The Hottest New Thing in Seasteading Is Land(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
The Hottest New Thing in Seasteading Is Land
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-20/silicon-valley-seasteaders-go-looking-for-low-tax-sites-on-land
272 comments
> “Do I want to create the first venture-backed city-state? Hell yeah”
Ahem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_Indies
And we all know how well that turned out for the locals.
Ahem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_Indies
And we all know how well that turned out for the locals.
I like this game. Let's continue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State
Nope, there's absolutely nothing that could go wrong here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State
Nope, there's absolutely nothing that could go wrong here.
Here's one in the US: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Company
The 90% death rate in the first two years is really impressive.
The 90% death rate in the first two years is really impressive.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21824178
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21824178
[deleted]
It's their plain for the whole planet, basically.
In fact it's what the whole idea of "smashing the state" has been about all along.
In fact it's what the whole idea of "smashing the state" has been about all along.
You would need a private military for that.
You’re in luck! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi
Also, this story is wild: https://theintercept.com/2019/05/03/erik-prince-trump-uae-pr...
Also, this story is wild: https://theintercept.com/2019/05/03/erik-prince-trump-uae-pr...
We’ve seen a bit of this domestically too: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_scrip
Well, I am glad I work in medical devices. Vouchers for stents or pacemakers probably won’t be very attractive.
Scrip is certainly not limited to the products a company produces. In the states it was lumber and mining companies but the stores offered whatever people needed.
This is kind of the worst part- that they lack the historical literacy to recognize that they wouldn't even be the first. And they'll just dive headlong into it.
And in a similar vein John Company taking over India
Why the fear of opt-in competition? Nobody is forcing anyone to move to these places. What they are is an opportunity to try out new governance modes. They might work or they might not. I find the hostility towards people trying new things to be strange and misplaced.
> Why the fear of opt-in competition? Nobody is forcing anyone to move to these places. What they are is an opportunity to try out new governance modes.
It's a governance mode that was heavily used throughout the European colonial period and it resulted in the rape and theft of the local populations and underclasses of all the nations involved. When you put things in the proper historical context, the hostility is rather well-reasoned.
It's a governance mode that was heavily used throughout the European colonial period and it resulted in the rape and theft of the local populations and underclasses of all the nations involved. When you put things in the proper historical context, the hostility is rather well-reasoned.
Since you're talking about proper historical context, it should be mentioned that none of the "nations" you speak of of were nation states in the modern sense. Many of the local populations were experiencing theft from their local warlords or kings or emperors before the Europeans came. Human history is full of people abusing power, it certainly wasn't first introduced by the Europeans, and it isn't unique to colonial style oppression.
Weren't there always native populations involved in these cases? That isn't the case with seasteading. For now you have to assent to the idea and immigrate.
Local populations AND the underclass. It's not like the entire population of the United Kingdom benefited from the largess of the Empire — the benefits accrued to the wealthy and the Monarchy.
What happens when you move there and some local strongman with the most weapons decides he needs slaves? Government exists because the majority of people got tired of being hassled by warlords, and they got banded together to create and enforce laws they could all abide by or one warlord was able to create a stable coalition for a time by taking responsibility for the justice of the land.
Why would anyone in their right mind, other than a warlord-wannabe billionaire, assent to this idea?
What happens when you move there and some local strongman with the most weapons decides he needs slaves? Government exists because the majority of people got tired of being hassled by warlords, and they got banded together to create and enforce laws they could all abide by or one warlord was able to create a stable coalition for a time by taking responsibility for the justice of the land.
Why would anyone in their right mind, other than a warlord-wannabe billionaire, assent to this idea?
> Why would anyone in their right mind, other than a warlord-wannabe billionaire, assent to this idea?
Maybe they won't. You are, in a certain sense, assenting to it right now. Websites have exactly this governance model. Hacker News is run by a king. We all choose to spend time here anyway, because he does a good job responding to our needs.
A lot of things work this way, in fact. When you go to a restaurant, you don't get to vote on the menu. You order what's there, but you choose which restaurants you patronize. There is no, in principle, reason that the same cannot be applied to where you choose to live.
The primary difference is the transaction costs of relocation and the cost of mistakes. It's easy to go to a different restaurant if you don't like the menu. It's less easy to move. But some people are willing to make that tradeoff for more efficient governance.
Maybe they won't. You are, in a certain sense, assenting to it right now. Websites have exactly this governance model. Hacker News is run by a king. We all choose to spend time here anyway, because he does a good job responding to our needs.
A lot of things work this way, in fact. When you go to a restaurant, you don't get to vote on the menu. You order what's there, but you choose which restaurants you patronize. There is no, in principle, reason that the same cannot be applied to where you choose to live.
The primary difference is the transaction costs of relocation and the cost of mistakes. It's easy to go to a different restaurant if you don't like the menu. It's less easy to move. But some people are willing to make that tradeoff for more efficient governance.
>We all choose to spend time here anyway, because he does a good job responding to our needs.
>A lot of things work this way, in fact. When you go to a restaurant, you don't get to vote on the menu. You order what's there.
The problem isn't that someone else might choose something for you. That's not what anyone is worried about here. An incredibly silly comparison.
The environment they are trying to set up makes them unaccountable and undemocratic, capable of entrapping and exploiting people to no end. The potential actual consequences are infinitely greater than condiment selection.
>A lot of things work this way, in fact. When you go to a restaurant, you don't get to vote on the menu. You order what's there.
The problem isn't that someone else might choose something for you. That's not what anyone is worried about here. An incredibly silly comparison.
The environment they are trying to set up makes them unaccountable and undemocratic, capable of entrapping and exploiting people to no end. The potential actual consequences are infinitely greater than condiment selection.
> The environment they are trying to set up makes them unaccountable and undemocratic, capable of entrapping and exploiting people to no end.
This is the environment, as it exists, for hundreds of millions around the world right now. So even if your critiques are true, we're no worse for trying.
This is the environment, as it exists, for hundreds of millions around the world right now. So even if your critiques are true, we're no worse for trying.
Surely investing in and supporting putting even more people in such a position, rather than helping those already in it, is obviously worse?
> The problem isn't that someone else might choose something for you. That's not what anyone is worried about here. An incredibly silly comparison.
> The environment they are trying to set up makes them unaccountable and undemocratic, capable of entrapping and exploiting people to no end. The potential actual consequences are infinitely greater than condiment selection.
Explain to me what you think the difference between "undemocratic" and "people choosing things for you" is.
> The environment they are trying to set up makes them unaccountable and undemocratic, capable of entrapping and exploiting people to no end. The potential actual consequences are infinitely greater than condiment selection.
Explain to me what you think the difference between "undemocratic" and "people choosing things for you" is.
I promise I will do that for you if you tell me you are having trouble differentiating between an organization physically capturing you and locking you in a box, versus an organization deciding which brand of mayonnaise they will bring to your table.
It seems to me that the primary difference is your ability to reverse course once you have relocated if you aren't the guy at the absolute top. Rather, it's not the switching cost going in, so much as the switching cost going out - it's the same problem you'd face joining Scientology.
The original question I responded to is "why the fear of opt-in competition to the current model of governance?"
The answer is that meaning of "efficient" can vary widely depending on who wields power. At our current evolutionary state communalism works up to about 150 people. Beyond that, you need a higher level of government, and historically that means some form of authoritarian government. Since this idea is being proposed by tech-funded billionaires, I can apply a filter to history to glean some insight as to what happens when a group of wealthy sociopaths are given absolute rule over a state. Since I value popularly elected, republican forms of government and free markets empowered by organized labor, I would naturally oppose an experiment that will very obviously lead to more autocracy, servitude, and exploitation by billionaires seeking to bestow feudal fiefs on themselves.
The original question I responded to is "why the fear of opt-in competition to the current model of governance?"
The answer is that meaning of "efficient" can vary widely depending on who wields power. At our current evolutionary state communalism works up to about 150 people. Beyond that, you need a higher level of government, and historically that means some form of authoritarian government. Since this idea is being proposed by tech-funded billionaires, I can apply a filter to history to glean some insight as to what happens when a group of wealthy sociopaths are given absolute rule over a state. Since I value popularly elected, republican forms of government and free markets empowered by organized labor, I would naturally oppose an experiment that will very obviously lead to more autocracy, servitude, and exploitation by billionaires seeking to bestow feudal fiefs on themselves.
> It seems to me that the primary difference is your ability to reverse course once you have relocated if you aren't the guy at the absolute top. Rather, it's not the switching cost going in, so much as the switching cost going out - it's the same problem you'd face joining Scientology.
