Escape ever-rising taxes? Others have tried and failed
Singapore-on-Thames has become shorthand for embracing our Brexit opportunities by shrinking the state, breaking with the failed bureaucratic model of recent decades, and transforming Britain once more into an outward looking, low tax, entrepreneurial nation.
The former Conservative chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, is its latest advocate, arguing it is the best – perhaps the only – path to prosperity in a world of Trumpian tariffs and global trade wars.
But for some pro-market advocates, this vision goes nowhere near far enough. Since the Second World War, we have seen the relentless, marauding growth of the regulatory and welfare state across the West.
Margaret Thatcher in Britain and Ronald Reagan in the United States offered an alternative vision, but a more radical version of the pro-market creed has developed in tandem. For these libertarians, the dream is not to cut the size of the state by 10pc or so, but rather to reduce it to 10pc, or less, of what it is today.
How is this to be done? Thatcher and Reagan had enough trouble pushing through their comparatively modest reforms. For roughly the last 50 years, small bands of utopians, usually Americans, have dreamed of not reforming existing states but setting up new laissez-faire nations attracting the best and brightest from across the globe.
So far, they have met with only very limited success.
In earlier ages, those out of kilter with the society they lived in could get on a boat and head off to distant, unexplored lands to set up their new worlds. But we are not living in the 1620s. Our latter-day Pilgrim Fathers have had to find more innovative approaches. And they have come up with three broad, would be, solutions to this predicament.
The first of these is to create artificial islands outside existing nations' territorial waters. The trouble here is that existing states have inexorably stretched the borders of their sovereignty.
Most nations once claimed that their realms extended only three miles out to sea, but the standard jurisdiction is now 12 miles with claims of exclusivity reaching out to hundreds of miles in some cases. Building cities mid-ocean is not an undertaking to be taken on lightly, and probably requires Elon Musk levels of wealth.
But this has not put off some intrepid souls. In the early 1970s, Michael Oliver, a Lithuanian-born Holocaust survivor who became an American entrepreneur and died last year, set up the Phoenix Foundation to realise such visions. He attempted to build a capitalist nirvana on some submerged reefs around 300 miles south west of the Kingdom of Tonga.
Some real progress was made on constructing the Republic of Minerva, but its nearest neighbour did not approve of this upstart nation. In a pattern followed time and again with such initiatives, Tonga came calling and lay claim to the reefs. Minerva was extinguished.
This type of scheme is today championed by the California-based Seasteading Institute, founded by Patri Friedman, grandson of the pro-market guru Milton. It has attracted funding from PayPal founder Peter Thiel.
They advocate for the construction of floating cities outside territorial waters. Such initiatives are under way in locations off the coasts of the Philippines and Florida, and even in the middle of the Indian Ocean.
But unsurprisingly, none seems to have got much further than the planning stage. Perhaps their best hope is that Elon or a fellow tech bro will back one of them when they inevitably tire of Trump's America.
The second version has been to tie up with separatist movements in soon to be independent countries. In 1973, Oliver backed a plan for the island of Abaco to break away from the rest of the Bahamas as the Caribbean territory gained its independence and set itself up as a standalone libertarian republic. It came to nothing.
Oliver was not put off, and as the joint Anglo-French colony of the New Hebrides in the Pacific was gaining its independence as Vanuatu in 1980, he again tied up with separatists promising to institute a laissez-faire regime. This time the plans for the putative Republic of Vemerana ended in violence – with it died the notion that this might be a realistic approach.
The third alternative is perhaps the most realistic. In a 2009 Ted Talk, Nobel Prize winning economist, Paul Romer, proposed the creation of charter cities. These are not fully independent countries, but rather to a greater or lesser extent self-governing entities on virgin land within existing states with their own pro-market rules and tax regimes.
Honduras in Central America gave the go-ahead for three such schemes in the 2010s. Perhaps the most successful has been Prospera on the island of Roatan – construction began in 2021 and Peter Thiel is once more a backer.
But the current Left-wing president of Honduras, Xiamora Castro, is now doing her best to unravel their autonomous status. Prospera and the other Honduran charter cities have not been helped by the fact that their strongest local advocate, former president Juan Orlando Hernandez, is now serving a 45-year sentence in a US prison for drug trafficking offences.
Charter cities seem to be the most realistic experiment in establishing physical libertarian, pro-market jurisdictions. But the changing vicissitudes of politics still end up getting in their way, and will in all likelihood do so with future such experiments in other countries.
