From my research an Anarcho-capitalist (Ancap) society definitely seems like the best bet, and I don't think that I am alone in my beliefs. Some form of Ancap seems like the philosophical conclusion when one researches economics, government and history. As people grow more educated in these topics they almost always lean more libertarian and anarchist.

So I am curious how feasible it is to actually accomplish an Ancap society. All around the world we have societies acting under force through governments but we don't have any acting under complete cooperation through private property. The force concept is outdated and it is time to move to the next step.

Now, most people probably aren't ready to participate in a free society, I get that. Most people don't want freedom. But this society doesn't have to be for most people. This society only has to be for people who are able to take care of themselves on their own and who are able to participate cooperatively with other humans. There are plenty of people who do want to live in a society without rulers and this society is for them.

There are obviously people trying to do some type of thing right now:

And it has been going on for all of human history. People have always created new nations. Nations rise and nations fall. But as a whole I think each new nation moves the human family forward. I think Egypt, Greece, Rome, Europe and America have all moved the human family forward with each new iteration of society building upon the past, for the most part. And we all know this world is well overdue for the next thing.

So my question is: how practical is starting a new nation? Is it possible to pull off a new nation that stands apart from all the other nations of the world in that it is without rulers? What would need to take place to create such a nation? Let me share some of my thoughts on this issue and I'm sure most of you will have something to add. I am in no way an expert, I am just sharing my thoughts to get a dialog going.


  • Provide a free society for people to move to
  • Prove a better people organizing model for other nations to adopt


  • Financing
  • Location
  • Defense


My overall thought is the nation would need to be completely outside of any type of government. Since I'm pretty sure all land on this planet is pretty much owned by a government I would think it would need to be purchased. America purchased a large portion of America from the French in the Louisiana purchase for $15,000,000. Obviously that was back then and things are different now, however, purchases of land do happen. In this modern day I would think the price would be in the billions. Is it possible to raise enough capital to purchase a section of land in a more remote area like say Africa or maybe South America? I would think everything has a price, including land. I would think there are plenty of wealthy individuals who would be more than happy to invest in a project like this granted it was thoroughly planned out and realistic.

Even if land couldn't be acquired with direct ownership I would still think there would be some type of way to work a partnership out or some type of contract with a graduated scale where interest increases as profits or results are realized.



Private property would be at the core of this nation. Property would be owned by the shareholders who raised the money for the project. Property would be split up as they saw fit and control would be designated as they saw fit. They would also agree upon the terms with the existing nation(s) on how this ownership would work. Initially the property owners would probably enforce their own rules, which would probably lean towards common law and Libertarian principles. Property would be operated as property owners saw fit. Majority would probably work towards creating cities capable of meeting the needs of the citizens.


I think the quality of people in a nation are the most important part. Low quality people will bring down any nation. High quality people will uplift any nation. This is a part that I think would be tricky at least initially with a free society. I really don't think you can have low quality people while setting up a free society. Call me biased, but I think you need entrepreneurial-type people in setting up a society with our current nation-state paradigm. It would be too compelling for lower quality people to want to immigrate into a new, prosperous society and drag it down.

So I think initially, and contractually, it may be favorable to only allow certain people in. The aim would obviously be to not have any government and allow everyone to do whatever they want to do. If the world was already operating as a free world I think this could be done. But since the world is not free I think you would have to have some way to keep low quality people out and only allow high quality people in. By high quality I mean entrepreneurial, self-reliant people who have a basic understanding in economics, philosophy, government and history.

Criteria for the type of people allowed in would be set forth by the property owners.


I think the most important part of location is that this area is independent of any other nation. How this is accomplished is the tricky part. And maybe it's not done all at once. Maybe is starts out as a partnership that is eventually bought out.

How feasible would it be to raise capital to buy a portion of land from some more remote area such as South America or even Africa? Are you able to buy land here? Would you have to work some type of deal with the government in control here? Would the Queen of England want her share and try to subvert you through MI6 and the CIA? Would you need to defend yourself at the nuclear level if necessary?

These are all questions that location brings about. I think it could be done at the ocean level, but scale and technology make this seem a bit tricky at the present moment. I think it would be better to have an actual area of land with the possibility of basic farming and other industrial economic cornerstones as a foundation.


Is it realistic to go straight to Anarcho-capitalism cold turkey? In other words, is it possible to be the lone Ancap society without having some type of military threat? I know this has been debated over and over again and there are plenty of arguments on both sides. At the end of the day, if an Ancap society is remotely successful it threatens those governments in power and they will do everything they can do destroy you. They may not be gaining much by taking over your land, but they are losing a lot by you taking away their slaves.

I would think based off our current situation of existing governments with huge armies the defensive aspect would be one of the greatest challenges. There are a few ways to look at this.