Yes, indeed. That is the essential question for Patchwork-based ideologies. However, that is something they actively try to think about
> The answer is that meaning of "efficient" can vary widely depending on who wields power. At our current evolutionary state communalism works up to about 150 people. Beyond that, you need a higher level of government, and historically that means some form of authoritarian government. Since this idea is being proposed by tech-funded billionaires, I can apply a filter to history to glean some insight as to what happens when a group of wealthy sociopaths are given absolute rule over a state. Since I value popularly elected, republican forms of government and free markets empowered by organized labor, I would naturally oppose an experiment that will very obviously lead to more autocracy, servitude, and exploitation by billionaires seeking to bestow feudal fiefs on themselves.
Ok, but how exactly does an experiment lead to that? If that is the outcome that it generates, and people do not prefer that outcome, then they simply will not move there. So, if you are correct in your diagnosis, you have absolutely nothing to worry about. The only thing you do have to worry about is discovering that your preconceptions were not accurate.
Yes, indeed. That is the essential question for Patchwork-based ideologies. However, that is something they actively try to think about
> The answer is that meaning of "efficient" can vary widely depending on who wields power. At our current evolutionary state communalism works up to about 150 people. Beyond that, you need a higher level of government, and historically that means some form of authoritarian government. Since this idea is being proposed by tech-funded billionaires, I can apply a filter to history to glean some insight as to what happens when a group of wealthy sociopaths are given absolute rule over a state. Since I value popularly elected, republican forms of government and free markets empowered by organized labor, I would naturally oppose an experiment that will very obviously lead to more autocracy, servitude, and exploitation by billionaires seeking to bestow feudal fiefs on themselves.
Ok, but how exactly does an experiment lead to that? If that is the outcome that it generates, and people do not prefer that outcome, then they simply will not move there. So, if you are correct in your diagnosis, you have absolutely nothing to worry about. The only thing you do have to worry about is discovering that your preconceptions were not accurate.
Look into the slave labor situation in the Middle East for an example of how people are lured into a voluntary working situation that quickly becomes slavery. Desperate people make poor choices mostly because of information asymmetry.
In addition, the eventual children of the people who moved there won't have made this choice, and the example of history says they won't easily be able to leave.
In addition, the eventual children of the people who moved there won't have made this choice, and the example of history says they won't easily be able to leave.
[deleted]
> For now you have to assent to the idea and immigrate.
Unless you're a victim of human trafficking. Or, for example, read up on how scientologists use their cruise ship [1].
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/03/world/scientology-cruise-ship...
Unless you're a victim of human trafficking. Or, for example, read up on how scientologists use their cruise ship [1].
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/03/world/scientology-cruise-ship...
So...your concern is that seasteading will promote human trafficking?
I'm saying it's a risk, and directly responding to the notion that "for now" emigration is at-will.
Human trafficking is a risk in any scenario, though. It's unclear why that's a salient issue here.
It's salient because seasteads are relatively lawless and, like Alcatraz or a cruise ship, difficult to flee without assistance.
I'm glad you brought up cruise ships because, as you say, they are difficult to flee, and they have indeed been embroiled in human trafficking. Few people think that this means that cruise ships are inherently a bad idea; it just means that they should be done well. Why do you think seasteading can't be done well?
The same could be said of any governance model, including democracy, tyranny, monarchy etc.
Perhaps the problem is humans, not a particular system of government.
Perhaps the problem is humans, not a particular system of government.
ReallY?
Can you list a few historical cities founded under a similar model that had the awful results you claim?
Can you list a few historical cities founded under a similar model that had the awful results you claim?
yea damned humans will rape the mermaids
One would assume that on a site like Hacker News, there would be more imagination and enthusiasm for innovation.
Perhaps it's mostly selection bias on articles like this one that brings out the comments we see around us?
Perhaps it's mostly selection bias on articles like this one that brings out the comments we see around us?
Over the last two decades, HN (and hacker culture in general) has shifted from a creator-oriented, anti-authoritarian (both left and right) culture to one supporting the establishment. I suppose that was inevitable - someone has to build the tools of surveillance capitalism at Google and Facebook.
HN still has a general pro-civil liberties, anti-surveillance tech vibe. Snowden was praised here, Palantir denounced. In this past year this stance has led to a rise of anti-China posts. But I'd also characterize HN as getting increasingly more skeptical of libertarian/classical liberal/neoliberal economics as well, and so would have a dim view of utopian seasteading libertarians.
This, so much.
Would you describe YCombinator as part of 'the establishment'?
In my recollection, HN has always been pro-YC and pro-venture-capital-in-general, for obvious reasons :)
In my recollection, HN has always been pro-YC and pro-venture-capital-in-general, for obvious reasons :)
Eh, I wasn't really referring to venture capital in particular, more the general philosophy. For example, here is an essay on the word "hacker":
Those in authority tend to be annoyed by hackers' general attitude of disobedience. But that disobedience is a byproduct of the qualities that make them good programmers. They may laugh at the CEO when he talks in generic corporate newspeech, but they also laugh at someone who tells them a certain problem can't be solved. Suppress one, and you suppress the other.
http://www.paulgraham.com/gba.html
This sort of attitude is definitely not the one held by most coders at BigStartupCo today.
Those in authority tend to be annoyed by hackers' general attitude of disobedience. But that disobedience is a byproduct of the qualities that make them good programmers. They may laugh at the CEO when he talks in generic corporate newspeech, but they also laugh at someone who tells them a certain problem can't be solved. Suppress one, and you suppress the other.
http://www.paulgraham.com/gba.html
This sort of attitude is definitely not the one held by most coders at BigStartupCo today.
Personally I would say HN never had the anti-authoritarian/punk/anarchist ethos of 1990s cypherpunks, rather than having had it once and lost it.
HN culture has always seen multinational companies like Amazon as something to aspire to become, billionaire investors as heroic risk-taker allies, and lauded small companies that get brought out and shut down for achieving an exit.
There's nothing wrong with that, HN's culture is still perfectly valid. But HN hasn't lost an anti-authority ethos, it never had one, from the moment the URL ended with ycombinator.com
HN culture has always seen multinational companies like Amazon as something to aspire to become, billionaire investors as heroic risk-taker allies, and lauded small companies that get brought out and shut down for achieving an exit.
There's nothing wrong with that, HN's culture is still perfectly valid. But HN hasn't lost an anti-authority ethos, it never had one, from the moment the URL ended with ycombinator.com
It's because those who are invested in seasteading tend to have libertarian, if not outright objectivist or anarchy-capitalist ideals, and thus their commitment to free enterprise at the expense of other values are seen as suspect, or at least are accused of behaving as such.
How are neocolonial company towns based on British common law a new form of governance?
I'd love to actively prevent people from moving to these places because it'll continue offshoring domestic wealth into tax havens.
Honestly, this is the huge problem of our time - globalization has happened and the concepts of tax laws and taxation of value production haven't properly adapted. The US should be taxing all the value legitimately made in the US - if a designer in the US makes something that is then mass produced in China the value taxes currently only comprehend the physical good value, not the intellectual value of the good - for things like fashionable clothing nearly all of the value is created domestically and the actual material value is inconsequential.
Over time the ability to dodge taxes in this manner has placed unfair downward pressure on countries to lower taxes in an effort to attract the revenue that can be freely moved around and hence we've got spiraling wealth inequality due to insufficient taxation.
People opting out of taxation while reaping the benefit of educated populations (or their personal education) along with security and the laundry list of the benefits of society is simply ethically unacceptable.
Honestly, this is the huge problem of our time - globalization has happened and the concepts of tax laws and taxation of value production haven't properly adapted. The US should be taxing all the value legitimately made in the US - if a designer in the US makes something that is then mass produced in China the value taxes currently only comprehend the physical good value, not the intellectual value of the good - for things like fashionable clothing nearly all of the value is created domestically and the actual material value is inconsequential.
Over time the ability to dodge taxes in this manner has placed unfair downward pressure on countries to lower taxes in an effort to attract the revenue that can be freely moved around and hence we've got spiraling wealth inequality due to insufficient taxation.
People opting out of taxation while reaping the benefit of educated populations (or their personal education) along with security and the laundry list of the benefits of society is simply ethically unacceptable.
There is no shortage of tax havens. Anyone who wants one will just move to the Bahamas. They already do, as you point out. Charter cities are thus totally orthogonal to this (despite the article's misleading implications).
The point is to improve life for the 99% of the world who can't just move to a tax haven, by building prosperous cities they can move to. This is not just a theory - China lifted 500,000,000 out of poverty using Special Economic Zones to transform their economy over decades. Many countries aspire to the same advance in prosperity for their people.
The point is to improve life for the 99% of the world who can't just move to a tax haven, by building prosperous cities they can move to. This is not just a theory - China lifted 500,000,000 out of poverty using Special Economic Zones to transform their economy over decades. Many countries aspire to the same advance in prosperity for their people.
As much as I like embracing the statement "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" I think we really need to solve tax havens before we can make more places that can serve as them.
