Reddit mentions of The State in the Third Millennium

It isn't the cheapest or most easily obtainable of books, but it is on Amazon right now, and here's my favourite interview with him, definitely worth a watch. He is the reason why I love it when people use a "Somalia" argument against me in libertarian discussions.. I just go "Nuh-uh, Liechtenstein."

I was thinking about writing a review of his book and push for the Mises institute to add it to their suggested readings, what do you think?

1. It's a microstate. Smaller states have much less power than enormous, centralized states.
   
2. It is a constitutional monarchy, not a democracy. Democracies encourage legal plunder, while the Prince of Liechtenstein is a diehard libertarian.
   
3. It's a tax haven. I shouldn't have to explain this one.
   
4. The Prince has legally allowed for secession from the state. How amazing is that?
   
5. The basic income tax rate is 1.2%, the wealth tax is 0.06% per year, and the corporate tax is 12.5%.'
   
   EDIT: Prince Hans-Adam's The State in the Third Millenium describes how he believes governments should stop considering themselves as dominating rulers, but more like service companies that provide protection to people who have the right to move anywhere. He is a seriously libertarian man.

He is an anarchist, however he prefers monarchy to modern democracy. A good example of a monarch he would be happy with is, his friend, Prince Hans-Adam II. I would suggest looking into both. Hans-Adam II Write an interesting book called The State in the Third Millennium.

I have been to Swaziland, that country is poor and the people are suffering. Their king is a cunt.

Unlike Hans-Adam II, Prince of Liechtenstein who actually wrote a book on how to enrich his citizens. A guy who is so loved that when some progressives had a referendum to limit his power, 80% of the people rejected the motion:

https://www.amazon.com/State-Third-Millennium-Prince-Hans-Adam/dp/3905881047

Dozens of countries have no form of direct taxation. Half a dozen countries really excel at it. So, look to Bahamas, Caymans, etc for examples. The United States didn't have any federal taxes for the majority of its life.

The Price of Lichtenstein wrote a good book on how a transition would occur; named "The State in the Third Millennium" Basically, make the use of government services voluntary, and charge for them. Operate core government functions like a charity - preferably funded from a Trust for stability. A lot of great writers have written a lot on the topic - more than I could reasonably cover here. Several societies are close to zero taxation (maybe a handful of tariffs). For example, the Cayman government owns the airline that runs in and out of the country - it is one of the largest sources of revenue, and funds schools, roads, etc. Other countries (middle east) with no taxes fund government services through profit generated by state owned business.

However, the objection to taxation is a moral point more than a logistical one. Imagine if it was the 1700's and I said - Slavery is immoral and needs to be eliminated. A response of "Who would pick the cotton? / Prove to me that everything would work to an level I find acceptable" would be odd.

Consent and force are the issues I have with taxation.

But, you seem like a nice person. Honestly -I'm not being sarcastic. Here is a quick ballpark idea involving math worthy of a reddit post. Lets assume you roll over 90% of the functions of government into a national charity. This charity would operate like the government without the power of coerison / force. No having to shake people down... To aid in this transition, establish a trust to run the core government services and fund the trust by the sale of national land. Strategic oil reserves, etc.

> the U.S. government owns:

• More than 900,000 separate real assets covering more than 3 billion sq. ft.
  
  
• Mineral rights, on and offshore, covering 2.515 billion acres of land, more than the total surface land in Canada
  
  
• 45,190 underutilized buildings, the operating costs of which are $1.66 billion annually
  
  
• Oil and gas resources on and offshore worth $128 trillion, roughly eight times the national debt of the country
  
  let assume they sell the buildings, land, oil, minerals on the open market and place the earnings in a trust. They bring in a conservative $120 trillion. That money invested safely will net a return of 3% per year. Higher returning years can be placed in a slush fund for lower earning years. Excess Slush fund holdings can be reinvesting into the core trust.
  
  That means, the trust would generate 3.6 trillion in revenue. Every year. Forever. More than enough to fund essential government services without taxation.

You should read his book:
http://www.amazon.com/State-Third-Millennium-Prince-Hans-Adam/dp/3905881047

Anyway your sentiment is exactly the same as people in the 1700's who thought the American colonies could never be independent, or in the Interwar period where nobody thought the British Empire would fall. And time and time again, people like you get suckerpunched by the newest twist of events and are left flabbergasted at how your expectations could have possibly been shattered.

If your insinuation is that the West is heading towards some kind of Balkanized realm of liberal republics, well I suppose you're the real one living back in the 1700's. ;)

I have actually looked at the constitution of Liechtenstein. The Prince can override any decision of the parliament. Liechtenstein's Constitution makes it in effect an absolute monarchy (Wikipedia notes that media and European institutions criticized it for precisely that). There are 3 important differences. The Constitution allows the people via popular vote to:

1. Abolish the monarchy
   
   
2. Replace the prince with another from the family
   
   
3. A municipality (i.e 400 (smallest) to 6000 (largest) people) to secede peacefully
   
   Interestingly the third part pretty much guarantees the future of the monarchy as even if people vote to remove the monarchy a municipality can secede and keep the monarchy. Liechtenstein is basically a private company owned by the Princey family which provides the service governance and people voluntary choose to be its customers. If they don't they can secede. And it is not like the neighboring countries are bad places to live. They can choose to be part of Switzerland or Austria if they secede. This is not just my interpretation. The Prince wrote a book called The State in the Third Millenium where he pretty much states that the government should be run as a company and citizens are its customers - https://www.amazon.com/State-Third-Millennium-Prince-Hans-Adam/dp/3905881047

> No successful society follows a libertarian zero government model

Yes there have been and are now, in fact you owe most of your current affluence to the part of your own society that functions like that - the everyday anarchy you've gotten so used to you can't even see it and take it for granted. Even at the formal (governmental) level lots of societies have implemented freedom-centric policies and many still do, you just have to read the constitutions for most western countries: they all start by affirming inalienable rights that the state is not the source of and cannot strip them from. You should read what this actual head of state has to say about it. Meanwhile, I can point to mass graves everywhere freedom is frowned upon.

I don't understand why you equate libertarianism (=do not harm others) with love of corporations (=let's get rich by any means necessary). Could you point me to actual examples of corporate feudal slavery ? How do they compare, say, to the feudal model of tsarist Russia ? This is a genuine question, I value people's autonomy more than ideology.