# Could the richest person in the world by a country?



## ironpony (Nov 18, 2021)

Like if a the richest man or person in the world hypothetically, wanted to buy a whole country like the US, Russia, China, etc, could they do it, and make the government, of that country an offer they can't refuse to sell it, and those people would take the money and move to the Carribean, or wherever they want to and leave the rich guy to it?

Or is that just not plausible at all, and could never happen plausibly?


----------



## Travalgar (Nov 18, 2021)

It is possible, but not plausible. Governments are attached to multiple agendas; not just money. Ideologies, personal glory, even pure spite!
Not to mention that the government aren't usually the only stakeholders of a country, especially in the modern times. What about the population? Foreign powers? Opposition to the incumbent?

The more likely story for a rich individual (or, more likely, the megacorporation they stood for) to gain control over a country is usually by gradual privatization of the vital aspects of the country. Resources, military, trade, infrastructures, etc. Eventually the megacorp will take over enough of the country that they're essentially _de facto_ "owners" of it anyway, and then declare a new administration.


----------



## Lawless (Nov 18, 2021)

It's completely unrealistic, because it's not worth the public and international outrage. It'll be a thousand times cheaper to take over the government by bribing influential politicians and then create financial incentives for the people to emigrate.

That said, it's an awesome idea for a novel. Make up a scenario why someone super rich would go through all the trouble of openly buying a country after all. (I'd go for a small one.) If you can't make it completely plausible, make it somewhat absurd or grotesque, show how your characters are perplexed: how is it possible that this is happening and the government and the media and many people are acting like nothing is wrong?


----------



## bdcharles (Nov 18, 2021)

It's possible to rent Liechtenstein, I know that. $70K a night, and that includes a castle. To buy? I suppose it depends if the ruling entity of a given country was willing to sell, and what their price was, and if the public and international community was sufficiently okay with it not to rebel. So yeah, it's possible. Anything's possible. You can take a country for no funds transacted if you've the military power. There have been land purchases throughout history, and though they're generally for part of a territory, that didn't stop Trump inquiring about "buying Greenland". I'd read a story about it, for sure. Hell, I may even write one. I'll start now. Here it is:


----------



## PiP (Nov 18, 2021)

If it were a fantasy novel/screenplay why not? In fiction anything is possible. …in 2021 is it believable? I think not.. But ithen in 2019 who would have believed China would unleash a virus on the world In 2020 that has already resulted in over five million deaths and counting… Just write your story as truth is far stranger than fiction.


----------



## CyberWar (Nov 18, 2021)

It would be possible in the future when space colonization becomes commonplace. Remote frontiers with limited means for existing states to enforce their regulation have already given rise to corporate states before, during the Colonial Era. The British and Dutch East India Companies, while formally subjects of their respective crowns, were de facto independent states with their own armies, currencies and foreign policy. Hudson Bay Company was at its time the largest landowner in the world, claiming control over much of modern Canada. With all these frontier regions being remote, the states that were the formal sovereigns over these companies had little means to effectively enforce control and regulation over them. However, with many prominent state officials themselves being shareholders in these companies, the national and corporate interests were intimately entwined to the point of being an extension of one another.

So I can certainly picture a near future, where privately-funded space colonies are under de-facto company rule and are governed expressly under company policies, with Earth governments having very little say over what goes on there, even if they retain formal sovereignty over the company.

Starting a corporate state on Earth would be much trickier, as there are no more noteworthy unclaimed plots of land left, and no state would be willing to relinquish its sovereignty to a private business. So on Earth it would be much likelier that emergent megacorps simply subvert the existing government system and rule indirectly through puppet politicians.


----------



## EternalGreen (Nov 19, 2021)

Could they? They do, frequently.


----------



## ironpony (Nov 20, 2021)

Oh okay.  But they don't do it in a way, like a rich guy handing checks though.  You don't see it done as in a rich guy handing out checks to all the members of government saying here's your multimillion dollar bribe and one way plane ticket to the Carrribean to live happily ever after, if you choose to accept the bribe.


