't noticed any of your posts before. You are now an official member of my brain trust, however.  

Quoted: Now that the party has been hijacked by druggies?

Well you can go with the Repubs which have been hijacked by liberals, fundies and big government candidates.

Or you can go Demo which have been hijacked by socialists, comunists and terrorist sympathizers.

Or you can go Consitution Party which has always been fundies.

Lots of choices, just not any great ones. Which is probably how a person ends up finding the Libertarian Party in the first place.

Quoted: Where did you come from? I haven't noticed any of your posts before. You are now an official member of my brain trust, however.

Thanks Rodent. I hope I don't disappoint. Honored to be in your service.

I've been lurking since early 2004 and just started running my mouth recently.

Quoted: As someone who once had ;'libertarian-ish' beliefs, but never really dis-associated with the GOP, my angle is this: 1) Trying to be the 'real party of smaller government' attracted the interests of folks like myself, on the conservative side of US govt... 2) Trying to broaden out and attract disallusioned leftists by embracing drug legalization, legally open borders, and fighting common-sense law enforcement measures & business practices in the name of 'privacy rights' may have broadened the constituency, but made alot of 'curious' folks alot more comfortable staying GOP 3) End result is that the LP has developed (quite legitmately) a reputation as the 'Kook party'.... Sad, maybe, but the LP has become way too liberal for any law-and-order conservative to justify even the slightest affiliation... Oh, and BTW, fingerprints on a DL (in the same smartcard manner as the DOD's CAC ID card) would be a great way to cut down on ID theft & CC fraud... You do realize that the whole right to privacy was invented by the USSC in Pleasy v Furgeson (sp?), the precursor case to Roe v Wade.... IMHO, the libertarians seem to have a 'Back to 1878' mentality, where they oppose not only the growth of government social programs, but also pretty much everything required for a modern 1st world economy, from foreign military deployments, immigration control, and positive ID, to drug control and neccicary taxation.... Heck, some libs have even been for nuclear disarmament...It often seems that some would go back to the Articles of Confederation if they could.... Also, the ultimate-no-government anarchist philosophy proffered by the current LP is about as realisticly viable as Marx's Communisim. It ignores the inherant evil in humanity, and gives us all free rein to expose said true nature... NO is a good example of what man does when government control is released...

BINGO

Libertarians that say the party has not been hijacked by druggies and kooks needed to watch the Libertarian convention. I guarantee that display scared off far more people than it drew in.

I think hijacked is exactly the proper term because I don’t think the Party represents most Libertarians.

Quoted: As someone who once had ;'libertarian-ish' beliefs, but never really dis-associated with the GOP, my angle is this: 1) Trying to be the 'real party of smaller government' attracted the interests of folks like myself, on the conservative side of US govt... 2) Trying to broaden out and attract disallusioned leftists by embracing drug legalization, legally open borders, and fighting common-sense law enforcement measures & business practices in the name of 'privacy rights' may have broadened the constituency, but made alot of 'curious' folks alot more comfortable staying GOP 3) End result is that the LP has developed (quite legitmately) a reputation as the 'Kook party'.... Sad, maybe, but the LP has become way too liberal for any law-and-order conservative to justify even the slightest affiliation... Oh, and BTW, fingerprints on a DL (in the same smartcard manner as the DOD's CAC ID card) would be a great way to cut down on ID theft & CC fraud... You do realize that the whole right to privacy was invented by the USSC in Pleasy v Furgeson (sp?), the precursor case to Roe v Wade.... IMHO, the libertarians seem to have a 'Back to 1878' mentality, where they oppose not only the growth of government social programs, but also pretty much everything required for a modern 1st world economy, from foreign military deployments, immigration control, and positive ID, to drug control and neccicary taxation.... Heck, some libs have even been for nuclear disarmament...It often seems that some would go back to the Articles of Confederation if they could.... Also, the ultimate-no-government anarchist philosophy proffered by th current LP is about as realisticly viable as Marx's Communisim. It ignores the inherant evil in humanity, and gives us all free rein to expose said true nature... NO is a good example of what man does when government control is released...

What is necessary for a Modern 1'st world economy, aside from free reign.
What is the Libertarians annarchy, I think mine above seems like a farily good indication of what would happen in either a full annarchy or an Annarcho-Capatalistic government. The best way to deal with the "Inherent Evil" in humanity is to make is so that any initiation of force against anyone, must be justified and if not justified, reperations must be made. There is no such thing is necessary taxation, you can pay for services, but you can't be taxed for no reason, like we are now. Why do you need immigration controll, it slows the growth of a countries economy. And why do you need to deploy militariy forces any where unless that country is going to initiate force? What are common sense business practices, and law enforcement measures? I don't have any clue what you are saying. Please clairify some of these thing and then I can agree or argue with you.

Somehow I think a take over of an existing party might be more realistic than the possibility of overtaking one outright.

