Atlantis

[buff_geek]

Do you think it is possible to build a real version of Atlantis somewhere in the world today? Maybe not a completely self-sufficient community, but at least a town with a small, limited government and a legal separation of economy and state and church and state.

[Selene]

Steve:

Welcome to OL.

My answer is yes. You would have to pick the correct state and county in the US where you could "create" your incorporated "town."

Towns often exist as distinct governmental units, with legally defined borders and some or all of the appurtenances of local government (e.g., a

police

force). In the United States these are referred to as "incorporated towns". In other cases the town lacks its own governance and is said to be "unincorporated". Note that the existence of an unincorporated town may be legally set forth through other means, as through zoning districts. In the case of some

planned communities

, the town exists legally in the form of covenants on the properties within the town. The

United States Census

identifies many

census-designated places

(CDPs) by the names of unincorporated towns which lie within them; however, those CDPs typically include

rural

and

suburban

areas and even surrounding villages and other towns.

The US would probably be the "safest" place to effect this polity, at least for the first few years.

What brought you to OL?

Adam

[buff_geek]

Well it would definately have to be an incorporated town then. Capable of making and enforcing its own laws. I like how Rand described it. The land is owned by one person and then sold piece by piece to others. Preferably, the town hall land is the first to be purchased and a town hall is built before any other homes/shops are set up. I don't like the idea of the covenant as you described it. A town should not exist on the agreement of its members. It should be held together by laws. Now, of course it should not exist against the will of the people. I think the best way to ensure that is to have a voluntary "tax" system. But, as an experiment, it may not be best to mix too many variables. Making it a laissez faire capitalist and voluntary "tax" community all at once may be too complex to start.

I am not convinced the U.S. would be the best place to start such a community. We are becoming increasingly fascist. Is it even legal for a town to be laissez faire or have the voluntary "tax" system in the U.S.?

I was introduced to Ayn Rand through Atlas Shrugged. I read it for a scholarship. I then became familiar with Objectivism and found that no one locally cared about it. So here I am.

[Peter]

Buff Geek wrote:

Do you think it is possible to build a real version of Atlantis somewhere in the world today? Maybe not a completely self-sufficient community, but at least a town with a small, limited government and a legal separation of economy and state and church and state.

end quote

Would a buff geek imply a small body and a big head? Is the adjective “buff,” a peacock display implying a search for compatible partners? Is the noun “geek” implying more intelligence than Buff Geek’s original question demonstrates and which is re-answered about once a year on OL? Do a search for Atlantis or Galt’s Gulch, Buffie The Vanity Player.

Welcome to the NFL, Rookie. 8 -)

The problem with a community is that it is part of a bigger community. A “free” community within a bigger country means the smaller community must abide by the laws of the bigger country. It would benefit from the bigger country’s security system and not benefit if the bigger country’s government is oppressive. The secret would be for a community to not be incorporated and place no new laws on the citizens of that territory. Then work to make the Constitution reflect a Randian ideal.

Peter Taylor

[Selene]

I am not convinced the U.S. would be the best place to start such a community. We are becoming increasingly fascist. Is it even legal for a town to be laissez faire or have the voluntary "tax" system in the U.S.?

I was introduced to Ayn Rand through Atlas Shrugged. I read it for a scholarship. I then became familiar with Objectivism and found that no one locally cared about it. So here I am.

Good question. I will inquire about whether it would be legal. The reason I thought the US would be a "best place" is because it is "more secure," which is both good and bad.

I gather you are a student. What are you studying for? Additionally, what community are you in? Never good to hear that there was no interest in Ayn's ideas.

Try to take Peter's attempts at humor with a large grain of sodium chloride. He lives in a gulag in the socialist state of Maryland.

Adam

[buff_geek]

I don't think Peter is being a good Objectivist with his insulting responses to my name and questions. Way to stifle an inquisitive mind!

Anyway, I realize a small city community would not have its own sovereignty, but so what? Does it need it?

Does a city government actually have to make laws that influence its economy in order to remain law abiding and in good standing with a state or federal government?

I know it would be tricky running a city like this. It would have to enforce state/federal laws that may affect its economy, while at the same time enforcing its own laws against affecting its economy. It is a fine line to walk, but it's a lot easier than trying to change the whole U.S. to Laissez Faire Capitalism.

