Costa Rica

As I recently was, I just learned that J. Orlin Grabbe passed away a couple of months ago. I don’t know much about the inside goings-on of the Costa Rica group of which Laissez Faire City Times was part, but Orlin always seemed straightforward with Lobo and me. And his web site was eclectic, even for an Erisian individualist! Orlin will be missed.

A comic strip I really like is Mafalda. A few days ago the local newspaper had one that is so good I have to share. I found a copy of it online here.

The first panel shows Mafalda reading the dictionary.

"DEMOCRACIA (del griego, demos, pueblo, y kratos, autoridad) Gobierno en que el pueblo ejerce la soberanía".

DEMOCRACY (from Greek, demos, people, and kratos, authority) Government in which the people exercise sovereignty.

The rest is self explanatory.

It has been eight months since I last posted. Shortly after disconnecting the TV back in April, I stopped reading the news. It had gotten to a point that I would read about something evil or stupid (or both) that some government official did and start ranting. It was not good for my health.

Instead I have focused on my life. Trying to be a good father, working on a few projects, tending to my property and reading a few books. All in all life at a slow, relaxed pace. Which is wonderful. Not that everything has been perfect, being the parent of a teenager is never easy and retaining patience can be quite a challenge at times. However, we seem to be doing a lot better than most people we know with teenage children and it is certainly much better than it would have been if I was still ranting about the idiots with power who are trying to screw everyone.

Of course the world has not stopped just because I crawled into a shell. The horrors of the US government continue, and continue to get worse. The recent election will change exactly nothing, in fact may make things a lot worse in two or so years when the Democrats take the Presidency and retain their majority in both houses. The current gridlock might (but only might) make things a little less bad for the next two years, but after that things will probably get worse a lot faster.

During the 90s Clinton was unable to violate rights at the rate he wanted to simply because the Republicans refused to co-operate. Not out of any principle, just out of spite. Despite this Clinton managed to put the final nails into the Fourth Amendment and violate a score of other rights. He would have been a lot worse with the Democratic party controlling the Congress.

The new Congress with not cut funding for the war in Iraq, nor will they repeal the Military Commissions Act, the Patriot Act, and many other laws which grossly violate rights. The best we can hope for is that they don't cooperate with Bush because they hate him. But come a Democrat in the White House, watch out. They will rape the people just as fast, if not faster, than the Republicans.

In my view it is way past time to leave the US. Of course this is easy for me to say since I left almost 18 years ago. I realize that it is much more difficult for others, especially those with families and "real" jobs. To my mind the US is moving in the wrong direction at a frightening pace. The risk of having your door kicked in as part of the "war on drugs" is very real. The risk of dieing in such a raid is real as well, so is the risk of being framed. And this is only one aspect. No place is perfect and as I have said many times before we all need to choose which aspects of freedom are more important to us, but at this point I'm sure that for just about everyone who values Liberty, there has to be a place which is better than the US.

In any event it has little to do with me. I cannot control, let alone stop, those power hungry maniacs. What I can do is live my own life, avoiding the state as much as possible. Of course I need to keep my eyes open and pay attention to actions which might affect me, my family and my friends. As I live in Costa Rica the antics of the Costa Rican government are especially important. So far, despite continuing noise on taxes not much has changed here. This is good.

Of course US government actions are important also, especially those which cause the value of the US dollar to drop. As our savings, investments and income are largely in US dollars, this is a serious concern.

The dollar seems to be going straight down the tubes. Jomama has posted a chart at the top of his blog. The Mogambo Guru is ranting stronger than ever. This comes on top of the announcements by the Chinese and the fact that the dollar is now 1.32 to the Euro.

To protect ourselves we are moving into gold and silver. We still hold some stocks, those which we think will appreciate faster than the dollar will decline and some which we think might benefit from the dollar's decline, but mostly, now is a time for hard assets, not speculation.

I hope that what we are doing is enough to ride out the coming storm. In fact I hope that I am wrong about the storm. But I don't think so. It is a great pity that the actions of a few crazed lunatics with power, who reside thousands of kilometers away from me, could potentially screw up my life. In fact it is a pity that they have power, and that people let them have power. But that is the way it is. That is what we all must deal with.

