I want to claim part of Australia and create a country within it, as so: enter image description here

How do I go about doing this, we have a constitution and a tiny population. If we look at a government as a spectrum rather than a binary (exists/non-existent), the more stable a government is, the more it exists.


  1. How do we get away with claiming the land without the government getting angry?

  2. How do we increase the stability of the government?

  3. How do we grow population rapidly?


  • All citizens are dual citizens of our country + Australia

closed as too broad by MichaelK, Ash, Frostfyre, sphennings, Mołot Oct 11 '17 at 13:16

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You're missing something rather important in that map. The entire island state of Tasmania. $\endgroup$ – s.anne.w Oct 11 '17 at 6:39
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I am voting to close this, not because it is not a fun subject (it is), but because it is insanely broad, and fails the "Write A Book" test: we can write a whole book as an answer here, and that it just too much. You want to make a Sovereign Nation, a nation-state to be exact. So the concept you are looking at here is Acquisition of Sovereignty. That will keep you busy for a loooooong while. Good luck. :) $\endgroup$ – MichaelK Oct 11 '17 at 6:47
  • $\begingroup$ There are three questions here, and the first is already broad. Why that section of Australia? Why secede? How do you expect to keep the current residents from opposing you? $\endgroup$ – Brythan Oct 11 '17 at 17:32
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I'm going to ask that people please stop bashing Australia (and Tasmania, in particular). It's not nice. $\endgroup$ – HDE 226868 Oct 11 '17 at 17:55
  • $\begingroup$ @s.anne.w - Tasmania isn't really that important, lol (JK) $\endgroup$ – Thomo Oct 13 '17 at 4:21

A nation is made by a population and a territory.

The population should be characterized by an homogeneous culture, well distinct from the neighbouring countries.

It's not because you draw a line on the ground that you can claim "here is Mylandystan, there is Yourlandystan".

So, first of all you should develop a common culture within that piece of land, and try to make sure that it becomes distinctive of that land. Also grow your economy, so that you have an advantage in secession as you can "pay your own bills".

Then, you should seek for reconnaissance from other countries. No nation in the world is going to recognize your new nation just for fun, there have to be really sound economical and political reasons. Then you have two options for secession from Australia:

  • pacific way: seat around a table and negotiate a break out.
  • non pacific way: brace your guns and fight your freedom against the nasty oppressor.

If you look back at our history, the pacific way can only work when the "oppressor" is too weak (politically and economically) to maintain control over the land, and rather than starting a war which would just make it weaker prefers to sit and negotiate.

Then coming to your second question, your claim that

the more stable a government is, the more it exists

is a practical nonsense. Just as an example, Italy has had a lot of unstable and short lived governments since the end of WWII, while Germany has had a lot of stable and long lasting ones. I don't think Italy has existed less then Germany since then.

Also the concept of stable government is ill defined. Stalin and Hitler, just to give two examples, had very stable governments. Are you aiming for that?

About the last question, how do you grow the population rapidly? Well, boost your economy, favor immigration (and say good bye to your cultural specificity you just built).

  • $\begingroup$ From when you said "practical nonsense" technically, parts of Italy ceased to exist nearing the end of WW2, in my opinion, because they were unstable. So part of my spectrum idea, might still be valid. Different areas of land might be more unstable (for example a pre-existing town that still has a small police force that reports to the Australian government) $\endgroup$ – mateos Oct 11 '17 at 6:50
  • $\begingroup$ @Albert, but that is not stability. It's rather ability to enforce the government decisions. Call it executive power. $\endgroup$ – L.Dutch Oct 11 '17 at 7:02

The same way any micro-nation does: pay your taxes, put Australian stamps on your letters along with your micro-nation's stamps, and don't rock the boat. Do nothing that will upset the governments of Western Australia and the Commonwealth of Australia.

Micro-nations are dime a dozen. They are invariably tolerated because it's too much trouble to get rid of them. Australia already has its own fair share of micro-nations.

Of course, the territory you want to claim is among the driest in Australia. Therefore, you can add die of thirst to your list.

Also, the territory you want to claim are indigenous lands. They are unlikely to take your seizure of their lands lying down. Quite rightly too.

Your population is unlikely to grow. No-one in their right mind would want to live there. Indigenous communities have had forty thousand years to adapt themselves to the land and its conditions.

The stability of government is also severely in doubt considering your new country is only likely to attract the fruit cakes and nut cases. Not exactly the sort of population that is going to be stable.

Australia's governments will let your country whither, shrivel up and die. of course, any of your citizens are foolish enough to break their laws. They will as dual citizens (although one of their citizenships is in doubt) be dragged before Australian courts and summarily thrown in the slammer (if found guilty).

As micro-nations go, this one is doomed from the beginning.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Is a micro-nation actually a nation, or the deluded preening of the terminally stupid? $\endgroup$ – RonJohn Oct 11 '17 at 13:09
  • $\begingroup$ @RonJohn The term "micro-nation", I think, was coined to cover such breakaway 'states', and I have used it as such. Based more on their size than anything else, with populations being only a handful of people. Just count your number of fingers for an idea. Invariably self-declared 'states' or 'nations' often inspired by a misunderstanding with the real authorities. No. "Micro-nations" aren't actual nations. Fake states, anybody? $\endgroup$ – a4android Oct 12 '17 at 0:38

You could do a political revolt against the Australian government (protesting taxes or unfair wages or something) and have enough people rally together and create the sort of city state you speak of. If you look into the state of Jefferson (US), you'll see that there were almost 51 states because of this political revolt type thing. My point is, a political revolt is peaceful and effective as long as it has just reason.

  • $\begingroup$ *note: this only answers how to not make the government angry, but you'll still make them a little pissed $\endgroup$ – user39743 Oct 11 '17 at 12:30

I want to claim part of Australia and create a country within it


Do you have enough people, guns, ammunition, food, water, anti-aircraft missiles, etc, etc ad nauseum to defend your whole border from the Australian government's natural urge to beat you down so hard you're looking up at the groundwater?

IOW, you can want all you want, but it ain't gonna happen.

How do we get away with claiming the land without the government getting angry?

You can't. The Australian government is going to get as angry as the Aborigines did when the white man took their territory.

  • $\begingroup$ It's happened hundreds of times throughout history, saying "it ain't gonna happen" is incredibly naive $\endgroup$ – mateos Oct 11 '17 at 6:40
  • $\begingroup$ Also, I was looking towards a pacific resolution towards the declaration of independence, having enough guns to beat off Australia would be incredibly threatening, enough to get the allies involved. Something like a treaty would be more desirable, or non-aggression pact $\endgroup$ – mateos Oct 11 '17 at 6:45
  • $\begingroup$ @Albert but you haven't answered the question of why Australia would just let you carve out a chunk of their country in the first place (especially if you aren't an aborigine). $\endgroup$ – RonJohn Oct 11 '17 at 6:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @RonJohn Answering the question is your job as an answerer. If you wanted to get the answers, you ask a question, not answer it. $\endgroup$ – timuzhti Oct 12 '17 at 4:08

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.