[Selene]

I don't think Peter is being a good Objectivist with his insulting responses to my name and questions. Way to stifle an inquisitive mind!

Anyway, I realize a small city community would not have its own sovereignty, but so what? Does it need it?

Does a city government actually have to make laws that influence its economy in order to remain law abiding and in good standing with a state or federal government?

I know it would be tricky running a city like this. It would have to enforce state/federal laws that may affect its economy, while at the same time enforcing its own laws against affecting its economy. It is a fine line to walk, but it's a lot easier than trying to change the whole U.S. to Laissez Faire Capitalism.

Precisely.

Moreover, it would attract folks that shared the underlying values that should form the foundations of whatever local statutes may be necessary to organize.

There are examples in existence in the US today. The Amish. There is a Muslim community outside of Hancock NY that has been in existence for four (4) decades that I know of. There is an Orthodox Jewish community just North of the Jersey state line that is quite insular.

The commonality amongst the ones that I cited is that there is a religious base to the community.

There are also sanctuary cities in the US that flatly do not enforce certain Federal laws. Hillsdale College operates with no federal funds of any kind and is able to run it's college without repressive Federal interference.

The precedents exist and it would be an excellent way to establish a real "point to" community to respond to the "it will never work" mantra of critics.

Where do you live Steven?

Adam

[Peter]

Steven wrote:

I don't think Peter is being a good Objectivist with his insulting responses to my name and questions. Way to stifle an inquisitive mind!

end quote

Selected names mean something. If your name was known in the beginning as “Steven” I would not have joked about it. Instead, you picked a loaded pseudo name which required a response. To call yourself “Buff” is like Mohammed Ali calling himself “The Greatest.” You should leave it to others to call you buff. And for a guy to say he is buff, when most women like “slender” but well set up men, implies homosexual tendencies, (Hey, there’s nothing wrong with that –Jerry Seinfeld) since gay men seem to like either slender or buff partners, though I am speculating outside my field. If you are feigning those tendencies then you would be a Bluff Greek.

Likewise Geek is a pejorative name, for someone who is technically expert in some field, but socially inept, having poor personal hygiene, or quite possible, being ugly. So you began with a lot of baggage by picking an idiotic pseudonym. Yours may be an inquiring mind or a squirming mind. I can only judge you by your presentation so far. I am not hostile to you being here. I joke a lot. Welcome, Earthling!

Peter Taylor

[Mikee]

Buff:

My thought about your chosen name was it convey's a thoughtful, perhaps introspective person, who also likes to workout a little (mind or body). All positive connotations. Don't mind Peter. He's just trying to skewer another specimen for his display board. Adam, however, has real reasons for his questions. Demographics associated with opinion is his job, at least part of it. He rewards handsomely with his observations, I rarely miss one of his posts. I am also curious what you do, are you a student? And where you are from.

What would be the point of a "self-sufficient" city? And is it even possible except with a severely limited standard of living?

[Brant Gaede]

Do you think it is possible to build a real version of Atlantis somewhere in the world today? Maybe not a completely self-sufficient community, but at least a town with a small, limited government and a legal separation of economy and state and church and state.

Get the woman first, maybe more than one.

--Brant

try LA

[Peter]

Mikee’s friend Buffy Steve wrote:

It is a fine line to walk, but it's a lot easier than trying to change the whole U.S. to Laissez Faire Capitalism.

end quote

I think you are talking about running away from home. If you run away then Mummy can’t tell you what to do. You could go to a City that flaunts its nose at the Federal Government occasionally, like San Francisco, but jeepers they have more rules than Mummy. So my advice would be to take your fabulous wealth, move to an out of the way county in an out of the way state, buy a plot of ground from an Injun and set up your own town. I am sure other disinfected (or is that disaffected) people will follow you to live there and rent a plot of your ground or a plot next to your plot. There would be no sheriff. No signs, like “Keep Out,” or “Don’t walk on the grass.” Then you could all be free.

Or you could look for Midas Mulligan to put you up, but he might be too much like Daddy.

