For a small fraction of people, the phrase above is not just a rebellious declaration, but a moral imperative. Not only do they abhor the idea of being restricted from doing things they want to do, but also the idea of being forbidden from doing things which they had no intention of doing anyway. The attitude that rules are intolerable, that government is tyranny, and that a person can be trusted to run exactly one life - their own - no more and no less, leaves its holder in a rather awkward position in the current world.
Most governments today are based on nonconsensual interactions with their populace. In return for limiting their freedoms, they take one to two thirds of the fruits of their citizen's labours. America, the self-proclaimed land of freedom, has the highest incarceration rate of any country (capitalist or communist, large or small, industrialized or not) in the world, due mostly to its absurd "War on Drugs". Other countries do even more horrific things to their citizens, especially women and those with a different race, politics, or culture than the ruling class. Very few countries allow their citizens the freedom to manipulate their biochemistry with substances other than a select set approved by the government.
For people who wish to live in freedom, there is currently nowhere to turn but isolation. Sure, they could sail a barge out into the middle of the ocean and do whatever they wanted until they ran out of supplies. They could buy some land in a corner of a poor country and hope no one noticed them. These options are unsatisfactory. The goal is not merely to exercise freedom briefly (which can be done just by following the eleventh commandment), but to do so sustainably, openly, in a society where it is considered acceptable.
The effects of technology - reduced transportation costs, telecommuting, and industries which change faster than hidebound beaurocracies can adapt - continue to put pressure on traditional governments. The world of agrarian economies, FBI wiretaps and government-sanctioned currency is ending, and the world of digital cash, strong encryption, data havens, and cloning is rolling in. In 2000, the closest US presidential election in history, more than three hundred thousand voters still chose the Libertarian candidate. 300,000 is far too small to influence american politics, but a small fraction of that number should be enough to start a stable society.
All projects of this nature undertaken so far have either failed or been scams. This is rather unfortunate for those of us who are passionate about freedom but acknowledge the realities of the world. If I am lucky, someone else will get the job done first, but if not, this seems like a good project to devote a life to. Unfortunately, it turns out to be a very difficult problem. Nation-founding appears to have a high activation energy which is very difficult to achieve. Here are some of my suggestions for smaller steps, which require less people.
Smaller Steps:
Further Thoughts: