[Kosirich]

Idiotic decision by Croatia, here I'm talking both as a Croatian, as well as someone supporting this kind of "liberal" experiments. Instead of seeing this as a fun experiment that wouldn't cost Croatian tax payer anything, the most politically controlled nepotistic organization full of "uhljeb's", Hrvatske sume, decided to act this way (under direction). If Croatian government was smart, they could have tried reaching some deal proclaiming "Liberland" as a free zone, under protection of Croatians army until UN recognition is made (probably never). The potential touristic revenue to local areas could have been used to justify it to Croatian people. Sad...

[tw04]

>Idiotic decision by Croatia, here I'm talking both as a Croatian, as well as someone supporting this kind of "liberal" experiments. Instead of seeing this as a fun experiment that wouldn't cost Croatian tax payer anything, the most politically controlled nepotistic organization full of "uhljeb's", Hrvatske sume, decided to act this way (under direction).

I feel as though you're taking a rather naive view of the situation. Currently Croatia isn't claiming the land as their own because it's part of a larger dispute, and if they do lay claim to it, they lose a larger chunk of more important land to Serbia.

Do you REALLY think if they allow ethnic Croatians to start building permanent settlements on the property in question, they can continue to claim that it's not theirs in the broader land dispute?

This isn't "a fun experiment that costs taxpayers nothing". It is a GREAT way to lose permanent rights to a much larger swath of land so that some people who think they're free from government oversight can play make believe. I'm not sure what the actual benefit to the people of Croatia is but I'm open to ideas.

[lolinder]

> Do you REALLY think if they allow ethnic Croatians to start building permanent settlements on the property in question

Do we know the ethnicity of these settlers? The founder is Czech, and the resources I've found suggest that local Croats and Serbs are a tiny minority of those involved.

[Kosirich]

I feel as though you're taking a rather naive view of the situation. Currently Croatia isn't claiming the land as their own because it's part of a larger dispute, and if they do lay claim to it, they lose a larger chunk of more important land to Serbia.

You are right, I was being purposely naive in order to show the narrowness of thinking. The "gray area" of the law could have worked in this case for both side. Croatia government didn't have to do anything besides close one eye, which they do ALL THE TIME, for people "who know the right people".

Feel free to google search the term "ilegalna gradnja" with Croatian location, to get a feeling of scale of it and how little a settlement like the one that was demolished really matters. There are too many of illegal settlements, usually in form of houses and luxury villas, that haven't been demolished for years, even even local governments pleaded to have them destroyed.

To be crystal clear, I didn't suggest giving land to anyone, just make an exception that is made constantly for the "right people".

[tail_exchange]

What's would be the purpose of such liberal experiment? I don't see what is there to learn about it. Allowing some entity to establish a government in your lands just to see what happens doesn't seem like a wise move to me. This would only legitimize their claims to the land and legitimize them as a sovereign state. It's a good way to end up losing this land and creating yet another microstate.

[logicalmonster]

> What's would be the purpose of such liberal experiment? I don't see what is there to learn about it.

Not that the only group of people who want to bother nobody else need any justification for living their lives as they see fit, but how else is humanity going to learn about the different ways we can organize society if we don't try them out?

It would be phenomenal for humanity if people with ideas outside of the box organized as they saw fit without outside interference and we all get to see what works and what doesn't.

[wodenokoto]

> Allowing some entity to establish a government in your lands just to see what happens doesn't seem like a wise move to me.

It is land that Croatia very actively considers someone elses land. That is why Liberland was established there in the first place. Two countries are arguing "not mine, its yours" about a plot of land.

If anything, this can be used against Croatia to argue that it is in fact Croatian territory

[helpfulContrib]

There are great artistic and cultural reasons to let this happen.

After all, look what happened with Kugelmugel - another of these liberal experiments:

https://theculturetrip.com/europe/austria/articles/kugelmuge...

Spoiler: the bigger states always win.

[standardUser]

Most people would not consider it 'smart' for a sovereign nation to voluntarily give up territory. Maybe they could have responded less aggressively, but if you're waiting around for governments to start giving away land, keep waiting.

[acadapter]

It's not a situation where someone is "giving up land". Croatia doesn't claim the land from its own legal perspective. The Croatian ambition is to use a historical path of the Danube river (from something like ~150 years ago) as the border. This way, Croatia could control larger pieces of land which today belong to Serbia. The line of control, after the war, is the modern-day river, which follows Serbia's claim.

However, despite Croatia's claims, there's also been some gray-area Croatian forestry going on there, through Hrvatske Šume. And since the Liberland movement started to claim the parcel as "no man's land", Croatia started patrolling it with police and arresting people occasionally.

[dkjaudyeqooe]

As a Croatian, I can't do whatever I want (esp. building) with various bits of land I actually own, why should these people get special treatment?

I'm all for liberalisation of land use, and think Croatian bureaucracy and petty corruption are slowly destroying the Croatian state economically, but people acting independent of the law, because they claim they're special, doesn't wash. The tourist angle is a red herring. Tolerating unlawful occupation isn't smart at all.

[mistrial9]

> Croatian bureaucracy and petty corruption

ok, but you get Kentucky Fried Chicken and 7-11 stores in the current version of things.. right?

[Zak]

What makes this weird is that Croatia says this land belongs to Serbia, but sent police there to enforce Croatian laws against people there.

[acadapter]

Yes, they messed up in this. Croatia did a mega police operation, in order to get rid of people that brought them tourist revenue and didn't bother anyone. Now all the money will go to Serbia, as the participants hold their events and "Floating man" festivals in Apatin instead.

[watwut]

The moment the experiment would turn illegal level of abusive or a murder would happen or whatever, the goverment would be seen as responsible.

[ufo]

From Croatia's point of view, these squatters would only make it even more difficult to resolve the border dispute. Croatia wants this land to belong to Serbia (in exchange for more land on the other side of the river), and having these people there might throw a wrench at the negotiations. Furthermore, if the negotiation goes Serbia's way then Croatia would have to deal with a bunch of squatters trying to set up a sovereign micronation on Croatian land.

[uxp8u61q]

They experimented, and they discovered what happens if you try to claim land that isn't yours. They also discovered what happens in a libertarian world when someone stronger than you wants your stuff.

[stale2002]

> They experimented, and they discovered what happens if you try to claim land that isn't yours.

Well, its about claiming land that the Croatian government doesn't even claim to own.

Ironically, the fact that the Croatian government kicked them out, harms the Croatian government's legal claims with Serbia.

[claytongulick]

> They also discovered what happens in a libertarian world when someone stronger than you wants your stuff.

How is this in any way unique to libertarians?

Maybe take a look at civil forfeiture abuses in the US?

Not to mention other county where the rule of law is more of a polite suggestion.

[tylersmith]

When stronger groups want your stuff it doesn't matter what world you're living in. The same is true of non-Libertarian states like Ukraine.

[WalterBright]

> They also discovered what happens in a libertarian world when someone stronger than you wants your stuff.

Libertarianism requires a government to protect property rights.

[harpiaharpyja]

The world would be a pretty different place if the organizations that make up the government of countries always did what was in the best interest of their country...