Peter Taylor

[Dglgmut]

A little off topic... What if everyone learned how to be self-sufficient... No transfer of goods would mean no taxation for the most part, right? Ah... but any tax would have to be paid in cash. So, in order to pay what little taxes you'd have if you could fend completely on your own, you'd have to sell just enough to get money to pay those taxes, plus whatever income tax you just added on.

I think the closest thing to a real Galt's Gulch would be people doing as much as they can with as little as they can, for themselves. If this were the case, it'd be much clearer what taxes are to people, as nobody would have any "income", but taxes would still need to be collected.

What if instead of goods, people only traded services (which is essentially all anyone trades anyway). What if there was a new currency based on debt of services, where no goods or money were transferred, and so nobody could be taxed? Would it work if with complete compliance of the laws, people did each others favors and were given a low limit of debt, which they would have to pay back at a certain point with no option to claim anymore?

Would it be possible to set up an alternate currency, that could not be legally prohibited? You can't be told not to do someone a favor, right?

[Mikee]

A little off topic... What if everyone learned how to be self-sufficient... No transfer of goods would mean no taxation for the most part, right? Ah... but any tax would have to be paid in cash. So, in order to pay what little taxes you'd have if you could fend completely on your own, you'd have to sell just enough to get money to pay those taxes, plus whatever income tax you just added on.

I think the closest thing to a real Galt's Gulch would be people doing as much as they can with as little as they can, for themselves. If this were the case, it'd be much clearer what taxes are to people, as nobody would have any "income", but taxes would still need to be collected.

What if instead of goods, people only traded services (which is essentially all anyone trades anyway). What if there was a new currency based on debt of services, where no goods or money were transferred, and so nobody could be taxed? Would it work if with complete compliance of the laws, people did each others favors and were given a low limit of debt, which they would have to pay back at a certain point with no option to claim anymore?

Would it be possible to set up an alternate currency, that could not be legally prohibited? You can't be told not to do someone a favor, right?

By "self sufficient" you mean "less specialized" which means far less work efficient. Which means you go back to working 16 hours a day for a basic subsistance? There's no getting around the increased standard of living highly technical and specialized economies bring. Technological decline and reduced standard of living in small isolated populations is demonstrated by Matt Ridley in his book "The Rational Optimist" (great book btw).

[buff_geek]

A little off topic... What if everyone learned how to be self-sufficient... No transfer of goods would mean no taxation for the most part, right? Ah... but any tax would have to be paid in cash. So, in order to pay what little taxes you'd have if you could fend completely on your own, you'd have to sell just enough to get money to pay those taxes, plus whatever income tax you just added on.

I think the closest thing to a real Galt's Gulch would be people doing as much as they can with as little as they can, for themselves. If this were the case, it'd be much clearer what taxes are to people, as nobody would have any "income", but taxes would still need to be collected.

What if instead of goods, people only traded services (which is essentially all anyone trades anyway). What if there was a new currency based on debt of services, where no goods or money were transferred, and so nobody could be taxed? Would it work if with complete compliance of the laws, people did each others favors and were given a low limit of debt, which they would have to pay back at a certain point with no option to claim anymore?

Would it be possible to set up an alternate currency, that could not be legally prohibited? You can't be told not to do someone a favor, right?

No, you're talking about an Aristrocracy of Pull. The good ol' boy system. When you deal in favors you can never really be sure when you're solvent.

The only reason Atlantis was self-sufficient was because it had to be. The rest of the country's infrastructure was falling apart. We don't want self sufficiency for the reasons Mikee listed. We couldn't have it anyway. No one city sized area has all the resources needed for a modern infrastructure.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

No, your talking about an Aristrocracy of Pull. The good ol' boy system. When you deal in favors you can never really be sure when you're solvent.

The only reason Atlantis was self-sufficient was because it had to be. The rest of the countries infrastructure was falling apart. We don't want self sufficiency for the reasons Mikee listed. We couldn't have it anyway. No one city sized area has all the resources needed for a modern infrastructure.

buff_geek,

Welcome to OL.

I'm glad to see you've got enthusiasm and you're reading Objectivist stuff because you're interested. You're definitely articulating certain concepts well for your age.

Now for a quibble, but it is something that is important. And it's not your fault.

For as boring as basic grammar may seem, it's a good idea to get into the habit of learning some of it. I'm not talking about memorizing rules, but instead, learning the concepts and ideas behind the structures.