As troubling as the dollar's demise and potential new taxes in Costa Rica might be, we don't let it overwhelm us. This is a small part of our lives. Much bigger is caring for our property and animals and watching our daughters turn into women. The joy of watching them make their own decisions and seeing them deal with the world with confidence far out weighs the frustration of dealing with a teenager.

It is clear that we will not change the world. Living this way will not convince others to throw off the yoke of the state. I do not feel completely comfortable about this, however it is clear that my previous actions and my previous outrages over abuses changed exactly nothing as well. Plus they expended a lot of time, energy and money. Better to use those limited resources in other, more productive, ways.

For me, this way is better. Many would view our lives as extremely boring. Many will consider that I gave up the good fight. To each their own. We find life in the slow lane to be very good.

Yesterday the people of Costa Rica went to the polls to choose a new President, all 57 members of the Asamblea (congress) and members of the 81 city or county councils. Jacqueline has some good posts here, here, and here on the election overall.

The vote for President is too close to call. We will probably have to wait for the official hand count of all the votes to know who will form the next government. As both men have very different policies I will delay an analysis of what the new president will mean for libertarians looking to Costa Rica as a possibly freer destination.

To me, and many other libertarians, the performance of the Movimiento Libertario, the former Libertarian Party, is of great interest. As documented here and here the ML abandoned libertarian principles in favor of a pragmatic approach because, as Otto Guevara, the party's presidential candidate, said “we need to be more moderate and move closer to the Costa Rican people if we are going to gain power.” Does abandoning principle “work”?

To answer this question lets look at how the “radical” hard core ML performed four years ago. In 2002 the ML received 1.7% of the vote for President and 9.34% of the vote for the Asamblea, electing six Diputados (congressmen). To do this they spent a bit more than US$ 200,000 in privately raised funds, explicitly rejecting government funds as immoral.

This time around, they spent roughly US$ 1,900,000 and accepted state funds. For President, Guevara received 8.4% of the vote (86.9% counted). For Diputado, the ML has received 9.08%. It seems that they have elected six, but one has a razor thin margin, which may just disappear when all the votes are counted. So far 83.4% have been processed.

The source for the numbers above is el Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones. The TSE is the government body in charge of elections. The numbers on the web page are provisional. The official numbers will come out in about two weeks, after the hand count. A note on the web page: It can only be viewed in IE. I have tried Firefox and Opera, neither can read it.

Internally, the ML was expecting 20% for both President and the Asamblea. This was widely leaked. On the 5th of January Otto said in an interview that they were going to get 23% or 24% for President and 12 to 19 seats in the Asamblea.

Since changing direction they have gotten many public figures to join the party. Mostly from PUSC, which has self destructed (more on that below), and some from a couple of small moribund parties. The ML had a slogan “cada día somos más” (“every day we are more”). Well, yes, more of the same. More of the same tired old, corrupt politicians of always. And now they are in the ML. Instead of fresh new faces, with bold new ideas, they ended up with the same old, tainted faces, with a bunch of “moderate” (as they put it) proposals that sounded just like everyone else.

Guevara and his group expelled the hard core libertarians, or as he called them “radicals”, from the party, saying that they were responsible for impeding the growth of the party. He said that by becoming “moderate” they would move closer to the Costa Rican people, thereby gaining many more votes.

So, they abandoned ideology, purged the “radicals” from the party, spent 9.5 times what they did before, and came out slightly worse. Maybe significantly worse if the seat that is hanging by a thread is lost.

Add to this that one of the two major parties, in fact the one currently in power, basically imploded. PUSC has been plagued by corruption scandals and the current President is very unpopular. Their Presidential candidate only received 3.4% of the vote. For the Asamblea they only received 7.6%. Yet the ML did not benefit from PUSC's demise. Not a single seat. Can you imagine the Republican Party in the United States self destructing and the LP failing to gain anything from that?

This was a clear abject failure. So much so that last night Guevara did not talk to the press. He only made a 15 minute speech and then left the election night party. Today he is nowhere to be seen. Contrast this with the 13 other Presidential candidates, some who did much worse numerically. All of them are talking to the press, all of them are participating in the analysis of the results. All except Guevara.

What would have happened if the ML had remained hard core? We will never know the answer to this question, but I will offer a possible scenario.