The simple solution to me is that a country offers good value for the taxes people pay to it.
Then people and their taxable assets will gladly stay.
Then people and their taxable assets will gladly stay.
The problem is once you have the kind of money where tax havens become a priority, you no longer need anything the government might be able to provide. And then the game just becomes collecting as much money as you can and preventing that money from flowing through the economy by shuttling it out of the country.
The “good value” should hopefully be a well functioning nation full of healthy and happy people. Unfortunately that’s not the goal of most people with that kind of money.
The “good value” should hopefully be a well functioning nation full of healthy and happy people. Unfortunately that’s not the goal of most people with that kind of money.
This - although easier said than done in a liberal democracy.
Solve them internally in your own country instead of the near-impossible task of trying to bend the whole world to accommodate your interests.
Actually, I emigrated - I now live in a country with more rigid tax laws and left the US behind. This is somewhat of a salve, but we live in a post-globalization world, cleaning up your backyard doesn't mean anything if your neighbor's sewage is leaking under the fence.
Huge tax loopholes being accepted by central world players like the US puts pressure on smaller countries to accept them as well.
Huge tax loopholes being accepted by central world players like the US puts pressure on smaller countries to accept them as well.
> "nearly all of the value is created domestically and the actual material value is inconsequential."
Only because the laborers are being horrendously underpaid, no? If globalization had really fully happened you wouldn't be able to pay people in china slave labor wages to make your clothes for you.
Only because the laborers are being horrendously underpaid, no? If globalization had really fully happened you wouldn't be able to pay people in china slave labor wages to make your clothes for you.
In the US that labor is so extremely unvalued that it's almost always automated - other countries have such intensely undervalued labour that it can actually compete with automation.
And yea, I think we do have some twisted and perverse version of globalization - rather than bringing the world up we seem to be perpetually exploiting the third world... eventually that might piss of the third world enough that they do something about that but it hasn't happened yet.
And yea, I think we do have some twisted and perverse version of globalization - rather than bringing the world up we seem to be perpetually exploiting the third world... eventually that might piss of the third world enough that they do something about that but it hasn't happened yet.
This isn't true. As time goes on, places that were non-developed become more developed. China's already started to outsource its production because people there expect higher wages than they did 10 years ago.
It's a gradient from country to country. Overall, for individuals in absolute terms, things are getting better- although for certain subpopulations in relative terms (e.g. blue collar americans) they've gotten worse.
It's a gradient from country to country. Overall, for individuals in absolute terms, things are getting better- although for certain subpopulations in relative terms (e.g. blue collar americans) they've gotten worse.
This is happening one country at a time. It happened to South Korea and a lesser extent Japan. It’s happening in India and China.
We still have centuries of third world countries to exploit until they are fully developed.
We still have centuries of third world countries to exploit until they are fully developed.
They're scared it might succeed.
Just stay in Manchester or whatever, and pay your god damned taxes to the king. Moving to the New World is bleak, bleak stuff.
Just stay on Earth or whatever, and fix your god damned environment. Settling the Solar System - how dare you? Tell me one of those space ships won't get hit by an asteroid.
I mean, heck, the idea of doing a startup of any kind is dangerously transgressive. If you make new things, something bad might happen! And existing companies might lose customers! There will be change! Chaos! Mayhem!
Or - crazy idea here - perhaps we could have the courage to not let the plot of a video game limit our social innovation?
Or, if that's the only metric you have, at least pick the right game - SimCity!
Just stay on Earth or whatever, and fix your god damned environment. Settling the Solar System - how dare you? Tell me one of those space ships won't get hit by an asteroid.
I mean, heck, the idea of doing a startup of any kind is dangerously transgressive. If you make new things, something bad might happen! And existing companies might lose customers! There will be change! Chaos! Mayhem!
Or - crazy idea here - perhaps we could have the courage to not let the plot of a video game limit our social innovation?
Or, if that's the only metric you have, at least pick the right game - SimCity!
The New World was a bleak dystopia for a few hundred years. Preserving the Earth is a better option than colonising other planets, although less sexy.
> The New World was a bleak dystopia for a few hundred years
That's a bit of an overstatement. I expect if that were true, people wouldn't have kept on coming.
That's a bit of an overstatement. I expect if that were true, people wouldn't have kept on coming.
You're disregarding the extremely large number of people who were more or less forced to travel to the new world. Add up the slaves taken there, people sentenced to be sent there for crimes, people who had to leave their home country or starve and people who had to leave their home country or be murdered and you start to get a pretty large number.
Exactly. A large chunk of the population was forced to American against their will, and a large chunk of the people who chose to go to America only survived because of the labor of the people who were forced to be there. Claiming success on the back of slave labor isn’t something that’s super popular these days.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> That's a bit of an overstatement.
After reading few books from the period and later ones by Nathaniel Hawthorne, I don't think so.
> I expect if that were true, people wouldn't have kept on coming.
The people coming could have incomplete or incorrect information. Communication was slow back then. Separating fact from falsehoods about the New World would have been a crapshoot at best.
Even an entirely country got it wrong. Scotland bankrupted itself on the Darien scheme.
After reading few books from the period and later ones by Nathaniel Hawthorne, I don't think so.
> I expect if that were true, people wouldn't have kept on coming.
The people coming could have incomplete or incorrect information. Communication was slow back then. Separating fact from falsehoods about the New World would have been a crapshoot at best.
Even an entirely country got it wrong. Scotland bankrupted itself on the Darien scheme.
[deleted]
The bulk of immigration to the New World happened after the first 2-3 centuries, before that, the plurality were chattel slaves.
That’s of course ignoring the post apocalyptic lives of the natives that survived successive waves of disease and collapse radiating out from points of contact, but it’s habit at this point.
That’s of course ignoring the post apocalyptic lives of the natives that survived successive waves of disease and collapse radiating out from points of contact, but it’s habit at this point.
We can do both.
Colonising other planets is a lousy idea; at the very best you could at massive expense colonise Mars, but it would be (a) almost certainly worse than Earth and (b) only s doubling of our resources.
Orbital habitats, formed by disassembling the moon, on the other hand, can give us vastly more habitable area than available on Earth, and the environment can be engineered to be better than Earth ever was.
Recently I’ve become convo bed that other planets don’t have much of a role to play in our future except as a source of raw materials.
Orbital habitats, formed by disassembling the moon, on the other hand, can give us vastly more habitable area than available on Earth, and the environment can be engineered to be better than Earth ever was.
Recently I’ve become convo bed that other planets don’t have much of a role to play in our future except as a source of raw materials.
That exact argument could be made against disaster recovery data centers. Why bother building a new data center and buying two servers when you could just have one and save tons of money?
There's no place in the solar system that's remotely as habitable as Earth, even if the latter suffers a massive disaster.
Space exploration is more like Amazon spending $100B to build a hut with 10 Arduinos on the summit of Mt. Everest.
Space exploration is more like Amazon spending $100B to build a hut with 10 Arduinos on the summit of Mt. Everest.
The argument isn't that we shouldn't colonize other planets because it's expensive, it's that we shouldn't colonize other planets because it's Pareto inferior to making orbital habitats.
> Moving to the New World is bleak, bleak stuff.
I mean... yeah? There was famine and then genocide, then slavery?
I mean... yeah? There was famine and then genocide, then slavery?
>>is bleak, bleak stuff
Is the movement so narcissistic that the very existence of the people already living there is not even noticed? Is this hypothetical country a place where you ruthlessly steal from the original people to make a state where private property is the only right? Because "bleak" is the exact word that describes the lives of the millions of people who don't even show up on libertarian radar.
And "hypothetical"is the right word because there were taxes and regulation form America's earliest beginnings. And, fortunately, it protected more rights than just property. Indeed, the founding fathers intentionally _removed_ the word "property" from the original phrase "life liberty and the pursuit of property"
If there are any analogies to North America, it would either be the Puritans who had shockingly strict ideological requirements on their members or plantation owners who lived by laws completely different than their slaves. Because we know these libertarian colonists are not going to be building their own log cabins or personally work "their" land. Startups are those bootstrapped farms and self built log cabins. Likewise space exploration. But colonialism, when it isn't simply theft, is rent seeking and always at best zero-sum-gain.
>not let the plot of a video game limit our social innovation
"Bioshock" is apparently a necessary comparison because its plot is clearly more accurately known North American history evidently.
Is the movement so narcissistic that the very existence of the people already living there is not even noticed? Is this hypothetical country a place where you ruthlessly steal from the original people to make a state where private property is the only right? Because "bleak" is the exact word that describes the lives of the millions of people who don't even show up on libertarian radar.