----------



## PiP (Nov 20, 2021)

ironpony said:


> Oh okay.  But they don't do it in a way, like a rich guy handing checks though.  You don't see it done as in a rich guy handing out checks to all the members of government saying here's your multimillion dollar bribe and one way plane ticket to the Carrribean to live happily ever after, if you choose to accept the bribe.


No, they use digital currency such as Bit Coins etc. OR a place in the new regime and a new form of communism.


----------



## ehbowen (Dec 13, 2021)

I had a screenplay idea, never developed, which would have revolved around a drug cartel fomenting revolution and taking over a (fictional) Central American banana republic, in the process purchasing nuclear warheads from some rogue source such as the former USSR or perhaps North Korea and using them to bludgeon the U.S. and others into recognizing their sovereignty.

Yes, it's much cheaper and more effective to bribe corrupt politicians than to attempt the outright purchase of a sovereign entity in fee simple.


----------



## Llyralen (Dec 13, 2021)

I’ve been wondering about this, like with Shit’s Creek. I don’t think it can happen like that.  Maybe islands… if the island doesn’t have an established population and is just private land and you purchase from the existing government?  Is that how Disney bought their island?  Usually bought land still belongs to a country.   Maybe you could pay the country enough to make that land independent— it would probably need to be devoid of people or political interest?

What parts do you want bought, really? Or in what way bought?  Jeffrey Epstein pretty much “owned”the police and judicial courts in Palm Beach, but it was more by way of blackmail.   

For land, for sure the USA once bought large portions of the USA, like the Louisiana Purchase and like Alaska. There are trade agreements between countries and borders change after wars, but I’m not sure that a private individual can buy a whole country without government and likely citizen consent. I don’t know, I’m trying to think of a time that a dictator just said “Hey, do you want to buy ____?”  Of “Uou take… and I will take…” I guess between dictators, like Stalin and Hitler? Because that’s the Warsaw Agreement.  And after wars there is the usual regifting to our friend’s borders. But even without a big war, Putin moving into Ukrainian or Georgia in order to get back summer homes, bleh bleh…So dictators, yes, with armies, sure.  Military Coup, yes. Countries change borders all the time.  I’m always amazed at new countries that pop up, like Montenegro did in around 2006,  but I dont think Shit’s Creek is correct, either.  If it’s still American soil or some other countrthen you usually don’t own every aspect.

I’m now looking into Disney’s island.


----------



## ehbowen (Dec 13, 2021)

Llyralen said:


> I’ve been wondering about this, like with Shit’s Creek. I don’t think it can happen like that.  Maybe islands… if the island doesn’t have an established population and is just private land and you purchase from the existing government?  Is that how Disney bought their island?  Usually bought land still belongs to a country.   Maybe you could pay the country enough to make that land independent— it would probably need to be devoid of people or political interest?
> 
> What parts do you want bought, really? Or in what way bought?  Jeffrey Epstein pretty much “owned”the police and judicial courts in Palm Beach, but it was more by way of blackmail.
> 
> ...


Disney's island will not be productive, as it is definitely under the sovereignty and laws of The Bahamas. Of course, when you have Disney's kind of money you can be quite successful at persuading courts and regulators to look the other way, but in the event of a real dispute even The Mouse would be unlikely to end up roaring....

More productive might be an inquiry into the "Principality of Sealand", established when some folks occupied a WWII-era base constructed by the British on a platform in the North Atlantic. It claims to be an independent sovereign nation and issues its own passports, although it is inside the UK's 12-mile territorial limit. The problem is, no other nation officially recognizes "Sealand" or its authority, and so its passports are pretty much useless. At least thus far, though, neither Britain nor any other party has pressed the issue of enforcing sovereignty over Sealand's citizen/squatters.