In September of 2004 I saw the results of an internal poll which said that the entire Libertarian message was very popular with 25% of the population. Many positions were supported by the majority of the people. The main problem seemed to be that the ML had not effectively communicated the message. For example 70% of the population was opposed to government funding of political campaigns. Yet only 15% was aware that the ML did not accept state funds. When speakers would talk to small groups of people, communicating a hard core message, they would get enthusiastic responses, including offers of help. The big challenge was figuring out how to package the message into 30 second TV spots and getting the funds to take it to the people.

There were very creative people in the party. This problem was being addressed. If it had been solved, then a hard core ML would have elected 14 or 15 Diputados and been a significant force in the legislature. Possibly being able to advance Freedom a little bit. Sadly, we will never know.

This Sunday, 5 Feb, the people of Costa Rica will choose a new President and Asamblea (Congress). Unfortunately they will not have a libertarian choice. In This post I talk about the transformation of the Movimiento Libertario from a Libertarian party to a run of the mill Liberal (in the European sense) party.

I made some predictions, and so far have been correct. I predicted they would accept state funds, they did. I predicted that many hard working people would leave the party, they did.

The most important prediction I made was with regard to the number of seats the party would win in the Asamblea. I said a maximum of seven seats. This prediction will be put to the test on Sunday.

The more I see and hear the more confident I am that I will be correct here also, or at least not too far off. The ML has been steadily dropping in the polls, with the latest indicating 11.8% of the vote for President, four pretty solid seats in the Asamblea, three "likely" seats, and three "possible" seats. That poll was conducted three weeks ago. If the slide continued, they won't reach those numbers. Additionally, I noticed two more things today. One, an article in the paper talking about the preparations that the various parties are doing for election day. Most are along the lines of "call our people and provide busses to get them to the polls". The ML said that "organization is important, but not critical" and that their people "would ride the opposition busses to the polls and vote for us". This confirms something I had heard before, namely that they do not have much of a volunteer organization and that those who are there are not motivated. Which leads to the second item. While driving through a town today, there were a group of about 15 children, ages 10 to 16 or so handing out ML bumper stickers. They all looked very bored and only made feeble attempts to give the sticker to passing motorists. If this is the most enthusiasm that the ML can generate among the youth, its traditional core group, they are in big trouble.

By Monday we will know if selling out paid off. I intend to post first thing Monday morning. Right after I read the newspapers. Shortly there after I will post my analysis of what happened since the pragmatists, or as they call themselves "moderates" took over the party. Also what the new government is likely to mean for Costa Rica and specifically what it will mean for those who look to CR as a place to escape and possibly live a bit freer.

An article (Spanish) in today's La Nación talks about what the various political parties are promising to do about crime in Costa Rica. The "new" Movimiento Libertario, the supposed moderate Libertarians, are promising to make permanent the anti-drug police presence in neighborhoods and increase the number of jails.

This should end any illusions held by Juan Carlos and others that the party is still Libertarian.

But it is still independent from the USSA, which is worth something.

In this post Sunni refers to an article which talks about a contract received by a law firm to oversee the US government's asset-seizure efforts in Costa Rica. She comments that "It's also a safe bet that the C.R. govthugs are getting a generous slice of the pie too, to ensure continued docility."

Fortunately, that is not the case. I did a little digging. The US gov has contracted BLP-Abogados to represent them in Costa Rican courts for asset-seizure cases. If the US gov prevails, (in other words, convinces a CR court that the property in question should belong to the US gov) then BLP-Abogados will manage the property on behalf of the US gov.

The person I spoke to (a lawyer) says that the only way the US gov can prevail in such cases is if the property in question belongs to a person convicted of something that is also a crime in CR, and a US court has ordered the specific property seized.

It is not good that the USSA is contracting foreign law firms to attempt property seizures in other countries, but thankfully it has nothing to do with the CR government and they have to go through the slow CR legal process to accomplish it.

In other CR news, the Movimiento Libertario is "considering" accepting government funds for its political campaign. I predicted this here. Of course, they are only "considering" it right now. They need to change the party bylaws to be able to do this, but according to the article in La Nación (registration may be required, in Spanish), they plan to hold another assembly in September to do just that.