The cyber world might well turn out to be the one realm where state institutions can be circumvented and alternative, market-based structures successfully pursued. After all, cryptocurrencies have been stratospherically more successful than any of these real-life nirvanas.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ITV News
2 hours ago
- ITV News
Keir Starmer says Kneecap Glastonbury set 'not appropriate'
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has said he does not think Kneecap's planned Glastonbury Festival performance is 'appropriate'. Kneecap member Liam Og O hAnnaidh appeared in court on Wednesday, after being charged for allegedly displaying a flag in support of proscribed terrorist organisation Hezbollah while saying 'up Hamas, up Hezbollah' at a gig in November last year. In an interview with The Sun, Sir Keir was asked if he thought the trio should perform at Glastonbury, to which he replied: 'No, I don't, and I think we need to come down really clearly on this. 'This is about the threats that shouldn't be made, I won't say too much because there's a court case on, but I don't think that's appropriate.' His comments come after Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said in a post on X, with an article from The Times that claimed the BBC had not banned the group: 'The BBC should not be showing Kneecap propaganda. 'One Kneecap band member is currently on bail, charged under the Terrorism Act. 'As a publicly funded platform, the BBC should not be rewarding extremism.' Badenoch has previously called for the group to be banned from Glastonbury, and last year Kneecap won a discrimination case against the UK Government in Belfast High Court after she tried to refuse them a £14,250 funding award when she was a minister. In their latest single, The Recap, released just before their headine set at London's Wide Awake festival in May, the trio took aim at the Tory leader mocking her failed attempts to block their arts funding and the party's election loss. On Wednesday, O hAnnaidh, who performs under the stage name Mo Chara, was cheered by hundreds of supporters as he arrived with bandmates Naoise O Caireallain and JJ O Dochartaigh at Westminster Magistrates' Court in 'Free Mo Chara' T-shirts. During the proceedings, a prosecutor told the court the 27-year-old is 'well within his rights' to voice his opinions on Israel and Palestine, but the alleged incident at the O2 Forum in Kentish Town, north London, is a 'wholly different thing'. O hAnnaidh was released on unconditional bail until his next hearing at the same court on August 20. Following the hearing, the rapper said: 'For anybody going to Glastonbury, you can see us there at 4pm on the Saturday. 'If you can't be there we'll be on the BBC, if anybody watches the BBC. We'll be at Wembley in September. 'But most importantly: free, free Palestine.' A BBC spokesperson said: 'As the broadcast partner, the BBC will be bringing audiences extensive music coverage from Glastonbury, with artists booked by the festival organisers. 'Whilst the BBC doesn't ban artists, our plans will ensure that our programming will meet our editorial guidelines. Decisions about our output will be made in the lead-up to the festival.' The terror charge came following a counter-terrorism police investigation after the historical gig footage came to light, which also allegedly shows the group calling for the deaths of MPs. In April, Kneecap apologised to the families of murdered MPs but said footage of the incident had been 'exploited and weaponised'. In an initial post in response to the charge, Kneecap said: '14,000 babies are about to die of starvation in Gaza, with food sent by the world sitting on the other side of a wall, and once again the British establishment is focused on us. 'We deny this 'offence' and will vehemently defend ourselves, this is political policing, this is a carnival of distraction. 'We are not the story, genocide is, as they profit from genocide, they use an 'anti-terror law' against us for displaying a flag thrown on stage. A charge not serious enough to even warrant their crown court, instead a court that doesn't have a jury. What's the objective? 'To restrict our ability to travel. To prevent us speaking to young people across the world. To silence voices of compassion. To prosecute artists who dare speak out. 'Instead of defending innocent people, or the principles of international law they claim to uphold, the powerful in Britain have abetted slaughter and famine in Gaza, just as they did in Ireland for centuries. Then, like now, they claim justification. 'The IDF units they arm and fly spy plane missions for are the real terrorists, the whole world can see it.'