For one, an Ancap society is going to be the most technologically advanced. The people there are going to be smart and if necessary they would be able to possess the most powerful weapons as they would be the ones who create them. Having some type of Nuclear weaponry makes it a lot more intimidating for anyone to mess with you. Could a new Ancap society have some type of big time weapon like a Nuclear warhead? Something like this may be necessary to keep away the threat of a major nation.

On the other hand, would an internal militia work similar to how it was done with Revolutionary America? I tend to think that this would not work in the present day. I understand that you are usually better off defending your own land, but I just don't think an Ancap society would stand a chance without some type of serious Nuclear weaponry.


Law would all be handled through common law and courts would be private. Disputes would be handled as businesses and people best see fit. Private courts would operate on whatever creative methods they could devise to handle disputes.


Police would all be private. Enforcement of disputes would be handled non-violently and people unwilling to abide by the property owners would be boycotted and cut off from any further participation with said property(s) until retribution is made.


Education would all be private. Focus would be on teaching entrepreneurship and self-responsibility. I would think education would be the high-point of this society and I suspect children would come out with very little brainwashing and very high creativity and ethics.


Money would be completely open. People can use whatever money they want to use. I don't foresee any real issues here.


We are not looking to go back to the stone age, but certain industries like agriculture are an essential part to our present day economy. By having the basics under our own internal control makes us less reliant on other nations. Ideally we would just trade and do our own thing, however, it would be in the best interest of more powerful groups to cut us off from trade on more essential things. So I would think being as independent on other nations as possible would be the best foundation for an economy. Obviously this is not entirely possible.

As a starting nation the economy would have to rely mostly on importing all the foundational items such as food and clothing and would export intelligence in the form of technology, science and things of this nature.


There wouldn't be taxes. Funds would be rendered through people voluntarily supporting the property owners through services of their liking. Funds would be procured through whatever creative means property owners saw fit.


So I'm obviously not in favor of any form of control or leaders, however, in the starting phases I think there must be some form of leadership, due to the current state of the world. I don't think you can just set up shop as a completely Ancap society without somebody coming through and destroying you either overtly or covertly. I think there would have to be some type of leadership team in place initially that would perhaps dissolve when certain contractual milestones or obligations are met. The leaders, would essentially be the property owners.

I would think this team would operate the same as any other company board. You would have a group of investors and executives who would lead the property as it develops and minimize issues as they see fit. As the nation progressed and certain milestones were met eventually these leaders would be contractually obligated to step down from power and assimilate from their positions into society with everyone else, or perhaps they would continue to maintain their property and sell off portions as new opportunities arose.


So those are some thoughts I've been mulling over in my head. This would operate pretty much like an anarchist society, although there might be a few temporary caveats in place such as only allowing certain people in, perhaps certain defense measures and other things decided on by the property owners.

This post is not as much to say how it should be, but rather to open up a dialogue and allow other people to inject their own ideas. I think with enough people contributing their creativity to this problem we would be able to work out some type of a solution. If there is some type of interest I would be happy to facilitate a formal website designated to the purpose.

So what do you say? Sim City Planet Earth anyone?

 Filed under: Politics / Government, Nation, Atlantis

About The Author

Quinton Figueroa

Quinton Figueroa

Facebook @slayerment YouTube

El Paso, Texas

I am an entrepreneur at heart. Throughout my whole life I have enjoyed building real businesses by solving real problems. Business is life itself. My goal with businesses is to help move the human ...



Matthanna: I agree with this blog that

I agree with this blog that most of the people are of their own type, and they want freedom and don't like to live in a society, but according to me its very safe and people must take advantage of these societies.

A sinner: The only rational possibility

The only rational possibility to let an free autoselection happen in context with your idea of quality people is and will be to generate a society where there are no space for vices and especially pride. Because u see if one intentions to harm the society it will recognise this person as negativist and will start to reject him socially even till repulsion unless he changes. Practically if ones scope in life is to humiliate monetarilly base-socioeco-class unbalanced females sexually via bribing, black meiling and direct threats on ideal society this person would be considered weird and left outside the margin till intrapersonal change or the end of the persons time on this planet - his liberty of choice.

Monetary structure needs special attention, I say, because that controls all the resources. I say the sanest way to allocate resources might be based on fundamental trust on those person intentions who are the most experienced in the society. They can own all - if they are entirely altruistic. Because at that point, they desire good for those around them. I personally would let my wallet anytime to a person who distribuites wealth to others in the hierarchy of true necessities the ultimate scope being individuals development towards higher highs of humbleness and via that the Holy Spirit.

But realistically, without massive Divine intervention, none of mentioned is like to happen because the anti-creation issues here are vastly larger than any tech related issues. The results of evil are truly extermination techs but the the most massive issues are the ones unseen to human eyes, to mention the spiritual dimension. Thats what the front line fighting truly about in this life.

Because u see, the intention is not to eliminate u, it is to take u somewhere way more ugly than this planet AFTER death

Add new comment