Article 10 of the “Don’t Repeat History” Series
Land Liberty: No Monopolies on Land
The Free Republic of Liberland, founded in 2015 on a 7 km² patch of disputed Danube land between Croatia and Serbia, embodies libertarian ideals: minimal government, voluntary contributions, property rights, and blockchain transparency. By 2025, Liberland has stabilized governance with blockchain elections, launched a $30 million Danube revitalization plan, and has attracted over 700,000 citizenship applicants, poised for growth from 1,400 citizens. Yet, scaling diaspora villages like ARK in Serbia risks land monopolies by wealthier e-residents, threatening cohesion. The Iroquois Confederacy (c. 1142–1777) used communal land to foster unity but collapsed in part under colonial land grabs, highlighting the need for equitable access. Community Land Trusts (CLTs), paired with DAOs, ensure free building without monopolies, preventing cultural collapse through automated, non-coercive systems. This supports Liberland’s 2025 infrastructure goals, aligning with the “To Live and Let Live” ethos.
The Iroquois Confederacy, a decentralized union of six Native American nations, thrived on communal land systems, where tribes shared territory for farming and hunting without private ownership, mirroring Liberland’s voluntary ethos. Governed by the Great Law of Peace, land was held collectively, ensuring equitable access and fostering cohesion, much like Liberland’s diaspora vision. However, the Iroquois lacked formal mechanisms to protect their land from external pressures. Colonial treaties, like the 1763 Fort Stanwix agreement, exploited weak governance, enabling European settlers to monopolize land, fracturing the Confederacy by 1777. The lesson for Liberland: without equitable land systems, diaspora villages risk elite monopolies, especially as wealth-driven voting (Liberland Merits favoring richer citizens) could enable land hoarding, echoing the Iroquois’ loss to external powers and internal divisions.
Liberland’s 2025 context—blockchain elections, the Danube plan, and e-residency surge—demands land access that prevents monopolies. Croatian disruptions can limit settlement on Liberland’s 7 km², pushing expansion to diaspora hubs in countries like El Salvador or Montenegro. Coercive land reforms, like state redistribution, contradict libertarian principles, while unrestricted markets risk elite capture, as in the Hanseatic League’s port monopolies (Article 3). CLTs offer a voluntary solution: land is held in perpetual community trust, leased to e-residents for building (e.g., 99-year terms) with resale caps to prevent speculation. DAOs automate lease agreements and fund infrastructure, like ARK’s eco-cabins, via transparent blockchain contributions, as emphasized in my Article 6 appendix. Equal-access voting within DAOs prevents wealthier citizens from dominating, unlike merit-based systems. Social incentives—prestige or blockchain credits for CLT contributions—encourage participation, fostering cohesion.
CLTs, integrated with Liberland’s blockchain, ensure land liberty. For example, an e-resident in a Montelibero village could lease a plot for a solar-powered home, with smart contracts enforcing usage rules (e.g., eco-friendly designs) pre-agreed by the CLT, avoiding disputes. Civics modules (Article 9) teach the Iroquois’ communal model and its colonial failure, ensuring e-residents value equitable access. This mirrors my series’ voluntary systems: DAO trusts (Article 3) for inheritance, blockchain registries (Article 4) for IP (Article 5), and DAO-based voting (Article 9) for governance, all preventing elite control. My Article 6 appendix in particular underscores DAOs’ automation—built-in arbitration and fiduciary responsibility—eliminating complex legal disputes, ensuring CLTs remain community-driven.
In practice, CLTs support Liberland’s 2025 goals. The $30 million Danube plan can fund diaspora infrastructure, with CLTs allocating land for eco-projects, avoiding Iroquois-style monopolies. As e-residency can scale into the tens or even hundreds of thousands, CLTs can ensure equitable access across cultures, preventing Athenian factionalism (Article 7). Croatian disruptions if they persist into the long term future it necessitates the need for off-site hubs; CLTs in El Salvador or Honduras can enable free building, complementing blockchain treaties (Article 6) for host-country agreements. Sunset clauses on CLT rules—expiring after 5–10 years unless renewed—keep systems adaptable, avoiding rigid structures. Blockchain automation reduces costs, unlike bureaucratic trusts, scaling for global e-residents, as my article 6 appendix advocates.
Critics may argue CLTs restrict property rights or deter investment, but they enhance freedom by ensuring voluntary, equitable access without coercion. Unlike state-controlled land, CLTs prevent elite monopolies, as my article 6 appendix again warns against class division. For. A society to be cohesive and not fragmented there cannot be any perceived class division history has shown us without question or fail that class division always leads to a fragmented society that has no unified vision or goal to look forward to. Without a system to regulate land freely and without state dictates or control, but under a system that does not allow hoarding and gives equal access to all people, Liberland risks the Iroquois’ fate: land loss fracturing the community. By using CLTs, Liberland fosters a cohesive populace, supporting its crypto-economy and diaspora growth.
By learning from the Iroquois Confederacy’s communal land failure, Liberland can ensure land liberty. CLTs, backed by DAOs, social incentives, and blockchain transparency, prevent monopolies, supporting 2025’s elections, the Danube plan, and hopefully an e-residency surge. This makes Liberland a beacon of equitable expansion, not a cautionary tale of division.