----------



## Llyralen (Dec 13, 2021)

ehbowen said:


> Disney's island will not be productive, as it is definitely under the sovereignty and laws of The Bahamas. Of course, when you have Disney's kind of money you can be quite successful at persuading courts and regulators to look the other way, but in the event of a real dispute even The Mouse would be unlikely to end up roaring....
> 
> More productive might be an inquiry into the "Principality of Sealand", established when some folks occupied a WWII-era base constructed by the British on a platform in the North Atlantic. It claims to be an independent sovereign nation and issues its own passports, although it is inside the UK's 12-mile territorial limit. The problem is, no other nation officially recognizes "Sealand" or its authority, and so its passports are pretty much useless. At least thus far, though, neither Britain nor any other party has pressed the issue of enforcing sovereignty over Sealand's citizen/squatters.


Oh okay, so even the Disney island has its government. I’d wondered if Disney had pulled it off. 

I watched several episodes about Britain’s various islands.  There wasn’t one about Sealand, that sounds intriguing though.  The Isle of Wight has a lot of interesting tax laws to attract the super wealthy, though, but there is still a government.

Christiania in Denmark is an area of Copenhagen that Denmark has set aside for people who want no government, but it’s for the people, anyone who wants to be there. Although there supposedly are no laws (I’m not quite sure if that is absolutely true, but the place was introduced to me that way)— but I doubt you can kill someone without repercussions.  I will have to look into that. Denmark would not hesitate to protect it in a dispute. It’s a very beloved place, really, and used to have the top restaurant on the planet, Norma, I think it was called—until the owner Retired a few years ago.  I’m not sure if it isn’t still there. 

This is interesting to dive in and see if this has ever really happened. Maybe in a way, some of those dictators. Muammar Gaddafi didn't purchase Libya like it was a car, but did he own it?  I think it’s debatable. Did Stalin own the USSR?  I would also say yes, personally, when you have the privilege of starving millions of your own people to death  Did he buy it?  No.


----------



## ehbowen (Dec 13, 2021)

I really think that for the practical limits of what can be done to establish near-sovereignty within the territory of the United States (or, basically, any other developed nation), you need to look at Disney again...specifically, the Reedy Creek Improvement District. They basically control all aspects of permitting and development in-house save for elevator inspections (and property taxes, of course) and were exempted from all development laws "existing or hereafter enacted". Nice work if you can get it.

Sovereignty, of course, can be a mixed bag. It's nice to be able to say, "No one can tell me what to do!"...but that also means no one needs to do anything to help you out. Where do you buy groceries? And with what currency? Suppose that 1954 Plymouths are the most modern car left on your island (looking at you, Cuba) after El Colossus del Norte declines to recognize your government...where do you get replacement wheel bearings? Suppose Elon Musk does establish a sovereign and independent Mars Republic...but then finds that he has a cancer which can't be treated at Marsport General Hospital? Two sides to every coin....


----------



## ironpony (Apr 16, 2022)

Actually since Elon Musk just tried to buy twitter, if he wanted more political power, why not just by the US Presidency instead, and pay the democratic party to just leave the Presidency and he takes over and becomes the leader?  Unless a lot of citizens would just not accept him as leader, to the point of a coup?


----------



## CyberWar (Apr 16, 2022)

ironpony said:


> Actually since Elon Musk just tried to buy twitter, if he wanted more political power, why not just by the US Presidency instead, and pay the democratic party to just leave the Presidency and he takes over and becomes the leader?  Unless a lot of citizens would just not accept him as leader, to the point of a coup?


Because that's just not how it works. The law clearly specifies the procedure which must be followed in order to become a president, so if Elon wanted to become President of the United States, he'd be obliged to follow it even if he had bought the unanimous support of both major parties. Attaining that office through any other means would make his presidency legally-invalid, so his only alternatives would be a popular revolution or a military coup - and good luck making those happen in the United States.

Furthermore, business magnates like him prefer to rule from the shadows. There's simply no point for men like Elon to want all the extra hassle that comes with being the president, when they can just sponsor the election campaigns of wannabe presidents in return for promoting their interests during their presidency, and using their influence with the media they own to sway the public opinion and make sure their candidate wins. Furthermore, by staying uninvolved directly, they can also sponsor members from the rival parties as well, so that their interests will be promoted regardless of who is currently in power. Being the president invariably compels you to take sides and puts you under immense public scrutiny at home and abroad - but being one of his biggest sponsors let's you benefit from all of his accomplishments while shielding you from the fallout of his fuck-ups. You get to be on no side but your own, and the next guy will be just as happy to accept your sponsorship in exchange for political favours.