Telegraph
8 hours ago
- Telegraph
Warsaw has reclaimed its position as a proud capital
Well-meaning outsiders sometimes warn visitors to Poland to stick to Kraków, overflowing with splendid historical buildings, and avoid Warsaw – 'another boring capital city', as one writer phrased it to me. Ignore them. Kraków is charming, in the way that reliquaries of the past tend to be. But Warsaw is a monument to Polish perseverance – a sprawling symbol of the indefatigability of Europe's most successful post-Cold War nation. To appreciate Warsaw's 21st-century revival, consider what the city endured and overcame in the 20th. Months before he shot himself, Hitler ordered its total destruction. Even as Germany's fate was being sealed, the Führer's marauders executed his instruction to raze the Polish capital 'without trace' with murderous zeal. The city was dynamited block by block. Universities were blown up. Schools were torn down. Libraries were set on fire. Historical monuments were obliterated. Houses were pillaged. Survivors were crammed into trains and deported to concentration camps. When it was over, Warsaw – the site of the most gallant uprising of the Second World War – was a pile of dust and debris. It would have been easier to relocate the capital, and the Moscow-backed government that seized Poland briefly moved its operations to Łódź. Varsovians, however, remained defiant. In 1945, they organised an exhibition in their ruined city. 'Warsaw does not lament, it does not complain,' the event proclaimed, 'but before the tribunal of nations Warsaw Accuses'. General Eisenhower, one of the 43,000 visitors to the show, described the state of Warsaw as 'far more tragic than anything I have seen' in Europe. Not for long. Poles expelled from the city returned, cleared the rubble by hand, buried the dead, and began rebuilding Warsaw brick by brick. They compelled the government to support them by the sheer force of their example. Some buildings were resurrected as facsimiles of the destroyed originals. But the animating ideology of reconstruction was Soviet socialism, and, after a period of frenzied activity, Warsaw became stagnant. A symbol of this slump was Hotel Bristol. Housed in a neo-Renaissance building that opened in 1901, it once numbered among the city's grandest buildings – and was one of the handful to survive the Nazi rampage of 1944. By the 1980s, it had become so derelict that it had to be boarded up and abandoned. Warsaw itself degenerated into a drab city whose centrepiece was a Stalinist tower bequeathed as a 'gift' from the Soviet Union. The fall of communism stimulated a second revival. Varsovians seized the moment: they converted the Communist Party headquarters into the country's new stock exchange, and opened casinos inside the Stalinist behemoth. A cluster of glass-clad skyscrapers proliferated around them. Despite the recent election of the social conservative Karol Nawrocki as Poland's next president, Warsaw remains a haven for minorities. 'I am of course very uncomfortable,' a gay student at Warsaw University told me a day after the result. 'But this is Warsaw, and we still feel safe in Warsaw.' 'This city', another dejected voter told me, 'gives us hope'. Politics can conceal Poland's extraordinary achievement. Its GDP is rapidly approaching $1 trillion. The living standards of its people are the envy of Europeans. The Polish army is larger than the armed forces of Britain. Poles who emigrated abroad in search of opportunity at the start of the century are now drifting home. Some are running successful businesses – cocktail bars, breweries, restaurants – at home. Others are investing in the technologies of the future. A Canadian tourist was so impressed by the city that he was considering moving his business there. 'I have not seen a place with such work ethic,' he told me. Warsaw, reduced to the ground within the lifetime of many of its elderly citizens, has reclaimed its position as the proud capital of a great country.