What I think is thr root of many of the problems here in the US is is the myopic view of politics in general.  All we are allowed to see by the media is either right wing or left wing.  The "political spectrum" as it has been ingrained in our thinking is one dimensional, and does not allow for much deviation, one is either right wing, or left wing, or a mix of the two.  For one thing, either extreme gives you virtually the same outcome.  A totalitarian government that is in control of everything.  On the extreme left you get a Communist Dictatorship (though the ideal is the people ruling themselves, this has proved to be an immpossibility), and the extreme right you get a theocracy of some sort, both of which are totalitarian governments ruling every aspect of the populations' day to day lives.

Given that I do not like either outcome, that, and the current political spectrum lumps together aspects that are not necessarily congruent with the political ideology of either end of the spectrum.  We think of lefties as being immoral sodomites, and the righties as being uptight celebates.  Left:Godless, Right:Godful, etc.  The left does not want to legislate morality, the right does.

I think there are several axises that should be accounted for on the politcal spectrum seperately.  Level of Government, how reactionary the .gov is (dems want to pass a new law every time there is a shootout etc.), and economics (capitolist vs communist). I added in a level of how much the gov regulates morality, but it should be noted that it does not account for where the morals come from.  This is just a rough draft, and there are other factors that I would like to figure in, but I have not quite yet visualised how to describe them.  

I think that this sort of thinking would allow the masses to easier undrestand the various forms of .gov  and the varying aspects of each type, as well as the views of various parties..


Libertarians for example would be kinda like this:

Level of gov:
-..|........................+
How Reactionary:
-..|........................+
Economic Involvement (cap on left, commie on right)
-..|........................+
Moral regulation
-..|........................+

DemoCraps would be more like this:

Level of gov:
-........................|..+
How Reactionary:
-........................|..+
Economic Involvement (cap on left, commie on right)
-......................|....+
Moral regulation
-..|........................+


Republic*nts would look like:

Level of gov:
-.................|.........+
How Reactionary:
-..........|................+
Economic Involvement (cap on left, commie on right)
-............|..............+
Moral regulation
-.......................|...+

Communists would look like:

Level of gov:
-..........................|+
How Reactionary:
-..|........................+
Economic Involvement (cap on left, commie on right)
-..........................|+
Moral regulation
-............|..............+ (really I have no idea where commies sit morally)


Basically, what I am trying to say with all my charts and graphs is that the Libertarian party needs to do something to make themselves more clearly understood.  They sound like whackos.  No drug laws, people are to make their own decisions about morality?  No gun laws?  HOW?

Quoted: I was a Libertarian; until I read the Diamond Age, Snow crash, and Economics in One Lesson. Then I became an Annarco-Capitalist. I think there are 3 of us in the world, Me, My dad, and Neil Stephenson. Another reason I decided to no longer be libertarian is that they seem like such democrats on their website. They also take strange views, like they hate Bush, which is odd, because with the sole exception of the Patriot act he has done nothing to expand federal powers, whereas a democrat would have screwed us all. I am also confused as to what the whole problem is with open borders, A free market makes it so that you can compete for jobs with whoever you want, and guns for all prevent terrorist attacks. The fact the people are willing to cross a border illegally makes us the best. If you had a large piece of land, and people were willing to break the law to get on you land, you have some awesome land. The problem with open borders now is that the taxpayer has to support the people. If we got rid of welfare, then we have a bunch of immigrants in our country. That's happened before and we came out better for it 'cause we got all the smart people who realized our country is the best. Third, we won in Iraq, now people are dying to keep that place under control. We won, we got Saddam, and Oil, now it’s time to get out, not all of us, but we don’t need everyone to be in a piece keeping role. Fourth, there is one political party where you have to agree with their views 100% to be in it, that party is objectivism, the party that Ayan Rand made. They got stuck on everything should be voluntary, and never got past that. They had no idea how to fund a government after that. The simplest way would be to make it like a Corporation. In return for your money, you get to use their product, which is retaliatory force. If you don’t like how they run their government, you make your own, or you switch to a new one. Each government can to what they want, so long as they don’t initiate force. You can tell in this world which governments are most successful because they will be the largest and richest. If this were to happen, I’d predict five major splits. One would be a Conservative government where the constitution is followed, but you generally don’t have copious amounts of personal freedom (No drugs, no abortions) they would advocate, not a theocracy, but a government based on some religious values, Tied Second best place to live, for everyone, there would be a very low crime rate because of the Guns and the moral values, only some people would prefer more personal freedom. The second would be a Liberal government. Here there would be no constitution and no free market, and roughly the same personal freedom as a conservative government. Their economy would suck and crime would be high. This is the second worst place to live. Third, there would be a libertarian Government. Here there would be the constitution and the free market, with total personal freedom. Here the crime would be low and the economy would be high; however, some liberal may come over because of the pure personal freedom and ruin the near perfect government. Tied for second best place to live. Fourth, there would be various socialist governments. Crime would be high, and their economy would suck more than the Liberal one, these would collapse quickly. The worst place to live. Finally, there is the Republic of ones Self. Here your property is your land, and you in total control of it, you may work from home or go to another country to work, you keep all your money because you are the retaliatory force, and how you rule, suits your preference. The best place to live.

The way you describe I am the 4th Annarcho-capitolist.