And "hypothetical"is the right word because there were taxes and regulation form America's earliest beginnings. And, fortunately, it protected more rights than just property. Indeed, the founding fathers intentionally _removed_ the word "property" from the original phrase "life liberty and the pursuit of property"
If there are any analogies to North America, it would either be the Puritans who had shockingly strict ideological requirements on their members or plantation owners who lived by laws completely different than their slaves. Because we know these libertarian colonists are not going to be building their own log cabins or personally work "their" land. Startups are those bootstrapped farms and self built log cabins. Likewise space exploration. But colonialism, when it isn't simply theft, is rent seeking and always at best zero-sum-gain.
>not let the plot of a video game limit our social innovation
"Bioshock" is apparently a necessary comparison because its plot is clearly more accurately known North American history evidently.
Well let’s not forget “moving to the new world” also meant they process subjectifying the people whose land it was, in order to take it.
I don't see humanity doing anything but descending into self-destruction. I'm sure tax-haven offshore city states will prove once again that humans, taken as a whole, are craven ruthless creatures. It's the reason we are the dominate species on this planet.
Or maybe we are the dominant species because we cooperate so well. :)
Startups aren't remotely transgressive. They're heavily promoted, financed and supported by virtually every state government and have been for decades (centuries if you count the startups behind colonial enterprises).
Settling the solarsystem would be neat. It won't do anything to fix climate changes or overpopulation. It's not even possible in principle, let alone practice to remove significant quantities of people from the gravity well.
Creating lawless zones for the specific purpose of fiefdom isn't new, entrepreneurial or even particularly imaginative. Unless you count the villains of Connery era James Bond as novel entrepreneurs.
Just where do you think these marvelously useful, livable but mysteriously uninhabited "vacant tracts of land in developing countries" will come from.
Settling the solarsystem would be neat. It won't do anything to fix climate changes or overpopulation. It's not even possible in principle, let alone practice to remove significant quantities of people from the gravity well.
Creating lawless zones for the specific purpose of fiefdom isn't new, entrepreneurial or even particularly imaginative. Unless you count the villains of Connery era James Bond as novel entrepreneurs.
Just where do you think these marvelously useful, livable but mysteriously uninhabited "vacant tracts of land in developing countries" will come from.
Charter cities are, like startups, heavily supported by the partner nation. The models are Dubai & Shenzhen. Instead of being completely funded and operated by the state, the new generation of cities will be public-private partnerships between developers and nations.
A small, incremental degree of privatization. I have no idea where you get "lawless" or "fiefdom". These zones are requested, authorized, regulated, and monitored by a nation. Do you think the 3,000 SEZs in the world are lawless fiefdoms?
This is strangely hyperbolic language for what's basically a new kind of free trade zone. Would make a good movie plot, though, you've got a grand imagination!
A small, incremental degree of privatization. I have no idea where you get "lawless" or "fiefdom". These zones are requested, authorized, regulated, and monitored by a nation. Do you think the 3,000 SEZs in the world are lawless fiefdoms?
This is strangely hyperbolic language for what's basically a new kind of free trade zone. Would make a good movie plot, though, you've got a grand imagination!
> This is bleak, bleak stuff.
There have been a number of low tax, rule of law city states like Hong Kong and Singapore that did rather well and provided a refuge for many Chinese when China was going a bit nuts under Mao and the like. It's not all bleak.
There have been a number of low tax, rule of law city states like Hong Kong and Singapore that did rather well and provided a refuge for many Chinese when China was going a bit nuts under Mao and the like. It's not all bleak.
I don't know if Singapore counts - it's a fascist dictatorship.
Didn't seem very fascist when I was there. The Economist Intelligence Unit has it as a 'flawed democracy', the same category as the US. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index)
The Democracy Index rankings are non-transparent measures by a less than objective organization that places significant weight on a country's openness to multinational corporations.
Singapore specifically is an example people use to illustrate the inherent flaws of the Democracy Index rating system. This is a country with low press freedom, one ruling party that sues the opposition into bankruptcy for "defamation" to prevent any loss of power, and oh, they execute people for carrying drugs.
Singapore specifically is an example people use to illustrate the inherent flaws of the Democracy Index rating system. This is a country with low press freedom, one ruling party that sues the opposition into bankruptcy for "defamation" to prevent any loss of power, and oh, they execute people for carrying drugs.
The extent to which their political and economic system is influenced by fascism may be up for debate, but given that they've not conducted any genocide or imperialism, the charge doesn't hold the gravity that you intend.
Let me just remind everybody that Bioshock is a computer game, its plot is fiction, and it constitutes no evidence whatsoever tht a real-life scenario that start the same way would end the same way.
Sure, it is obvious when spelt out, but it is less obvious when it is a game of implications.
Sure, it is obvious when spelt out, but it is less obvious when it is a game of implications.
Agreed. It’s become a bit ridiculous when “but the game/movie/Netflix series showed that it can’t work” becomes an argument that is taken seriously.
Plenty of people defer to social parables like Atlas Shrugged or Animal Farm.
Isn't this how most other civilizations lived in Europe, Africa, and the Americas, as small city states, until the recent entry (in the west) of eastern style nation states?
> won't get hit by some speedboat pirates and decide OK, we're gonna arm up
No. What will happen is that the authorities will arrest the pirates, or whoever.
All of this is being done within the bounds of the law. So I am not sure why people are bringing up ridiculous hypotheticals.
Special economic zones are not a new thing. And they have worked out fine in many places.
No. What will happen is that the authorities will arrest the pirates, or whoever.
All of this is being done within the bounds of the law. So I am not sure why people are bringing up ridiculous hypotheticals.
Special economic zones are not a new thing. And they have worked out fine in many places.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
What’s bleak about consensual human experiments? The volunteers who sign up are doing a great service for all mankind. There is so much to learn.
OK now Sea Citizen, you haven't been hitting your production targets... This is the third month you've failed to qualify for the monthly "bonus" scrip. After rent and commissary, I'm afraid that puts you in the red. And I don't have to tell you what that means.
There aren't any open positions higher up, and you aren't exactly a top performer. The only way I see you digging out of this is signing up for the Human Initiative Project. A couple injections a week, plus your regular salary, and you'll have more than enough scrip.
Don't believe the rumors, you'll be just fine.
There aren't any open positions higher up, and you aren't exactly a top performer. The only way I see you digging out of this is signing up for the Human Initiative Project. A couple injections a week, plus your regular salary, and you'll have more than enough scrip.
Don't believe the rumors, you'll be just fine.
One of the stated goals of the project is to create employment in undeveloped regions. The plight of the unemployed in the 3rd world has never been cake and candy. Unemployed people struggle even in developed countries.
Another interesting contrast to your hypothetical is that in the US people are free to volunteer for paid clinical trials. Yet somehow you imagine the proposed alternative to be entirely malicious...
https://clinicalcenter.nih.gov/recruit/volunteers.html
Another interesting contrast to your hypothetical is that in the US people are free to volunteer for paid clinical trials. Yet somehow you imagine the proposed alternative to be entirely malicious...
https://clinicalcenter.nih.gov/recruit/volunteers.html
Leaving aside the issues with exploitation inherent in using power imbalance to experiment on the poor the OP is talking about a situation where you are “voluntold” and have not volunteered.
As opposed to the power differential between a federally funded, government operated research facility and poor US citizens? Would be nice if the OP could cite where residents of the special economic zone will be coerced.
Pretty sure the whole point of all of this is that it is voluntary.
People are free to leave, if they don't like living in the special economic zone.
People are free to leave, if they don't like living in the special economic zone.
Unless they're paid in scrip, which you know they would be
Special economic zones exist in all parts of the world.
And people are able to freely leave them, lol.
And people are able to freely leave them, lol.
Special economic zones like the UAE?
There are all sorts of special economic zones which are not some made up fantasy land that you read in a book.
This one would be literally run by the UK. I don't think the modern day UK is going to be holding people against their will, in their country. People are able to freely leave the UK, whenever they want.
This one would be literally run by the UK. I don't think the modern day UK is going to be holding people against their will, in their country. People are able to freely leave the UK, whenever they want.
You can’t have anything really consensual if there is a big power differential and the party with more power is willing to use it and allowed to do so. We have seen multiple times in history that this leads to slavery, servitude or other forms of exploitation.
I’ll start with this one...
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2917810/elephant-man-drug-test...
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2917810/elephant-man-drug-test...
I find it interesting that a site who's stated mission is "promotion of intellectual curiosity", consistently lacks curiosity about ideas which question the primacy of the state.
In this case, because 'video games'. Perhaps if readers had more curiosity they might be interested to investigate the topic of voluntarism, free-association and economic theory. This is not to say that there is no room to disagree with the aforementioned ideas.
However, I feel disappointed that the most prominent comment here forgoes literacy and logic in lieu of hyperbole while citing the plot of a video game.
Intellectual curiosity indeed.