Finally, last week a friend of mine came from the states, so we went to the beach. For those who are interested, we stayed at Casa Camarona, which I highly recommend. Right on the beach with a truly excellent restaurant along with a competent, friendly and helpful staff. However, my car had a problem, so I had it brought back to San Jose on a flat bed truck (this did not interfere with the vacation). I went with the car. On the way back we ran into one police check point and were stopped by the police twice on the road. The check point is apparently a permanent feature of the main highway. The cops are looking for illegal migrants, drugs, smuggled goods (from Panama), etc. I asked the driver the obvious question, "don't the smugglers just use another route?", he said, "Yes, there are many other routes, but this is easy so the cops hang out here." On being stopped he said it was routine. They stop him, and other independent drivers, to check brake lights, turn signals, hassle drivers about the weight they are carrying, etc. Basically looking for bribes. He just accepted it as normal. No point in getting angry since it wasn't going to change anyway.

Note that the cops have never bothered me, but I do not engage in "public" type activities. If I started a tow-truck business, you can bet that I would suffer the same fate. Costa Rica is good to live quietly, but not a good place if you need to earn a living from the local economy. I know that there are those who have businesses here, and many will disagree with my assessment, but for me, doing business here, at least in any public way, is not worth the hassle. It is a great place to live quietly and inexpensively.

Just yesterday morning, my sweetie and I were discussing tactics and prospects for advancing liberty. His view, as I understand it, is that a voluntaryist community can't happen here -- not in the current social tides, at least: nation-states have claimed dominion over all the land where such an endeavor can focus on that primary goal. I'd counterclaimed that there's reason to be hopeful about educating more individuals successfully, and that achieving that could make enclaves possible in some parts of the world that are more disposed to laissez faire. But after reading two news stories pointed out to me by another friend (who didn't give permission to be credited), I may have to concede that my sweetie's right.

First, Costa Rican Law Firm Gets Half-Million for U.S. Asset Seizure Cases, from August 15. First and last paragraphs:

The U.S. Marshals Service this week cemented a deal to have a Santa Ana, Costa Rica-based law firm oversee its asset-seizure efforts in that nation. BLP-Abogados, located in the Forum Business Park, will get nearly a half-million dollars over the next year to perfom those services. BLP is the acronym for "Business Law Partners." ....

BLP staffers include Georgetwon University Law School graduate Luis Manuel Castro, former Washington, D.C.-based attorney Neftali Garro, Harvard Law School-trained attorney Vivian Liberman, and former justice of the Costa Rican Supreme Court of Justice Hugo Picado.

Costa Rica has long been one of the places held as a good alternative to Amerika, but this development seems to squash that hope. What the fucking fuck are U.S. Marshals doing seizing property in another country -- and at such a rate that they need to buy a law office to oversee their thievery? It's also a safe bet that the C.R. govthugs are getting a generous slice of the pie too, to ensure continued docility.

And as if that weren't bad enough, the next day saw this posted at the same site: Central American Rulers Push for U.S.-supported Militarized Police. The basics:

In the aftermath of CAFTA, the presidents of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua have proposed creating a regional rapid-response police force with military-assault capabilities-- if, that is, the United States government will provide resources for it.

This may be a statement from Central American governments to the United States government: you want us to join you in CAFTA, so give us the money, guns, and military training to control our people.

The irony's thick and layered throughout all this. But it appears clear that, for now at least, the USSA's mission is one of conquest, and no place is safe from its tentacles.

Jorge, do you know anything about this? Got any thoughts in response?

It is very rare that the news media reports an incident which perfectly illustrates the state in action. Yet that is exactly what CNN did tonight on the Lou Dobbs show. The incident in question was one of those little "throw away" pieces, which are not meant to be real news. And yet this was. The Washington Post story is here.

It seems that in Salem, MA a sausage vendor called the police to shutdown a lemonade stand, which he correctly said, did not have a license and was taking away his business. The police complied, teaching the two children running it that one cannot start a business with out getting permission from the state, and that they had better watch out, because a bigger business, one that is better connected with the state than they are, will use the power of the state to shut down competitors.

But all is well! The mayor intervened, having the (legal) sausage vendor allow the two boys to work as sub-contractors, under the vendor's license. The state comes to the resuce!