----------



## TerraLiga (Apr 16, 2022)

ironpony said:


> Actually since Elon Musk just tried to buy twitter, if he wanted more political power, why not just by the US Presidency instead, and pay the democratic party to just leave the Presidency and he takes over and becomes the leader?  Unless a lot of citizens would just not accept him as leader, to the point of a coup?


For what purpose? Why would a person want to buy a populated democratic country? (Granted, of the three nations you mentioned in your OP, only one is actually democratic)


----------



## ironpony (Apr 18, 2022)

Oh I am not sure what purpose yet, I was just wondering why rich people never do, for whatever reason they disagreed with the leadership of a nation.


----------



## ironpony (Apr 18, 2022)

CyberWar said:


> Because that's just not how it works. The law clearly specifies the procedure which must be followed in order to become a president, so if Elon wanted to become President of the United States, he'd be obliged to follow it even if he had bought the unanimous support of both major parties. Attaining that office through any other means would make his presidency legally-invalid, so his only alternatives would be a popular revolution or a military coup - and good luck making those happen in the United States.
> 
> Furthermore, business magnates like him prefer to rule from the shadows. There's simply no point for men like Elon to want all the extra hassle that comes with being the president, when they can just sponsor the election campaigns of wannabe presidents in return for promoting their interests during their presidency, and using their influence with the media they own to sway the public opinion and make sure their candidate wins. Furthermore, by staying uninvolved directly, they can also sponsor members from the rival parties as well, so that their interests will be promoted regardless of who is currently in power. Being the president invariably compels you to take sides and puts you under immense public scrutiny at home and abroad - but being one of his biggest sponsors let's you benefit from all of his accomplishments while shielding you from the fallout of his fuck-ups. You get to be on no side but your own, and the next guy will be just as happy to accept your sponsorship in exchange for political favours.


I didn't think that Musk would want to be President himself, it's just that his motivation for wanting to buy twitter was being free speech back to the country.  I just thought it would be more effective if he bought the Presidency instead to do that, but appoint someone of his choosing to be President after, to take care of that, rather than himself.


----------



## TerraLiga (Apr 18, 2022)

I don't think that was his motivation - it's that he sees more potential in Twitter than it is realising itself. Twitter is very much pro free speech, as are most social media platforms. Free speech, however, must not conflict law. Upholding the country's laws is absolutely paramount in a democratic First World country.

It would be really educational for you to find out how politics works in your country (USA I'm guessing) and the process of becoming a president. It is vastly different than here in the UK so I can't offer any wisdom on that process.


----------



## ironpony (Apr 19, 2022)

I can do that for sure.  I am Canadian but I will look into it.  Thanks.


----------



## Megan Pearson (Apr 19, 2022)

ironpony said:


> Like if a the richest man or person in the world hypothetically, wanted to buy a whole country ...


Small ones, sure. Check out your tiny, independent island nations. Some islands belong to larger nations, some don't.



ironpony said:


> ...like the US, Russia, China, etc, could they do it, and make the government, of that country an offer they can't refuse to sell it, ...


Well, small ones. But for a larger nation, they certainly can wield their influence. George Soros does that.



ironpony said:


> and those people would take the money and move to the Carribean, or wherever they want to and leave the rich guy to it?


Well, the rich guy probably wants his workforce in place. I'd be more interested in what form of gov't your rich guy wants to set up.



ironpony said:


> Or is that just not plausible at all, and could never happen plausibly?


It happens. Or, a group of rich guys. (Makes me think of all those oligarchs in charge of Russia right now.)


----------



## PrairieHostage (Apr 19, 2022)

I think the uber wealthy would find a country too much work. Mostly they buy islands and yachts the size of cities.


----------