For instance, you wrote: "No, your talking about an Aristrocracy of Pull." The idea you're using is "you are" as opposed to the idea of assigning possession. Yet you wrote what grammar Nazis call a "second person possessive adjective."

You're = you are

Your = belonging to you

Anytime you mean "you are," it has to be "you're." (This is called a contraction. You replace letters and spaces with an apostrophe.) It can never be "your" because that means something else entirely.

There are some other errors in your post (Aristrocracy instead of Aristocracy, and countries instead of country's jump out at me), but I don't want to dampen your enthusiasm with irritating and boring grammar and spelling rules.

Like I said, this is not your fault. It is the fault of the system that educated you. That system sucks and drains all the life and excitement out of learning basic technical matters.

The thing is, since you're interested and full of vigor about Objectivism, I presume you want to persuade others if and when you can. If you present your ideas to them with primary errors, you shoot yourself in the foot on the draw. They will be inclined not to look at the message, i.e. the content, because the form was cockeyed.

So it's a good idea to work on this on your own. It's not rocket science and you do feel really good about yourself as you get more skilled.

Now here is where you will be to blame for such mistakes. (Notice the future tense there, not the past tense.)

You can either put concern with properly expressing yourself within your priorities, or you can simply get irritated and impatient at the idea and keep repeating elementary mistakes without concern. It's your choice. You can choose to keep the errors through not caring, but then it's on you. It's no longer on the system.

The good news is that lots of people make these mistakes these days. The USA education system really did a number on two or more generations. So you don't have to be intimidated in learning the basics. Just concentrate on getting one thing right at a time. Say, start with "you're" versus "your." Google it. Read a couple or three sites of explanations. Spend a few days with your antenna tuned to this as you go about expressing yourself.

Once you feel comfortable, move on to another mistake. I'm sure you get some smart-asses who bash you for them at times. Rather than get mad at them, tune them out, but make a list as you do so. They may be giving you a horrible attitude, and you definitely don't want negative naggers hanging around, but they are giving you good information. So get rid of them but keep their info.

(btw - This is a job that's never done. I'm still doing it. You should have seen the mess I used to make of the English language when I decided to do something about it.)

This is just a suggestion. I don't mind if you decide not to do anything with it.

You own your own wings, so you have to decide how high you want to fly. I'm just pointing out a far better way to flap.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

"Atlantis" was self-sufficient because it was fiction. If you want to find your mate in a community of several hundred you may come to appreciate living in a big city. If you want access to several hundred different drugs, you may come to appreciate living in a big country. I may come to appreciate being able to fly to Thailand for surgery. I once knew of a hermit. He lived on the banks of the Salmon River in Idaho. You couldn't be more self sufficient. He even made his own guns. Shot bears. Went into town once a year for some gunpowder. I sent him a letter of appreciation. He wrote back from a nursing or assisted living home--after decades of living alone he couldn't take care of himself any more. I believe the book I read about him was The Last of the Mountain Men.

--Brant

edit: going to Amazon it seems this guy's story as told in the book is fraudulent

[buff_geek]

To get back to the original topic. We are trying to figure out how a city's legal system would have to be set up for it to exist as a Laissez Faire Capitalist city. Since we are familiar with it, we'll assume the home country is the U.S. That means we have federal, state and county laws that may interfere with city ones. In order to consider this, we have to think of ways a government's (especially a city government's) laws will affect a city's economy:

• Taxes. Choosing who gets taxed and how much. Choosing who gets tax breaks.
  
• Social Security?
  
• Welfare?
  
• Healthcare/Insurance: Legally required to buy something from private company.
  
• Minimum Wage?
  
• Land grabs. Taking land for public use then paying whatever compensation is deemed fair.
  
• Nationalizing any structure or product to secure for public use.
  
• Printing money. Physically determining how much money is out there.
  
• 
  

City level solutions:

• Voluntary "tax" system. Everyone pays what they deem necessary. They get what they pay for. City cannot use outside tax money (from federal or state level) to build roads and such. (Is this legal?)
  
• Social security/welfare/healthcare: Does a city have any involvement in this?
  