A wonderful lesson in civics for today's youth.

America, land of those who used to be free.

To be fair, on paper Costa Rica is just as bad. At least here enforcement is almost nonexistent.

An internal battle between ideologues and pragmatists in the Movimiento Libertario has resulted in a narrow win for the pragmatists. Narrow or not, the political process is a winner take all process, so the pragmatists are in control. Some candidates for the national legislature are flat out not Libertarians. Others are very pliable, they are "gut" libertarians, who would be fine if surrounded by committed ideologues, but as it stands, can be easily swayed to anti-libertarian positions. One candidate has been called "brain damaged" and "retarded" by the very person who strongly supported her. But she will vote as told, no danger of independent, or Libertarian, thinking there.

Secondly, I am now, after having seen this type of behavior several times, convinced that L. Neil Smith was right when, in Pizzacracy he said "During my tenure in the Libertarian Party, when these malfunctions began occurring, I went so far as to write to other prominent libertarians, ask what was going on, and couldn't we stay friends? It didn't work. I don't mean to single out the LP, it's simply the place where I gained the bulk of my sad experience. It doesn't differ significantly from any other majoritarian group."

I really thought the Movimiento Libertario was different. I was very wrong. When you think about it, it makes sense that the pragmatists would win, after all the Libertarian ideologues want Liberty, the pragmatists want power. It follows that the pragmatists will be more effective at achieving control over the organization. It also makes sense that the divisions caused bitter resentments, and that the mud slinging has become public.

In case anyone believes the pragmatists are nice folks, they have already fired several people who worked in the Asamblea (Congress) and are probably going to fire several more.

Also, do not believe that the ideologues are perfect, their ideas are the correct ones, they are the ones that want Liberty above all else, but they are also human. Several people voted against the ideologues for strictly personal reasons. Some among the ideologues have angered others when there was no need. They have, on more than one occasion, been their own worst enemy.

Getting down to the gory details I find that I don't know where to start. There is so much to explain, so much history to tell. So I will start with something that will be seen as obviously wrong to all Libertarians, anarchists, minarchists, hard and soft core alike.

Approximately two weeks ago, there was a meeting where the party's president, Otto Guevara, said that to be a candidate for public office, it was not necessary to be 100% Libertarian, 70% was acceptable. This caused a furor among the hard core, but I managed to rationalize it away, because we had a "magic" weapon. A great tool that would go a long way to insuring 100% compliance, even if the individual was only 70%. Before anyone jumps on me for this rationalization, you can be sure that my friends already have.

This tool was the contract with financial guarantee that each candidate was going to have to sign, before they could even compete internally to become a candidate. The initial idea was Otto's. I was at the meeting where he thought of it. I thought it was brilliant and ran with it. Otto even announced it to the press, where it received good coverage. The idea of the contract is simple. Follow Libertarian principles, as specified in the contract (never vote in favor of tax increases or state monopolies, etc) and back that up with all the money you receive from your job as a Libertarian legislator. In March, the ethics committee of the party was charged with drafting the actual contract. All their attempts to meet with Otto and the existing Diputados (congress critters) were stymied. Almost from the beginning their process had been sabotaged. So, at the party's national assembly, held on June 25th, there was nothing to vote on. One member of the ethics committee announced that it was dead, the others confirmed it to me privately.

We are now left with a party where to be a candidate one need only agree 70% with libertarians, in other words, it is ok to be in favor of violating rights up to 30%, and where there is no mechanism to bind a candidate to the principles. In fact, one does not even have to state that they are a libertarian to be a candidate. The assembly proceeded straight downhill from there.

The questions this raises are:
-- How did this happen?
-- What happens to the party now?
-- What happens to the Libertarians who are now "homeless"?

The last question I can only answer for myself. I have been an anarchist for a long time. I saw working with a political organization as a method to advance liberty. I now see this as wrong. The only way to advance liberty is to withdraw sanction from the state. To live your life as free as possible under the circumstances and convince others to do the same. The only way to have the state wither away is to stop feeding it. How to best do this is another question, which I need to ponder. But I now realize that engaging the state on its own terms is the wrong approach. It just corrupts and makes one like the very organization we are trying to get rid of.

