Stossel: New 'Free Market' Paradise City: No taxes, No Fed, Small Govt

But that raises a good question as to how that will be handled, also what money system will be used?

...why didn't the Honduras government vote to dissolve itself?

I was wondering the same thing when I saw this episode on television. I thought, Why not just get out of the people's lives, let them live their lives -- why is the government building a foundation? A foundation is step one in a two step process, step two being the rest of what will be built.

Wouldn't this society, a planned society borne form the Honduras government, merely make numbers out of the individuals living in this area, wherein these people aren't creating for themselves, which is to say working for themselves but that they are filling slots of company X? And to create conditions where the individual has a stake in the company's success and failure, is this conditions creation not indenturing him to that company (for his life), a euphemism for slavery? All the while, outsiders -- people from outside this area, probably not Hondurans even -- produce this life?

I like discussion about reducing a centrality to smallness, but there is a consideration between the right and wrong way to live when a centrality is becoming small or is small: the centrality's role. Does it control or doesn't it control? Is it re-active (good) or pro-active (bad)? Why would it favor, therefore disfavor, one side of life more than the other: economics and personhood.

Strong's discussion is focused on economics with a lock down on the other half of liberty, personhood. To exacerbate the servitude (read: the life of service/slavery) is that this area's currency (probably gold or backed by gold, meaning gold) comes from the outside, and because so it forms a cyclical relationship with what brought it in, the outsiders/business men, and with what they created, their businesses. Having "sound money," that is, "hard currency," can be the lynch pin in applying slavery when its value is connected to what operates outside the people in the area using that currency. But for that pin to be placed requires outsiders whose monetary worth is insurmountable by anyone in the area they are developing. So, a few fundamental questions are: These developers, who are they; how much money and what assets do they own; and, are they connected to people, and if so, to whom?

In the plundering going on worldwide, only one entity -- the one at the top -- has more money than every person worldwide together has. Not only does that entity have more money, the instrument to control, it/he/they must have astronomically more money because he uses the same currencies the people of the world use, currencies that depreciate (because he caused them to depreciate).

How does this relationship of the free city project, an outside-to-inside relationship, do anything other than place tyranny from far away to the locality?

I sense this project is an illusion of freedom, a city of many to come that'll snare the individual into the collective, the collective worldwide. Serfdoms locally worldwide connected to each other. Those serfdoms' bindings: economy (a collective word) transactions. Again.

He did say businessmen are coming into this area: "We expect people from around the world to be interested in opening factories." Factories? Also: "Our goal is to become the most customer friendly government on Earth." Customer friendly. Friendly to the -- customer, the consumer, the person who today consumes X, what he didn't create for himself because he wanted to but did so on someone else's want, and tomorrow will consume Y, what he didn't create for himself because he wanted to but did so on someone else's want. A fleeting life, a consumer's life, a slave's life. And: "What if a government...provided...customer service; [the government] was efficient, effective, transparent. That's a pitch a lot of businesses like." That's a pitch a lot of business men like, not what the natives like, but what the business men like.

Once again government and business together and they're worse than they were any time beforehand: One of those entities is, or both of those entities are, transparent, the mechanism that locks in those businesses in perpetuity. Government in that environment serves business, not any business but, as Strong said, significant business. Not your business that you could create, not yours, you individual.

Also interesting to note in the majority of discussions the word freedom is uttered in is this absence: freedom to create. Often what's said is freedom to choose. Yes, choose, you worker bee, because you will not create for yourself on your want. Forget about freedom and that a consequence of it is self provid(e)-ance, not a job. A job. Job, job, job. Go fill that job, a slot someone created for anyone who today is you, someone who needs it. You are dispensable, worker. Never mind freedom: Never mind doing what you want to provide for yourself.

I must say, it takes an adept mind to dance around freedom, skirting it time after time, this blatant, simple concept and condition inherent in man: that the individual on his want create, provide, for himself.

When will people comprehend the outside-inside relationship enslaves and the inside-outside relationship makes free, is freedom?

Then, when will people stop doing, stop living, the former relationship and do, live, the latter relationship?