• Insurance (auto/home): The city does not legally require it. If you wreck you/someone elses car/house, you pay for it. If you can't figure out who owes what, the city helps you solve it.
  
• Minimum wage: Enforce federal and state wage requirements. Add no extra requirements.
  
• Land grab/nationalizing: The city cannot force any citizen/corporation to sell anything. It can only offer more money/trade (not favors). Having to pay more money for land and such makes a government really consider whether or not a project is necessary.
  
• A privately owned bank, located only in that city, coins money. (Is this legal?). This money can only be used in this city. (Legal?). No city businesses accept outside money. (Probably not legal). How do you prevent this money from leaving? If the outside money must be used and the city money can't be kept in the city, then this point is irrelevent.
  

What are some other problems such a city might run into? In other words, legally, why can't such a city exist in the U.S. today?

[buff_geek]

I don't think Peter is being a good Objectivist with his insulting responses to my name and questions. Way to stifle an inquisitive mind!

Anyway, I realize a small city community would not have its own sovereignty, but so what? Does it need it?

Does a city government actually have to make laws that influence its economy in order to remain law abiding and in good standing with a state or federal government?

I know it would be tricky running a city like this. It would have to enforce state/federal laws that may affect its economy, while at the same time enforcing its own laws against affecting its economy. It is a fine line to walk, but it's a lot easier than trying to change the whole U.S. to Laissez Faire Capitalism.

Precisely.

Moreover, it would attract folks that shared the underlying values that should form the foundations of whatever local statutes may be necessary to organize.

There are examples in existence in the US today. The Amish. There is a Muslim community outside of Hancock NY that has been in existence for four (4) decades that I know of. There is an Orthodox Jewish community just North of the Jersey state line that is quite insular.

The commonality amongst the ones that I cited is that there is a religious base to the community.

There are also sanctuary cities in the US that flatly do not enforce certain Federal laws. Hillsdale College operates with no federal funds of any kind and is able to run it's college without repressive Federal interference.

The precedents exist and it would be an excellent way to establish a real "point to" community to respond to the "it will never work" mantra of critics.

Where do you live Steven?

Adam

The Hillsdale idea is great, but that just sounds like a regular private college. Does your comment mean that any group or company can be free of Federal interference just be refusing to take federal funding?

A college is essentially just a collection of individualls and buildings, so can someone just make a compound somewhere, say it's a private dwelling, pay taxes on land, follow building/housing laws, not take federal/state funding and actually make an unincorporated town out of it? Maybe this would be easier than an incorporated one.

[william.scherk]

To get back to the original topic. We are trying to figure out how a city's legal system would have to be set up for it to exist as a Laissez Faire Capitalist city. Since we are familiar with it, we'll assume the home country is the U.S. That means we have federal, state and county laws that may interfere with city ones. In order to consider this, we have to think of ways a government's (especially a city government's) laws will affect a city's economy:

• Taxes. Choosing who gets taxed and how much. Choosing who gets tax breaks.
  
• Social Security?
  
• Welfare?
  
• Healthcare/Insurance: Legally required to buy something from private company.
  
• Minimum Wage?
  
• Land grabs. Taking land for public use then paying whatever compensation is deemed fair.
  
• Nationalizing any structure or product to secure for public use.
  
• Printing money. Physically determining how much money is out there.
  
• 
  

City level solutions:

• Voluntary "tax" system. Everyone pays what they deem necessary. They get what they pay for. City cannot use outside tax money (from federal or state level) to build roads and such. (Is this legal?)
  
• Social security/welfare/healthcare: Does a city have any involvement in this?
  
• Insurance (auto/home): The city does not legally require it. If you wreck you/someone elses car/house, you pay for it. If you can't figure out who owes what, the city helps you solve it.
  
• Minimum wage: Enforce federal and state wage requirements. Add no extra requirements.
  
• Land grab/nationalizing: The city cannot force any citizen/corporation to sell anything. It can only offer more money/trade (not favors). Having to pay more money for land and such makes a government really consider whether or not a project is necessary.
  
• A privately owned bank, located only in that city, coins money. (Is this legal?). This money can only be used in this city. (Legal?). No city businesses accept outside money. (Probably not legal). How do you prevent this money from leaving? If the outside money must be used and the city money can't be kept in the city, then this point is irrelevent.
  