In this case, because 'video games'. Perhaps if readers had more curiosity they might be interested to investigate the topic of voluntarism, free-association and economic theory. This is not to say that there is no room to disagree with the aforementioned ideas.
However, I feel disappointed that the most prominent comment here forgoes literacy and logic in lieu of hyperbole while citing the plot of a video game.
Intellectual curiosity indeed.
I don't know if they will ever succeed or not, but it sure is heart-warming to see people still pushing these ideas and trying to get something going. Competition is Good Thing and if we can come up with something better than nation-states, then we should. Personally I encourage these guys to keep experimenting, keep iterating, and keep pushing to break the mold.
Maybe "government" as we know it today is a just a "fashionable solution" - to riff on pg's earlier essay.
Maybe "government" as we know it today is a just a "fashionable solution" - to riff on pg's earlier essay.
It really does sound like a bunch of wealthy folks (and I don't mean your-town's-surgeon wealthy, I mean billionaire-class-wealthy) want to further remove themselves from laws that govern everybody else. Imagine this - a group of super wealthy bound by no laws of any nation but benefiting from them all. Terrifying.
A city of all billionaires sounds like a very small city.
Also, hiring for service jobs might be hard :)
Also, hiring for service jobs might be hard :)
Why hire? There's no law against kidnapping or slavery on a seastead.
Because the UN will get on you. While this isn't an issue for some random warlord in Africa if you're a tiny island who still wants to operate within the world you're still fucked.
The UN doesn't have an army
No, but it's members do.
And some of those members aren't afraid of using them, or their Navys, or Air Forces...
And some of those members aren't afraid of using them, or their Navys, or Air Forces...
You're not wrong, but consider that there are plenty of atrocities, including slavery, happening right now around the world.
Happening in sovereign nations, not on floating platforms in international waters [1].
Items of interest:
Article 88: Reservation of the high seas for peaceful purposes
Article 98: Duty to render assistance
Article 99: Prohibition of the transport of slaves
Article 100: Duty to cooperate in the repression of piracy
Article 101: Definition of piracy
Article 103: Definition of a pirate ship or aircraft
Article 105: Seizure of a pirate ship or aircraft
The law is very clear on the authority of warships to intervene.
[1]https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unc...
Items of interest:
Article 88: Reservation of the high seas for peaceful purposes
Article 98: Duty to render assistance
Article 99: Prohibition of the transport of slaves
Article 100: Duty to cooperate in the repression of piracy
Article 101: Definition of piracy
Article 103: Definition of a pirate ship or aircraft
Article 105: Seizure of a pirate ship or aircraft
The law is very clear on the authority of warships to intervene.
[1]https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unc...
The US military is the de facto UN Army.
Will the billionaires themselves do the kidnapping/enslaving?
If it's done by henchmen, we're no longer in the "billionaires only" city state that I'm making fun of.
If it's done by henchmen, we're no longer in the "billionaires only" city state that I'm making fun of.
On the contrary, just pay them a few hundred thousand/year.
[deleted]
They'd only be enabled by others whether that be robots or mercenaries/servants. Monetary wealth is a human construct given form by belief. They're still subject to the physical laws of reality.
It sounds something like Little Saint James, U.S. Virgin Islands, but worse. It probably isn't as awful as Jonestown, but the potential is there.
> Imagine this - a group of super wealthy bound by no laws of any nation but benefiting from them all. Terrifying.
Not really. There is this one interesting thing called the US Military. If necessary, anyone deemed enough of a threat can either be droned, or black-bagged by Seal Team 6.
Not really. There is this one interesting thing called the US Military. If necessary, anyone deemed enough of a threat can either be droned, or black-bagged by Seal Team 6.
That's not really possible. Once they start pissing off other countries they will lose their access to deal with them and "benefit from them".
Why would they piss off the decision makers in our countries when they can buy their loyalty?
Except, it doesn't have to work like this. If a nation is being exploited via loopholes of some sort, she has the freedom to close those loopholes. An increase in small personal nations would necessitate a change in policy (mostly around taxes), but would not be disastrous.
Aside from taxes, most other laws exist to prevent one harming another. If someone goes to an island in the ocean, why ought we to care what he does there? To put it differently: many cities have regulations against shooting off fireworks due to safety concerns. Few rural counties do, because while people can still harm themselves, there aren't too many others nearby to injure.
Aside from taxes, most other laws exist to prevent one harming another. If someone goes to an island in the ocean, why ought we to care what he does there? To put it differently: many cities have regulations against shooting off fireworks due to safety concerns. Few rural counties do, because while people can still harm themselves, there aren't too many others nearby to injure.
>many cities have regulations against shooting off fireworks due to safety concerns. Few rural counties do, because while people can still harm themselves, there aren't too many others nearby to injure.
Many rural counties have them as well. In fact entire states have rules against fireworks.
Outside of places where wildfires are likely, firework ordinances are often there to prevent the people who are shooting the fireworks from hurting themselves.
>If someone goes to an island in the ocean, why ought we to care what he does there?
In an extreme case lets say a billionaire starts his own island nation, convinces people to move there to work for him, and eventually enslaves his workers and their children. This isn't an unlikely scenario--look at guest workers from SE Asia in the Middle East. What starts off as voluntary can quickly become involuntary.
We have enough powerful people in the world with no checks on their authority. We don't need to create more.
From a more practical concern, what's the upside to existing countries? The new island nation will only admit productive people, and will likely try to ship unproductive people back to their country of origin.
Many rural counties have them as well. In fact entire states have rules against fireworks.
Outside of places where wildfires are likely, firework ordinances are often there to prevent the people who are shooting the fireworks from hurting themselves.
>If someone goes to an island in the ocean, why ought we to care what he does there?
In an extreme case lets say a billionaire starts his own island nation, convinces people to move there to work for him, and eventually enslaves his workers and their children. This isn't an unlikely scenario--look at guest workers from SE Asia in the Middle East. What starts off as voluntary can quickly become involuntary.
We have enough powerful people in the world with no checks on their authority. We don't need to create more.
From a more practical concern, what's the upside to existing countries? The new island nation will only admit productive people, and will likely try to ship unproductive people back to their country of origin.
[deleted]
What stops Russia or China to send their troops there?
Nothing unless it's close to somewhere strategically important to the US. But I'm not sure I see your point.
They want independence from the US, but they won't survive in open waters without the US warships. Otherwise, if this island has any value at all, it'll attract Mexican cartels or Russian mafia or whatever else is floating in the international waters these days.
A billionaire with no regulations could probably afford to hire enough protection to guard against anything but an attack by a state actor.
In any case, that's yet another reason we shouldn't allow American citizens to set up their own private countries.
In any case, that's yet another reason we shouldn't allow American citizens to set up their own private countries.
I'm sure these guys' will have an idea of 'competition' that involves a suspicious amount of interaction with the economies of the "nation-states" that they are supposedly bettering (only without all that inconvenient 'taxing' and 'regulation'). It'd be rather a different vibe if they were talking about genuinely starting from scratch somewhere, somehow, but this almost certainly isn't the draw.
"Slytherin sweatshirt"
"sipping well water at his mountaintop compound south of San Jose"
"He also says, with a straight face, "
Next up they're going to say lex luthor bald head and evil villain laugh.
----
The principle has been done before. It's similar to free trade economic zones in other countries, shenzen is one example, or reproducing something like HK or Singapore in other areas of the world.
"sipping well water at his mountaintop compound south of San Jose"
"He also says, with a straight face, "
Next up they're going to say lex luthor bald head and evil villain laugh.
----
The principle has been done before. It's similar to free trade economic zones in other countries, shenzen is one example, or reproducing something like HK or Singapore in other areas of the world.
So because it's been done before, it's not as radical of an effort. I bet if they changed the marketing to "let make another Singapore in YOUR COUNTRY" I bet locals, politicians and journalists would be way more into it.
This is how far I had to scroll for a thoughtful criticism of both the tone of the article and the notion of experimental free city states.
Obviously it's sci-fi scenario, but the real solution (assuming that you see it as a problem) to overbearing and entrenched government power will probably be self-sustaining space colonies.
Experimental governments on Earth are limited by the fact that [large state power] can invade you in a matter of hours for arbitrary reasons, no matter where you on are the planet. Fly off into the deep cosmos, though, and your chances of survival dramatically increase.
Experimental governments on Earth are limited by the fact that [large state power] can invade you in a matter of hours for arbitrary reasons, no matter where you on are the planet. Fly off into the deep cosmos, though, and your chances of survival dramatically increase.
> the real solution (assuming that you see it as a problem) to overbearing and entrenched government power will probably be self-sustaining space colonies
Why in the world would you think that the politics of self-sustaining space colonies would not devolve into the exact same (dys)functional states (pun intended) as politics here on earth?
Why in the world would you think that the politics of self-sustaining space colonies would not devolve into the exact same (dys)functional states (pun intended) as politics here on earth?