The Independent
9 hours ago
- The Independent
Why the ‘individual conscience vote' of MPs had its own assisted death last week
Two votes in the Commons split by four days laid the ground for a seismic shift in British social policy making last week one of the most significant in the modern history of Parliament. But while the votes on abortion (Tuesday) and assisted dying (Friday) were officially matters of individual conscience the evidence from both suggests that the UK is now closer than ever to a US-style party politicisation of moral issues. If you vote Labour or Lib Dem you are much more likely to get a pro-choice MP, if you vote Conservative or Reform you are more likely to get a pro-life MP. This is not an accident, it is increasingly by design. How parties voted on life and death On Tuesday the decriminalisation of abortion up to birth amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill laid down by Labour Gower MP Tonia Antoniazzi won by 379 to 137. Of this 291 Labour MPs voted in favour and just 25 against while 63 Lib Dems were in favour and just two against. On the other side 92 Tory MPs voted against and just four in favour. Another four abstained by voting in both lobbies. No Reform MPs supported and four voted against. The split is not as stark on Friday's assisted dying vote but nevertheless reveals a trend. Kim Leadbeater 's bill had the support of 224 fellow Labour MPs with 160 against and 56 Lib Dems with 15 against. On the other side the Tories split 92 against to 20 in favour while Reform were three against and two in favour. Kemi Badenoch put a two line whip on the abortion vote rather than allowing a completely free vote. This indicated a party position without the threat of disciplinary action which would come with a three line whip. But, remarkably, after the abortion vote senior Tories were complaining that Ms Badenoch had not withdrawn the whip of the four MPs who voted for decriminalisation. It was different in 1967 The last time the UK saw Parliament vote on such seismic social change was back in 1967 with Liberal MP David Steel 's abortion legislation and Labour MP Leo Abse's Sexual Offences Act which decriminalised homosexuality. In both those cases parties split down the middle on conscience votes which saw the odd alliance of rightwing Tory MP Enoch Powell and leftwing Labour MP Tony Benn coming together to support legalising homosexuality. The Ed Miliband effect The erosion of the conscience vote in the UK has actually come more from a hardening of positions from progressive leftwing parties in Britain and exacerbated by the so-called culture wars. In 2012 Ed Miliband imposed a three-line whip on gay marriage on Labour MPs. LGBTQ+ matters ended there as something of individual conscience for the first time. Then in 2019 former MP Roger Godsiff was dropped as a Labour candidate for supporting parents in his Birmingham constituency who were protesting over primary school children being taught about same-sex relationships. This year we see Reform UK banning LGBTQ+ flags from county halls where they have taken control of the council and attempting to purge councils of diversity, equity and inclusion officers and policies. While abortion officially remained a matter of conscience a comment by the now home secretary Yvette Cooper in 2017 about Jacob Rees-Mogg being unfit to be a party leader because of his views on abortion was enlightening. What has happened over a number of years is that the majority of socially conservative, mostly Catholic tradition in Labour has been removed through selection processes. David Campanale versus the Lib Dems An ongoing legal case involving the Liberal Democrats and one of its former candidates has highlighted an apparent major shift in British politics to the party politicisation of conscience issues. Former BBC journalist David Campanale was kicked out as the candidate for Sutton ahead of the last election because, he claims, of his Christian beliefs. According to documents presented in the case, Luke Taylor, who replaced him as the candidate, is alleged to have claimed that 'the party of past prominent Liberal Democrats with Christian beliefs, such as Shirley Williams and Charles Kennedy, was 'over', and that he and others were building a 'secular party' which would have no place for Christians expecting to 'hold to their religious or conscientious opinions'. Mr Taylor was the teller for the votes in favour of the abortion amendment on Tuesday, who also described the assisted dying vote, which he supported, as a good way to 'neatly bookend the week.' If Mr Campanale wins his case it will for the first time provide evidence that selection is taking place on conscience issues as well as other matters. The Lib Dems have denied the claims and pointed out that their leader Sr Ed Davey goes to church. But the Christian Lib Dems including former deputy leader Simon Hughes have voiced concerns and the party has been condemned by two bishops. and a former Archbishop of Canterbury. Added to that Tim Farron, who voted against abortion and assisted dying last week, was ousted as leader over his Christian beliefs in 2017. During the assisted dying vote a number of supporters of the bill suggested that religious belief had no place in deciding such issues. A real departure from conscience. But a brand of conservatism is emerging in the UK which openly embraces traditional Christian values. Reflecting on the assisted dying vote, Tory MP Danny Kruger, a leading opponent of the bill, said: 'If we are to withstand our enemies, bring our society together, and tame the technium (somehow ensure that human values govern the new age of machines), we are going to need values that are up to the job. 'I don't think humanist atheism or progressive liberalism or whatever the new religion should be called, is up to it. Christianity is. Only Christianity is.' A warning from America In America, the conscience vote rapidly became more party-politicised as a result of the Roe vs Wade abortion ruling in in 1973. Social conservatives gradually began to take over the Republicans on the right and social progressives the Democrats. It has played out ferociously in the selection of Supreme Court justices, who recently in effect overturned Roe v Wade with a conservative majority. The most interesting US development is the way that a man like Donald Trump, previously ambiguous over abortion, has adopted a strong anti-abortion line to please his base. This played out in the 2022 midterms to the detriment of the Republicans with the Democrats using the threat to abortion rights to great effect. But it did little to help Kamala Harris in 2024. What that shows though is that parties with very strong views one way or the other can be elected largely on economic grounds but bring with them a great deal of baggage on conscience issues. After this week some would argue the same thing has happened in the opposite direction in the UK.