What are some other problems such a city might run into? In other words, legally, why can't such a city exist in the U.S. today?

This is intriguing; reminds me of a Utopia Island story I wrote in Grade nine in my writing class. The teacher went cross-eyed, said, "write what you know about, Bill, not urban planning." I was still operationallly very shy back then, so I did not howl in her face, "I DO know about urban planning, bitch, and that is why I wrote my dumb story about it."

Anyway, I think this is not only a good primer in the web of laws that constrain us and various polities at the sub-national level.

My first bit of advice is to ground your project in a real state. Do some research into the state with the lowest taxes, the least onerous regulations, the best business climate, the least picky state-wide 'building codes.' Then drill down (call them up! get part of the research done by the drones in the civil service!) into the welter of procedure, law, common practice that surround the incorporation of municipalities in the state or states you have chosen. Here is a few questions I came up with:

-- what are the smallest incorporated units? Village, town, township ...

-- what are the limits of state/county/health oversight of a-city-in-all-but-name (Eg, the FLDS compound in Texas)?

-- how do 'gated communities' regulate activities/behaviour/economic life, if at all

-- are there pre-existing 'utopic' communities that could be bought/subverted

For the questions about health and safety, environment, fiscal and monetary affairs, more informed folks than I abound here. I would also suggest you make a friend with your local librarian, or the person in your library that is in charge of inquiries. In Vancouver, for example, the public library has a research desk. I once called up for information on South Ossetia. I thought the lady at the other end would suggest I do my own fucking homework and get my ass in and get to work, but no -- she plodded off and plodded back and told me what she had found out. It was her job.

So, get an ally in that building to help you, and give yourself at least half a year to answer your questions. Read about earlier Utopic movement, of the Fabians, Howard, Summerhill, Sointula, various other 'apart' communities ...

Ultimately, you may discover that there is nowhere at all in America that is either free from the dead hand of Big Gummint or is so far from the rest of society that its 'apartness' would lead to its declince and death.

You may wish to look at the Central American countries that have established Free Trade Zones, or other special zones which are guaranteed to be free from at least most non-safety/health (water, sanitary sewers, public health bodies, etc) tutelage.

Sounds like you are having fun with this. Good luck.

[BaalChatzaf]

Do you think it is possible to build a real version of Atlantis somewhere in the world today? Maybe not a completely self-sufficient community, but at least a town with a small, limited government and a legal separation of economy and state and church and state.

Not a chance. A self sustaining small community in modern times is simply not feasible. We have to be connected with technology and that means economic ties external to the Atlantean Community. Even Athens could not sustain itself as a self contained polis. It needed a fleet of merchant ships to keep the old town going.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[syrakusos]

Let me rubber stamp the recommendation from Mikee to read The Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley. Trade makes you rich. Self-sufficiency is poverty... eventually grinding poverty ... I am halfway through with the book and it is almost a spiritual experience. Trade and commerce have made the world a better place, not just since the Ice Age, but since 1955.

You should know about the Free State Movement to bring libertarians to New Hampshire. It is already a liberty-loving place with a low population where libertarians can make a difference... or so it is claimed... myself, I moved to Austin, Texas, in September 2010: state capital; state university; "Tech Ridge" industry including video games. But it is liberal and progressive here - a 1% sales tax provides the bus service nearly free.

Please consider other famous failures such as "New Germany" in Paraguay where Elizabeth Nietzsche discovered that 300 isolated people - however superior they may be - cannot survive in isolation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_F%C3%B6rster-Nietzsche

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nueva_Germania

Read California's Utopian Colonies by Robert V. Hine (U Cal Press, 1953). As Al Jolson sang it: "... acre after acre of the richest soil, a hundred thousand million billion barrels of oil. Valley and mountains! Rivers and fountains!..." But in isolation... you are in the desert....

I understand and I appreciate that you want to enjoy a community where other people share your values. Here it is. Objectivist Living at its finest. Oddly enough we never actually opened any kind of marketplace. Funny, isn't it? Maybe MSK could do that... assuming that anyone actually has anything of value to offer (ahem): we seem to be a gaggle of philosophers...

Would it be possible to set up an alternate currency, that could not be legally prohibited? You can't be told not to do someone a favor, right?