Some will, some won't. Just like on earth, new forms of government will evolve. What we _do_ know from our historical past is that small communities can do much better at self-government in most cases. It's always harder to screw over your neighbor than a random guy from the other side of the nation, and easier for the neighbor to get redress.
More importantly, I don't think the possibility of a bad outcome ought to halt the progress of mankind in perpetuity.
Interesting thought: many suspect nations with frontiers flourish due to having an "escape valve". I am curious to see what an unlimited escape valve will enable.
More importantly, I don't think the possibility of a bad outcome ought to halt the progress of mankind in perpetuity.
Interesting thought: many suspect nations with frontiers flourish due to having an "escape valve". I am curious to see what an unlimited escape valve will enable.
> Interesting thought: many suspect nations with frontiers flourish due to having an "escape valve". I am curious to see what an unlimited escape valve will enable.
Can you expand on this? I think I understand the general implication but it’s not something I have considered before. If you have more thoughts/writing on this I’d like to ingest it.
If I understand correctly the idea is “undesirables” can go to a place where they are free to explore their ideas.
Can you expand on this? I think I understand the general implication but it’s not something I have considered before. If you have more thoughts/writing on this I’d like to ingest it.
If I understand correctly the idea is “undesirables” can go to a place where they are free to explore their ideas.
Sure. The basic idea is that there are always people who just "don't fit in" to society at large. Those people can stay and cause trouble, can be imprisoned, or can go through the safety valve to go live where they won't harm others. It also gives people opportunity for advancement; think of the many stories of families going west to find a better life. It allows societies to preserve a degree of individualism and a shared goal of expanding into the great un-known. I'm dipping my toes into deeper sociological waters here than I'm entirely comfortable with, but there's a broader concept of a "safety-valve institution" that can be viewed as positively helping maintain order or negatively keeping oppressed masses from rising up (the class warfare folks start beating there drums around here). Some more interesting reading:
* http://www.ditext.com/shannon/shannon.html
* http://www.ditext.com/robbins/robbins.html
* https://sci-hub.tw/10.2307/2716011
The obvious issue is that the treatment of Indians was unethical in the case of America, but space exploration might allow us to get many of these benefits of historical colonialism without genocide. I'll admit that I'm biased favorably towards this idea, as the frontier could, in some cases, be much closer to a libertarian utopia than a more heavily-organized society, but the up-side is that it provides options for those who want more and less state control.
* http://www.ditext.com/shannon/shannon.html
* http://www.ditext.com/robbins/robbins.html
* https://sci-hub.tw/10.2307/2716011
The obvious issue is that the treatment of Indians was unethical in the case of America, but space exploration might allow us to get many of these benefits of historical colonialism without genocide. I'll admit that I'm biased favorably towards this idea, as the frontier could, in some cases, be much closer to a libertarian utopia than a more heavily-organized society, but the up-side is that it provides options for those who want more and less state control.
If you look at how path-dependent most countries' forms of governance have been, it's reasonable to assume we'll see something that's at least substantially different.
Dynamicism and innovation has always come from the frontier.
There's a lot of space out there -- the frontier never closes (well, a speed-bump once we fill up the solar system).
So of course individual colonies eventually will fill up, stagnate, and calcify. But we won't run out of land, the way we have on earth, where there's no room for new ideas -- because every useful square foot of land is claimed by a nation-state with guns and rigid ideologies.
There's a lot of space out there -- the frontier never closes (well, a speed-bump once we fill up the solar system).
So of course individual colonies eventually will fill up, stagnate, and calcify. But we won't run out of land, the way we have on earth, where there's no room for new ideas -- because every useful square foot of land is claimed by a nation-state with guns and rigid ideologies.
Forms of government have varied depending on time, place, access to technology, population, cultural history, and innumerable other factors. Of course self-sustaining space states will have novel forms.
Forget self-sustaining space colonies, we don't even know how to build Earth-dependent space colonies.
Because there's no plausible way we can build one in near/medium future, we aren't constrained by pesky reality, so we can let our imaginations run wild and claim that it will solve the problem of government power and save mankind. And probably also cure cancer.
It's the same pattern as how some startups avoid making money at all cost, so that their valuation can be detached from market reality.
Because there's no plausible way we can build one in near/medium future, we aren't constrained by pesky reality, so we can let our imaginations run wild and claim that it will solve the problem of government power and save mankind. And probably also cure cancer.
It's the same pattern as how some startups avoid making money at all cost, so that their valuation can be detached from market reality.
It's ironic that it's easier for HNers to imagine a future of utopian space colonies than it is to imagine wealth being taxed.
"`Freeside,' Armitage said, touching the panel on the little Braun hologram projector. The image shivered into focus, nearly three meters from tip to tip. `Casinos here.' He reached into the skeletal representation and pointed. `Hotels, strata-title property, big shops along here.' His hand moved. `Blue areas are lakes.' He walked to one end of the model. `Big cigar. Narrows at the ends.'
`We can see that fine,' Molly said. `Mountain effect, as it narrows. Ground seems to get higher, more rocky, but it's an easy climb. Higher you climb, the lower the gravity. Sports up there. There's velodrome ring here.' He pointed.
`A what?' Case leaned forward.
`They race bicycles,' Molly said. `Low grav, high-traction tires, get up over a hundred kilos an hour.'"
`We can see that fine,' Molly said. `Mountain effect, as it narrows. Ground seems to get higher, more rocky, but it's an easy climb. Higher you climb, the lower the gravity. Sports up there. There's velodrome ring here.' He pointed.
`A what?' Case leaned forward.
`They race bicycles,' Molly said. `Low grav, high-traction tires, get up over a hundred kilos an hour.'"
I thought the key to sovereignty was mutually assured destruction. You don't need a deep space ship, you just need an ICBM.
That is true as well, but acquiring an ICBM seems rather difficult and once you have one, everyone else tends to treat you as a pariah. If I were building a libertarian paradise, I'd probably opt to avoid the whole issue and just leave the solar system.
I think if you struggle to get an ICBM you're going to have a hard time getting off of the planet let alone out of the solar system
> your chances of survival dramatically increase.
Well, until something goes wrong and you're in deep space beyond any hope of rescue.
Well, until something goes wrong and you're in deep space beyond any hope of rescue.
> Fly off into the deep cosmos, though, and your chances of survival dramatically increase.
It might help to bring an earth ecosystem with you.
Actually, I wonder if earth will be in danger when space colonies take place, because they will have the "high ground" and be able to drop rocks for basically no cost.
On the other hand, maybe with replicators, the psychology of post-scarcity might change things.
It might help to bring an earth ecosystem with you.
Actually, I wonder if earth will be in danger when space colonies take place, because they will have the "high ground" and be able to drop rocks for basically no cost.
On the other hand, maybe with replicators, the psychology of post-scarcity might change things.
I can't see how libertarians would actually work in a space colony situation.
Leaving aside how self-sustaining a space colony could ever truly be (Charlie Stross has written a lot about that), in a world as fragile as a space colony would be, I see fascism as vastly more likely than libertarian. If literally anyone can push the a button and kill a substantial percentage of the colony, you have substantially more risk from mental health issues, angry people, etc. than you do here on earth. And that leads to repression and using force to assert control.
Leaving aside how self-sustaining a space colony could ever truly be (Charlie Stross has written a lot about that), in a world as fragile as a space colony would be, I see fascism as vastly more likely than libertarian. If literally anyone can push the a button and kill a substantial percentage of the colony, you have substantially more risk from mental health issues, angry people, etc. than you do here on earth. And that leads to repression and using force to assert control.
The trick is to never have more than one human per ship. We would "wear" our space vehicles like an extension of our bodies, in the same way we consider clothing today.
Even as a libertarian I would argue that libertarianism will not be the guiding principle of space exploration for a long time to come.
This future is dystopian (and likely). Sure, there might be a few libertarian or communitarian utopias out there, or maybe even a few safe haven colonies where persecuted groups or sects can live without fear of persecution.
But there will also be colonies that are absolute hell for their inhabitants: institutionalized chattel slavery, legalized pedophilia, animal torture, all manner of non-consensual sexual deviancy.
Just imagine if guys like Jeffrey Epstein could scurry off to their own solar system and build an entire society based on their wants and desires, far from the reach of international justice.
But there will also be colonies that are absolute hell for their inhabitants: institutionalized chattel slavery, legalized pedophilia, animal torture, all manner of non-consensual sexual deviancy.
Just imagine if guys like Jeffrey Epstein could scurry off to their own solar system and build an entire society based on their wants and desires, far from the reach of international justice.
For those wondering about the mentioned couple off the coast of Thailand:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-thailand-seahome/thai-nav...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-libertarian-nirvana-at-sea-ru...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-thailand-seahome/thai-nav...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-libertarian-nirvana-at-sea-ru...
