The New Movement

Yes, I can't imagine anyone wanting to live in Antarctica, including myself :-) That's a bit too outward for today. There's plenty of land on Earth, but it's just not being managed well.

Thanks, that's certainly one way of going about it. This seems to be what Vancouver Island is doing. I think this would work for capitalist communities, but not for non-capitalist communities, so we need a new province/territory that, from the outset, isn't married to any economic or political system.

This is just the beginning. I believe there will be a lot more minority groups trying to claim some form of independence and their own space. Vancouver Island is another group within Canada. Once word gets out that this will work for new communities, as well as existing ones, I'm sure we'll see a lot more interest. The issue of jobs will be solved by the community. Some communities might solve it through a communist-type system, others might not have a need for jobs, and will be happy to just provide food and shelter for each other. In essence, not every community will chase money like our current society. I believe there will be enough interest for people to move. There are a lot of people that would love to live a different way of life, but cannot because we haven't given them a space.

Minorities would say that the majority was the bully first, and they just are trying to even the playing field.

I agree with your agreement! :-P We do have a tendency to offload more and more responsibility on the government. I don't necessarily mind that sometimes - I do love my "free" healthcare - but it's not for everyone and I understand why, and want to support them too.

I don't know if anything comes easily in this world, but I do believe they can be convinced. No. As mentioned in my first post: In regards to "love it or leave it" - there isn't any land (besides Antarctica) that isn't claimed by some country. We can no longer simply tell a new generation of humans, "If you don't like it here, go somewhere else" - that excuse is being used by every nation at the same time. Moreover, if every country in the world became a democracy over night, that would mean any group that doesn't want to live in a democracy would be shut out on a global level. That's not fair, and will lead to strife. The "love it or leave it" approach is a problem, whether a country is practicing democracy, communism, or anything else. There needs to be room made for alternative ways of life. In regards to the issue with democracy - we can't simply tell a new generation to vote - we can't expect people to live out their dreams when majority rule bullies minorities into living the way the majority wants. In fact, majority rule forces us to create social groups, discriminate against people outside our group, and empowers the destructive "us vs. them" thinking. It also tends to create political party cycles - every X years, a country will cycle from left, to center, to right, and all the way back. This is a waste of time and energy. Nothing. As long as these communities can provide food and shelter for themselves, that's all they need as a minimum. The rest is up to them to provide for themselves. Regarding federal taxes to help pay for shared expenses like the military, if a particular community doesn't want to participate in the national economy, I suppose an arrangement could be made, perhaps on a case-by-case basis. For example, mandatory conscription for those over the age of 18. Healthcare, welfare, and any other form of social assistance will be provided by each community as they see fit. They will decide where to put them. They can, and hopefully will, build their own hospitals. The main idea is that we shouldn't be telling them how to live. When a group creates plans to setup a new community, they should discuss these things and convince those interested how their needs will be met.

Thanks, yes, that's a great strategy. Once this gets underway, Quebec would be highly motivated to push it through, which definitely helps. This could work for the 50.58% that voted to leave Canada in 1995. That portion of the population could carve out a section of Quebec and govern themselves. I think you're right - this might actually be the best ticket forward to getting wide spread support.

Thanks, that looks like a fantastic little nook :-) Water on all fronts, great weather, somewhat close to Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal (via the river), and a stone's throw from the U.S.

I'm in southern Ontario. I don't have a strong preference yet. Being close to a body of water would be great, and close to the U.S. border to make trade easier.

There are a few incentives I'm aware of: - these communities will be happier with their life, and because they now have an ideal place to live, many more people will want to reproduce. Low birth rate is a major issue in Western countries today, and governments have already began media campaigns to convince the population to have sex and have children. - this will lower the friction between various worldviews that exist. We currently don't have a good model of how multiple, opposing worldviews can share the same country, for reasons mentioned in my first post. - happier communities are more productive communities, and may have a strongly positive impact on the economy, local and global. - this model will scale into the future (is future proof), which will give people stability and assurance that their way of life isn't potentially in jeopardy every time a new political party seizes power of the country, as it is today.

That's a very interesting idea. In the worst case scenario, if the existing federal government can't be convinced of creating a State level, we could create a political party, win the federal election, and implement this ourselves. That would be a huge pain, for sure, though.

Thanks, that would be great if their weather wasn't so biting cold :-)

With my background in computer science, I will jump on the chance to use computer technology and the Internet as much as possible, including crypto currencies, electronic voting, online universities, etc. One of the main reasons I believe we need our own physical space is to avoid being subjected to federal law. Besides that, it would be great to live and build families with like-minded people. Similar communities around the world would be connected to each other using the Internet.

Thanks. Nunavut only has 35,000 so I'm not sure we need hundreds of thousands of people, although that would be great. Yes, I noticed how fast and hard Spain tried to crush Catalonia. I don't think I'll have to resort to a surprise vote. Regarding islands, with a few hundred billion dollars, I could likely convince a poorer country to sell me an island and release all their ownership. However, it still wouldn't alleviate the problem long-term. The only real long-term solution is for every country to create a new province/state X for alternative worldviews.

Good point. It seems they were already in negotiations with the federal government: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Nunavut

Thanks, just went through it. It seems fair enough. Yes, it would be great if we had some extra pocket change for things like that :-)

That's a neat looking grave. No idea what you're trying to say.

Thanks, I'll check that out. Yes, I also heard about the libertarians movement to New Hampshire. I did a little search to see if I should move too

Interesting. I wonder what they have against creating a new province? Why would that be such a threat?

I think the current system works for some people, so it's not worth crashing, as they would just fight to rebuild it.

Thanks. I'll go with the political organization. I rather share the country's army. Each town would be responsible for its own police.

I've been thinking about creating a province or territory that governs itself and would not be subject to federal law. It would pay some federal taxes for shared things like the military. The purpose would be to accommodate people with alternative world views. For example, within this new province, we could have separate towns for different types of anarchists (anarcho-communist, etc), religious fundamentalists (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc), and just about anyone else that wants to do it there own way, but believes in the fundamental spirit of the nation and it's constitution. I believe this will be required for every nation around the world in the near future. There isn't any land (besides Antarctica) that isn't claimed by some country. We can no longer simply tell a new generation of humans, "If you don't like it here, go somewhere else" - that excuse is being used by every nation at the same time. Moreover, we can't simply tell a new generation to vote - we can't expect people to live out their dreams when majority rule bullies minorities into living the way the majority wants. In fact, majority rule forces us to create social groups, discriminate against people outside our group, and empowers the destructive "us vs. them" thinking. It also tends to create political party cycles - every X years, a country will cycle from left, to center, to right, and all the way back. This is a waste of time and energy. My question is - what is required to make this happen?