I find it hard to believe that you've actually thought about this deeply because that will only last for a generation.
So what? The constitution will not change because there is a new bratty generation, because the basic principles of the constitution cannot legally be changed. The people will have to actually make a revolt and overthrow the government in order to achieve this.
After that, the children born into that system will be there but it won't be because they voluntarily moved there. You're doing nothing but creating yet another state. I'm sure in true statist form you'll respond with "love it or leave it". Which of course was already refuted by Hume with his ship analogy. Saying that I'm free to move even though I have no way to do so or survive after having done so is akin to saying that a man kidnapped and taken on aboard a ship is later free to leave that ship when it's at sea by jumping in the ocean to drown, and by not drowning he is thereby consenting to the laws on board that ship. Hogwash!
I completely agree with this. Our solution to this is that those in the next generation will have to go through the same process as their parents to become CITIZENS. They will have permanent residence in the state, but in order to bear arms, vote etc. they will have to become a citizen, which involves passing elementary tests and pledging their allegiance to the principles of the state.
Your idea, in its current form, is doomed.
Can you be more specific? I think you're being a bit presumptuous to believe that we have not thought about these things and don't have an answer. How about taking a slightly more humble strategy and... ASK when there is some questions you have. I will answer anything you are wondering about.
Generally speaking the Free State will not be a complete data haven. Piracy ... will not be tolerated.
Right, I think I called it. This is just yet another state. To call it a "free state" is disingenuous at best and a fraud at worse since you're taking in money for it.
Freedom from violence (peace) does not mean the freedom to murder, rape, assault, rob, steal, bully, swindle, threaten or pirate. I have presented forceful arguments against most of the anti-IP arguments in this thread. I notice that you seem to have no intention to answer any of them, and just decide that I am wrong without any counterargument. In my book that is not a very rational behavior.
If I own a stack of paper then I can do whatever I want with it, including writing a Harry Potter novel on it and then selling the paper. To limit what I can do with my paper amounts to partial theft since you are taking from me the use of my paper.
By the very same token banning threats is to take away your freedom of speech. If you're not allowed to wave your gun around peacefully without harming anyone while saying "give me all your money or I will kill you!" then according to your logic YOU have been violated.
What exactly makes you think you are justified in claiming partial ownership of my paper and dictating what I can and cannot do with it?
What exactly makes you think you are justified in claiming partial ownership of my gun and my mouth and dictating what I can and cannot do with it so long as I don't PHYSICALLY hurt you?