Ultimately any country/state needs a variety of services, from utilities like water/sewage/electricity to emergency services like ambulance/fire/police to a military to defend what you've got from other countries. you also need things like roads, telecomms infrastructure and other things that have been built over decades/centuries in established countries.
You also need things like a foreign service to liaise with other countries so that the fate of your state isn't the same as the Thai SeaStedding adventure. Then you may also need things in the longer term like social services, pension funds etc to care for your citizens in the long term.
Those all need to be paid for somehow, and that somehow is taxes. A "low tax" environment inevitably has to skimp on those services somehow. I'd guess that these low tax environments intention would be to skimp on the services that richer people don't need in exchange for having those richer people pay less tax...
So I'm not really surprised by the comments in the article that they're having trouble getting "host" countries to buy into this, what's the upside for them? These low tax environments will obviously not provide good long term environments for workers (the low tax is likely to == low social care standards) so it'd seem likely they'll take in workers where it's suitable and ship them back out once they're not productive any more, back to the host countries they came from.
You also need things like a foreign service to liaise with other countries so that the fate of your state isn't the same as the Thai SeaStedding adventure. Then you may also need things in the longer term like social services, pension funds etc to care for your citizens in the long term.
Those all need to be paid for somehow, and that somehow is taxes. A "low tax" environment inevitably has to skimp on those services somehow. I'd guess that these low tax environments intention would be to skimp on the services that richer people don't need in exchange for having those richer people pay less tax...
So I'm not really surprised by the comments in the article that they're having trouble getting "host" countries to buy into this, what's the upside for them? These low tax environments will obviously not provide good long term environments for workers (the low tax is likely to == low social care standards) so it'd seem likely they'll take in workers where it's suitable and ship them back out once they're not productive any more, back to the host countries they came from.
> A "low tax" environment inevitably has to skimp on those services somehow.
I think this is preception, not reality.
The US was formed with checks and balances amongst the branches of government yet there seems to be no checks and balances against government spending or taxation.
The fact that the Laffer curve[1] is a thing leads me to believe that government will continue to tax until the maximum taxation is achieved, or beyond.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
I think this is preception, not reality.
The US was formed with checks and balances amongst the branches of government yet there seems to be no checks and balances against government spending or taxation.
The fact that the Laffer curve[1] is a thing leads me to believe that government will continue to tax until the maximum taxation is achieved, or beyond.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
> The fact that the Laffer curve[1] is a thing leads me to believe that government will continue to tax until the maximum taxation is achieved, or beyond.
Isn't that circular reasoning? Afaik, the Laffer curve just is a concept that discribes where the maximum tax revenue is (i.e. neither at 0% nor at 100% tax)
Isn't that circular reasoning? Afaik, the Laffer curve just is a concept that discribes where the maximum tax revenue is (i.e. neither at 0% nor at 100% tax)
The way this is (IMO) envisaged to work is that the population would be so extremely wealthy that only a very low proportional tax would be required to sufficiently fund social services - also, you'd sort of opt out of all the less fun parts of being a society. Maybe you'd exile the homeless, criminal and mentally disabled - also you could benefit from industrialization without any of the pollution. Such Utopia!
There’s a difference between Somalia and states that tax lightly and derive that tax revenue in economically efficient ways.
This was the obvious conclusion. The experiment is governance, not "governance plus the enormous practical issues of living on the high seas".
I'd guess it's not stable unless you assume all the other trappings of state (like the monopoly on violence) and then you're just some uppity proto-nation practically begging to get subsumed into a more powerful entity.
I'd guess it's not stable unless you assume all the other trappings of state (like the monopoly on violence) and then you're just some uppity proto-nation practically begging to get subsumed into a more powerful entity.
Seasteadding today seems a lot more like the ambitions of billionaires for their own benefit. I am not convinced they are interested in new forms of governance insofar as they are just interested in a tax-free region where they can skirt regulations on an absolute level.
I might be convinced if the discussion around these new societies they want to build were more focused on egalatarianism. Otherwise, it sounds like the societies they want have already been built and tried around 100 years ago with company towns like Fordlandia.
I might be convinced if the discussion around these new societies they want to build were more focused on egalatarianism. Otherwise, it sounds like the societies they want have already been built and tried around 100 years ago with company towns like Fordlandia.
We’ve simply found a new way to make a company town without calling it that.
I've talked to a bunch of these people. I definitely don't think abdication of social responsibility of any form is the goal. Those people don't bother with the effort of trying to cook up new jurisdictions, and just go to various existing small island nations that give them favorable tax treatment. These are people that genuinely think that governance of physical space is the next great frontier that needs to be innovated/disrupted.
That said, I actually agree with the critique that at least the Silicon Valley-based "let's rebuild new governance zones from scratch" community tends to have a way too uncritical love of capitalism, and doesn't appreciate the myriad ways in which shareholder voting, and fancy new-age analogues of shareholder voting like coin-holder voting, are terrible. I remember one conversation where we were discussing cryptocurrencies, and one person pointed out how "VC chains" (new blockchains funded by VC firms where a small number of VC firms hold the majority of the tokens) were not being received well around the world, and this person was met with blank stares. But this is a medium-sized ideological disagreement, very far from "these people are just selfish freeloaders".
That said, I actually agree with the critique that at least the Silicon Valley-based "let's rebuild new governance zones from scratch" community tends to have a way too uncritical love of capitalism, and doesn't appreciate the myriad ways in which shareholder voting, and fancy new-age analogues of shareholder voting like coin-holder voting, are terrible. I remember one conversation where we were discussing cryptocurrencies, and one person pointed out how "VC chains" (new blockchains funded by VC firms where a small number of VC firms hold the majority of the tokens) were not being received well around the world, and this person was met with blank stares. But this is a medium-sized ideological disagreement, very far from "these people are just selfish freeloaders".
nickpinkston(3)
A more effective way of approaching this goal would be to propose a seastead as a way of creating valuable waterfront property as part of an existing coastal city.
The technologies could then be developed with less political controversy, and once the technological/practical concerns are ironed out, it would be easier to build a more politically-contested settlement. You would no longer be confronting political and practical obstacles simultaneously.
The technologies could then be developed with less political controversy, and once the technological/practical concerns are ironed out, it would be easier to build a more politically-contested settlement. You would no longer be confronting political and practical obstacles simultaneously.
[deleted]
Whatever happened to those people who planned to put a cruise ship in international waters just off the coast of San Francisco?
"project blueseed"
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/03/14/silicon-valley-...
https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2012/12/17/16...
"project blueseed"
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/03/14/silicon-valley-...
https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2012/12/17/16...
https://blueseed.com/
nginx bad gateway.
No updates since 2014 or so.
nginx bad gateway.
No updates since 2014 or so.
I guess the free market has spoken!
That was usually my first thought when these projects come up. Who would want to live there? I can see why billionaires want to, but what about all the citizens that make up a real city? Why would a cook with a family and ambitions want to live permanently in the middle of an ocean, far from the "real world"?
The sad reality is that the wealthy people running the place would probably recruit domestic servants, using the same labor recruiters that send people from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh to Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migrant_workers_in_the_United_...
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&ei=hjsBXo...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migrant_workers_in_the_United_...
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&ei=hjsBXo...
If we are talking about blueseed, then the answer of who would want to live their is obvious (and was even in their sales pitch!).
The answer would be high skilled immigrant tech workers who don't have a visa, and want to be near the center of the tech world.
The way that the visa system worked, is that as long as you spend at least half your time, not in the USA, then you would be allowed to enter San Francisco as much as you want, otherwise.
Blue seed would be 12 miles off the coast of SF, so that would be a 30minute to 1 hour commute to the city. Certainly doable.
And Blue seed was advertising cheaper rents than the city to boot!
The answer would be high skilled immigrant tech workers who don't have a visa, and want to be near the center of the tech world.
The way that the visa system worked, is that as long as you spend at least half your time, not in the USA, then you would be allowed to enter San Francisco as much as you want, otherwise.
Blue seed would be 12 miles off the coast of SF, so that would be a 30minute to 1 hour commute to the city. Certainly doable.
And Blue seed was advertising cheaper rents than the city to boot!
I'm immediately reminded of Sealand:
https://www.sealandgov.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/08/se...
They tried everything: hosting servers, their own currency, their own crypto. It never really took off, but it was a fun and interesting effort.
https://www.sealandgov.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/08/se...
They tried everything: hosting servers, their own currency, their own crypto. It never really took off, but it was a fun and interesting effort.
The really funny thing about Sealand's internet connection, at the time, it was a terrestrial microwave radio link with a capacity equivalent fo a couple of T1s going to a terrestrial ISP connection near the shore in England.
It was singlehomed to something that was network topologically indistinguishable from putting servers in a house near the beach on land.