How did we go from a situation where Otto would stand up in the Asamblea and attack other Diputados for being immoral, where he would be the only person to vote against a law, where he was a champion of the rights of illegal lottery vendors, informal taxi drivers, landless campesinos and small business, to one where he is willing to sell out 30%?

That is more difficult to answer, and I am sure that other people, armed with different and more facts than I have, will have different opinions, but here is mine. I'll start by saying that a key part of this insight comes from someone else, who I have not been able to contact and therefore will not name. I hope they will claim credit in the comments.

The door opened when the ML started taking money from the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, a Liberal (in the European sense of the word) political foundation. They give money to market oriented parties around the world, but they are not Libertarian. They have a goal, to get the parties they contribute to into power. Dealing with them and taking their money, meant listening to their agenda, which was "you have to dump the ideology to get elected". The Foundation sent consultants who pushed the message, they paid to have people from the ML attend seminars all over the world, where the message was repeated. Many people in the party, including Otto, have been listening to this message for several years.

On top of this, there are many who have been in the party for a long time, who are not 100%. They have been held back by the ideologues and have not been happy with this. These people have been getting closer and closer to Otto over time.

Then there is the problem with the message the ML has been putting out. I just reviewed the press releases from the last two years, if there is a unifying theme to almost all of them it is "good government". Often it is "small government equals good government", but "good government" is the main theme. Occasionally the theme was "rights". Very, very rarely was it "freedom". The TV and radio programs put out the same message. Additionally, the Diputados of the ML have fought the tax package and other government programs on the grounds of waste, corruption and mismanagement. The message almost everyone has gotten is that the ML is the party of political control and good government. Period. Nothing else.

Therefore, it is not surprising that we attract a phenomenally good person, who wants, not Liberty, but good government. Namely, the presidential campaign manager, an individual I have a tremendous amount of respect for. Someone who is a very successful businessman and an incredibly hard worker. But not a Libertarian. He never claimed to be one. He does not claim to be one today.

Into the mix comes this individual, who says flat out, dump the ideology, focus on Otto, not the party, present Otto as a leader, etc, etc. I think this is what finally pulled Otto into the "dark side".

Now, that would not have mattered too much if the rest of the party had really been hard core. If the entire national assembly of the party had reacted with horror at the party's president saying that 70% was good enough there would have been no problem. But they did not.

I suspect that the general logic of organizations is to blame here. The party was formed to advance Liberty via political action. That means electing people to public office. Electing people to public office has now become the main function of the organization. Winning elections is now the goal, Liberty is nowhere to be seen.

Finally, what happens to the party? Difficult to say, but here is my take.

One evening, three of us, all volunteers, met with the campaign manager, himself a volunteer, who said that the one advantage we had, was that in no other party were there four dedicated people meeting who were working for the cause, not for some direct personal benefit. The people I recruited all joined for the cause. There were many, many more like this. Most of these people are ideologues, most will leave. Many already have. So first off, they are going to lose a large number of hard working people, who are going to be impossible to replace.

Next, there is one individual who has publicly stated that he will do everything he can to destroy Otto and the party. This person has a blinding hatred for Otto and what he has done. He will run against Otto to be the presidential candidate. He will lose, but he will have his time to speak, and the press, loving a feeding frenzy, will give it good coverage. Given that the pragmatists have not been gracious in victory, this person is going to get many votes. An obvious loon getting a lot of votes against a popular, charismatic leader is going to drive the press wild.

Finally, given the political panorama in Costa Rica (the credit goes to my friend Ricardo for stating it so clearly), the ML has lost its niche. The traditional parties are what they are and people know them, those who want what they offer will vote for them. The PAC has the vote of the state employee unions. The dozen or so even more leftist parties will get the vote of those who feel PAC isn't communist enough, then there is a xenophobic party, who wants to expel all the Nicaraguans. The ML was the party that could be counted on to follow a fixed ideological course. You may not have agreed with them, but you knew exactly what they would do. This appealed to a lot of people, this is now gone.

I say that this means they will at most get seven seats in the Asamblea, instead of the 12 to 19 that Otto is claiming in the press. We will find out in February.