No, you're talking about an Aristrocracy of Pull. The good ol' boy system. When you deal in favors you can never really be sure when you're solvent.

Baloney. I worked on the Bay Bucks community currency project. The Ithaca Hours currency is over 20 years old. You can create your own paper money. You cannot create your own coins. However, you can create your own tokens. Read the relevant chapters of the US Code, 18 USC 17, and others. One-ounce silver rounds (and fractions) are and were produced in accordance with US Law, but they are not called "money." It may be a fine point, but is an important distinction. Ask Bernard von Nothaus.

To get back to the original topic. We are trying to figure out how a city's legal system ...

In other words, legally, why can't such a city exist in the U.S. today?

It could. Some may. There are towns without zoning laws, even without property taxes! Once, visiting Denver, a friend drove me up into the mountains and on the left was a community without zoning laws and on the right, one with. On the right, the houses all looked the same. On the left, all different. But people lived in both places.

Trade and commerce work because I do not need to know what gods you worship, only what you have to offer for what I bring in exchange.

Trade began with ritual gift exchange: we made friends with our enemies.

[syrakusos]

For instance, you wrote: "No, your talking about an Aristrocracy of Pull." The idea you're using is "you are" as opposed to the idea of assigning possession. Yet you wrote what grammar Nazis call a "second person possessive adjective."

You're = you are

Your = belonging to you

Anytime you mean "you are," it has to be "you're."

... if and when you can. If you present your ideas to them with primary errors, you shoot yourself in the foot on the draw. They will be inclined not to look at the message, i.e. the content, because the form was cockeyed.

Ah! By "cockeyed" you must mean "eyeing the cock" an obvious Freudian slip. I am happy to be the first to tell you MSK that we really don't give a dam about grammer or speling. If someone is so stoopid they cant spell strate, then fine, but mostly, when it comes to typoes, not one cares. I shure don't. And I make a buck actually selling my writing..Do you?

We write in haste because we compose with passion. Thus, errors are allowed. ... except by the anal-retentive, obsessive-compulsive bullies among us. Now, do you want to cancel my account, or put this in Garbage, the way you do with

?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael,

"Anal-retentive, obsessive-compulsive bullies among us"?

What on earth are you talking about?

The kid's 17 for Pete's sake and educated in USA schools.

He comes off as not liking the hand he's been dealt at life's poker table and obviously wants out. Just look at the topic. Some friendly "do your best with what you've got" advice on something he can control (as opposed to the poker game he can't) won't kill him.

So pipe down.

You sound weird.

Michael

[william.scherk]

We write in haste because we compose with passion. Thus, errors are allowed. ... except by the anal-retentive, obsessive-compulsive bullies among us. Now, do you want to cancel my account, or put this in Garbage, the way you do with

?

First, I would like to thank the Academy. Then, my mother, who taught me how to faint on cue, then I would like to thank the Smelling Salts Company of America for keeping me alive.

Seriously, Michael Marotta, this is over-the-top nonsense. Why berate our host (when I think MSK's opinions are poorly stated or founded or expounded, I say that. I do not clutch my pearls, roll my eyes back in my head and perform a Dead Faint)?

More seriously, why utter such storming phrases about anal-retention blah blah? Why? What does that get you but a half-price ticket to High Dudgeon? Seriously.

On one point I almost agree, though. To point out obvious spelking errors in lieu of argument is petty and can redound on the corrector.

But on the whole, have a Postum or another soothing beverage, and accept the Norma Desmond Award for most embarrassing performance of the day.

[Brant Gaede]

Michael,

"Anal-retentive, obsessive-compulsive bullies among us"?

What on earth are you talking about?

The kid's 17 for Pete's sake and educated in USA schools.

He comes off as not liking the hand he's been dealt at life's poker table and obviously wants out. Just look at the topic. Some friendly "do your best with what you've got" advice on something he can control (as opposed to the poker game he can't) won't kill him.

So pipe down.

You sound weird.

Michael

Buff is 23. I disagree about the spelling/grammar lesson and M.M. went over the top and under the water chewing on you like that. I don't recall such a rough entrance for a new poster, especially from Peter, BTW. WTF was that about?

--Brant