I will further predict that they will take government funds for the campaign. We will probably find out in October/November if I am right, when they try to get a bank loan.

A political party is entitled to government funds based upon percentage of the vote. If the party gets 10% of the vote, they get 10% of the allocated funds. What the parties typically do is take out bank loans against the debt. Say that the polls show a party will get 20% of the vote, a bank will loan up to the amount they would get with 15%.

It is a great pity, but if I had believed L. Neil Smith back when I first read Pizzacracy, or if I had taken to heart the great article by Carl Watner in the Voluntaryist, I would have realized that this is the logical outcome. As Watner notes, "In each case the organization begins with a devotion to a purpose and somehow along the way turns away from that purpose and gradually becomes a collection of special interests." This is exactly what has happened to the ML.

The law requires that you carry ID on your person in all public places. A public place is defined pretty much the same as in the US.

There are three types of acceptable ID. The national ID for citizens, the various type of ID issued to legal residents, or a passport issued by a foreign government. A notarized photo copy of the front page and the page with the entry stamp is acceptable in place of a passport.

The IDs for foreign residents come in many different types, depending on the type of residency. The number formats and length are different for each type. Also, unlike national ID for citizens, this information is not online anywhere. If you need to put an ID number on a form, and they are not going to look at it, just about any thing will do.

US citizens are allowed to stay three months as tourists, which can be renewed, once. Many PTs simply leave the country for 72 hours every three months. There are also people who will take passports and stamp them to show that you have been out of the country for three days. There are many who just overstay, when they leave the county they pay a small fine.

Overstaying can be a problem, because every once in a while, they will decide to ban someone from returning. This happens very rarely, and there is usually some other reason as well, but it is a possibility.

A potential problem with the PT approach is driving. A non-Costa Rican drivers license is only good if the person's tourist visa is valid. If you show a traffic cop your US license, they will want to see a passport.

You can get a drivers license without being a resident. This is the best approach. If you have a CR license and the traffic police stop you, they will not ask to see any other documentation. A driver's license in CR is exactly that. It has a name, picture, issue date and expiry date. That is all. It is not an identity document. It says nothing about your status in the country.

If you bring a car you have six months to nationalize it (pay taxes). After that it must be removed from the country for at least three months. The folks who offer passport stamping services also deal with this. But you could face a problem. A Canadian couple I know did exactly that for a few years. After a while the traffic cops took to routinely stopping them. They figured that they paid less in bribes than they would have if they nationalized the car, so for them it was worth it. For me, I'd rather avoid police attention.

My view is that it is best to buy a car here and avoid all the hassles. Vehicles are more expensive here due to taxes. However, there are good deals to be had. This is a topic for another post.

Absent a libertarian society, we each need to find a place that gives us the maximum amount of freedom, in the areas we consider important. This is a very personal decision.

This weekend I have been thinking about a line Sunni wrote on Friday. "Yah, the pro-freedom types spout off, but we're usually too busy fighting amongst ourselves to take on a real enemy..."

The Movimiento Libertario has enjoyed some success and is making inroads for many reasons. In great part because of proportional representation, the ability to presented cases to the Constitutional Court, the parliamentary rules and a few other "features" of Costa Rica's system. Mostly however, I feel it is because they have avoided the infighting that seems to plague US libertarians.

I have been wondering why. Why is it that here, those who want more liberty are willing to work together under a Libertarian "tent"? For example, a key individual disagrees with us on many issues, but is contributing money and working full time as a volunteer to help elect Libertarians to office. He wants more freedom in Costa Rica and views the ML as the vehicle to achieve it. He is willing to work in the background and keep his differences out of the public view. He is not running for office and makes no public speeches. There are many others in similar positions. I hear a lot of "I disagree with the ML on issue X, but they are by far the best choice." A lot of people who feel this way are working with us.

So, why no ideological schism? After all those in the ML are human. We have the same weaknesses as others. We have our share of sycophants, a bunch of people who think they are god's gift, more than our share of those who just want to talk and who disappear the moment work rears its ugly head, plenty of those who want to be "a big fish in a little pond", etc. In addition we do have plenty of personal differences, but they have not resulted ideological warfare.

I think it has to do with a unique combination of circumstances.

First of all Costa Rica does not have a military. So we do not have the "peace vs security (war)" split. It simply is not an issue.

Secondly there is only one political party that is calling of less government. In the US the R branch of the ruling party uses the rhetoric of freedom. We know it is a lie, but they use it. In Costa Rica only the ML calls for more freedom, only the ML presents Liberty as the answer to the problems of the day. There is no one else.

Third, by the time others started noticing the ML, it was well established, with a good organization, dominated by hard core ideologues. When non-libertarians come to the party they encounter the ideology and are told in no uncertain terms that we are working to transform Costa Rica into a Libertarian Society. They are welcome to join and work with us towards those ends. Those who stay end up working with dedicated Libertarians, and after a while end up "converted". While all who will work towards Liberty are welcome, only those who are Libertarians, who understand the ideology and who will sign a statement of principle, can run for office. Only Libertarians speak for the party.

Finally, those who have left, but remained dedicated to Liberty, have not spent their efforts attacking the ML. Instead, they chose to work in a different way. One of the party's founders started a think tank. Another group of individuals started a consumer association. No one is trying the tear anyone else down.

Currently there is an internal "battle" over who will be the candidates for Asamblea (Congress). The National Assembly of the party will select the candidates, but people are supporting some over others. Including the two founders. They agree on all except three. In one case it is a matter of position on the list. In the other two cases one founder does not think the other's choice belong there at all. They are both campaigning hard for their respective choices. On June 25th the National Assembly will conviene and lay this issue to rest. In the meantime both founders are working together on the greater issues. They have their disagreements and arguments, but they stay focused on the goal. Liberty.

More in the next few posts.

Leashitarian: This is the first time I have seen the term. Since I work with the Movimiento Libertario, many may consider me one. I hope not.

The Movimiento Libertario has had great success, and will have more, in part because it completely dodges the Great Libertarian Purity Debate. As long as someone wants more freedom than exists today they are welcome.

The leadership is 100% Libertarian. The executive committee is made up of two minarchists and an Anarcho-Capitalist. The main person who conducts ideological education is a Randian, with anarchist leanings.

The three day ideological training seminars and the new "portable" one day courses, exposes the participants to the range of Libertarian thought. It is driven home in these courses that electing Libertarians to office is not enough. To achieve and sustain Liberty, we must transform the society. Political action is the tool we have chosen to do this. It is just a tool.

Anyone who wants to run for public office must attend the course. They must also sign a pledge that they will never act to increase state power, and if given the opportunity, will always act to decrease it. The devil, as always, is in the details, so I will explain what this means in another post.

Many of us recognize that one day, when we have reduced the state a great deal, we are going to have a split. Maybe several. Those of us who do realize this have agreed to put off our difference until that day.

As of today we have managed to slow the growth of the state by preventing the passage of a massive tax increase and a few other bad pieces of legislation. This is a start, but is only a start. We have not reached the point where anyone in the movement feels that the size of the government is "just right", so there is no need to fight amongst ourselves.

On a completely different topic: Leaf cutter ants have destroyed our roses. We had a five meter row of rose bushes. Two days ago we noticed that they were not looking great, but couldn't deal with it. Yesterday we were out all day. This morning I woke to find the rose bushes had been completely stripped. Leaf cutters are red ants, about one to two cm. in length. The beginning of the rainy season (now) is when they are most active. Gardening in the tropics is mostly wonderful, but you have to deal with all aspects of nature.

Finally, I am honored to join the Conspirators. I hope my posts here will be informative and that Sunni does not regret her temporary lapse of reason :).

I'm pleased to announce a new Conspirator has joined us! Jorge is an American currently living in Costa Rica, and is involved with the Movimiento Libertario there. He's told me some interesting things about that group in private email, but rather than spill all that myself I'm hoping he'll provide some background into it, plus its current doings. Lest anyone suspect that I'm starting to go leashitarian here, I can assure you I'm not ... and Jorge doesn't seem to be of that stripe either. That said, the M.L. does seem to be having some success in reaching the Costa Rican citizens with its message, and as such it bears watching. As Costa Rica is widely considered to be a good expat location for Americans, it'll be interesting to get an insider's look into the political and personal situation there with respect to liberty, and anything else he'd like to talk about here.

Welcome, Jorge!