It was singlehomed to something that was network topologically indistinguishable from putting servers in a house near the beach on land.
When I think of seasteadding one of the things that pops into my head is Sealand as the cover story of Wired magazine [1]. I think it's a good prequel to the linked Atlantic article.
[1]: https://www.wired.com/2000/07/haven-2/
[1]: https://www.wired.com/2000/07/haven-2/
This won't ever attract American workers without a bilateral tax treaty, and all these initiatives are in English...
I think there's more than 1 missing piece in these plans.
I think there's more than 1 missing piece in these plans.
Me, I'd rather have a bobbler. Plus the associated technology, of course.
Its unfortunate that these efforts do nit understand that their hosts, the moment they see some self-organized community flourishing, will attempt to take over any self organized society.
A rich guy does something good that benefits a large group of people and generates wealth for all those involved, them an external socialist gun-holder neighbor takes issue with this unburdened group next door, and takes it over for the "good of society"
Its happened many many times and it will keep happening until the cost of attacking/stealing is so high as to prevent an outright takeover (only likely in space)
A rich guy does something good that benefits a large group of people and generates wealth for all those involved, them an external socialist gun-holder neighbor takes issue with this unburdened group next door, and takes it over for the "good of society"
Its happened many many times and it will keep happening until the cost of attacking/stealing is so high as to prevent an outright takeover (only likely in space)
As long as there will be people born there will be demand for land for it being the necessary condition for life and industrial production.
Billionaires now looking for ways to acquire more land? Or to create artificial land on sea? Or to discover new continents or planets with new land? Nothing new under the sun. Guess where all the money acquired from current day monopoly industry ends up in era of zero interest rates and rock bottom innovation. Of course the majority of it is parked in land.
This is not capitalism. This is feudalism. Just rename 'billionaires' to 'aristocracy'.
Billionaires now looking for ways to acquire more land? Or to create artificial land on sea? Or to discover new continents or planets with new land? Nothing new under the sun. Guess where all the money acquired from current day monopoly industry ends up in era of zero interest rates and rock bottom innovation. Of course the majority of it is parked in land.
This is not capitalism. This is feudalism. Just rename 'billionaires' to 'aristocracy'.
This is the problem when you have more billionaires than land in Monaco:
https://www.cnn.com/style/article/monaco-extension-sea/index...
https://www.cnn.com/style/article/monaco-extension-sea/index...
I was a bit shocked by this:
> For $1 million you can buy just 183 square feet (17 square meters) of prime property, according to the Knight Frank 2017 Wealth Report, compared to 280 square feet (26 square meters) in New York or 323 square feet (30 square meters) in London.
Land in Monaco is more expensive that New York City, but not a LOT more expensive, hah.
> For $1 million you can buy just 183 square feet (17 square meters) of prime property, according to the Knight Frank 2017 Wealth Report, compared to 280 square feet (26 square meters) in New York or 323 square feet (30 square meters) in London.
Land in Monaco is more expensive that New York City, but not a LOT more expensive, hah.
One big problem: Pirates.
Prob won’t get past govt allowing banks to work with these little states
“We will eliminate poverty by not letting the poor live in our cities “
Everyone is hating on little city states like they are the bastion of human exploitation, unlike cough most Western societies in the past couple centuries cough. I guess no one realizes what happened in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and even the US just a bit over half a century ago. Hundreds of millions killed over political whim, anyone? Nothing Peter Theilians or even Scientologists can concoct in these seasteads will ever compare to the horror enacted by nation states the last century. I'd say the historical record is entirely in favor of city states for safeguarding human life.
For sure I didn't think there were enough problems with the status of the Marshall Islands in international law, and so this seems like a brilliant idea altogether.
I think this is one of if not the most important issue in the entire world.
We currently have two primary forms of government: dictatorship and democracy.
Almost everyone prefers democracies. But many, if not most, living in democracies also take major issue with the way their countries are run. The best defense of democracy is Churchill's: democracy is the worst form of Government except for all the rest.
A framework in which we can experiment with other forms of societal organization, especially one in which minimizes or eliminates externalities, has the potential to produce massive benefits if it discovers better forms of political organization.
We currently have two primary forms of government: dictatorship and democracy.
Almost everyone prefers democracies. But many, if not most, living in democracies also take major issue with the way their countries are run. The best defense of democracy is Churchill's: democracy is the worst form of Government except for all the rest.
A framework in which we can experiment with other forms of societal organization, especially one in which minimizes or eliminates externalities, has the potential to produce massive benefits if it discovers better forms of political organization.
That's all well and good but it seems to me all of these "new" forms of organization are essentially to benefit the ultra-rich at the expense of everyone else. There is nothing here that will help working-class people, and instead, seems to seek to abandon them.
Stable governance and solid protections for property rights would be a massive benefit to the working class in at least half the world.
I'll just point out that plenty of people experiment with alternative forms of societal organization. It happens all the time. The Amish have been doing it in the US for centuries. The Mormons have taken a swing at it too, and their fundamentalist offshoot, the FLDS, is still trying. And there are all sort of other intentional communities out there.
As far as I can tell, what most of these experiments show us is things we already know. E.g., the FLDS mainly seems to demonstrate that patriarchy is indeed awful for everybody except the men on top. [1] A lot of the rest seem to show that however people start, it tends toward familiar things, like oligarchy and dictatorship. So unless these folks have taken special care to avoid the problems, I expect that for-profit communities will end up being the city-state version of Away: high-minded language, an always-positive public face, and a lot of abuse and exploitation behind the scenes.
[1] See "Under the Banner of Heaven" for a readable take: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000FC1R2S/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...
As far as I can tell, what most of these experiments show us is things we already know. E.g., the FLDS mainly seems to demonstrate that patriarchy is indeed awful for everybody except the men on top. [1] A lot of the rest seem to show that however people start, it tends toward familiar things, like oligarchy and dictatorship. So unless these folks have taken special care to avoid the problems, I expect that for-profit communities will end up being the city-state version of Away: high-minded language, an always-positive public face, and a lot of abuse and exploitation behind the scenes.
[1] See "Under the Banner of Heaven" for a readable take: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000FC1R2S/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...
> The best defense of democracy is Churchill's: democracy is the worst form of Government except for all the rest.
So Two Cheers for Democracy: one because it admits variety and two because it permits criticism. Two cheers are quite enough: there is no occasion to give three. Only Love the Beloved Republic deserves that.
- E.M. Forster, "What I Believe", 1939, from a collection bearing the name Two Cheers for Democracy
So Two Cheers for Democracy: one because it admits variety and two because it permits criticism. Two cheers are quite enough: there is no occasion to give three. Only Love the Beloved Republic deserves that.
- E.M. Forster, "What I Believe", 1939, from a collection bearing the name Two Cheers for Democracy
They are after venture backed city states. Funding sovereigns if you have enough money. Government run by corporations will not be pretty. Most likely not a direct dictatorship, but not far.
Not far? It's fascism without the middleman and a laughable veneer of neoliberal extremism - for legitimacy.
How exactly does seasteading accomplish any such thing? What other means of government are they itching to try exactly? And how do you judge the success or failure of each experiment? How can you possibly eliminate externalities from any such system?
>>>how exactly does seasteading accomplish any such thing
Not sure if i capture your subject currently, but you literally do what the article states, for one.
>>>>>what other means of government are they itching to try exactly?
Why does that matter? If it does to you, should you not research it? The point is that competition will allow the best to replace the garbage we have today. More choice is always better. That is a fact. If you want to know what those choices are, you should inform yourself.
>>>>>And how do you judge the success or failure of each experiment? Its not as hard as you make it out to be. The seasteading project didn't gain traction. Failure. The opposite will be deemed suceess. People vote with their feet. It really is that simple.
>>>how can you possibly eliminate externalities from any such system?
Just because you havent formulated it in your mind, doesnt mean it is not possible. And even if it was not possible, it shouldnt matter. Not everything is black and white. You dont need to eliminate externalities to have something that helps working people live better lives. Eliminating externalities is not the goal
Not sure if i capture your subject currently, but you literally do what the article states, for one.
>>>>>what other means of government are they itching to try exactly?
Why does that matter? If it does to you, should you not research it? The point is that competition will allow the best to replace the garbage we have today. More choice is always better. That is a fact. If you want to know what those choices are, you should inform yourself.
>>>>>And how do you judge the success or failure of each experiment? Its not as hard as you make it out to be. The seasteading project didn't gain traction. Failure. The opposite will be deemed suceess. People vote with their feet. It really is that simple.
>>>how can you possibly eliminate externalities from any such system?
Just because you havent formulated it in your mind, doesnt mean it is not possible. And even if it was not possible, it shouldnt matter. Not everything is black and white. You dont need to eliminate externalities to have something that helps working people live better lives. Eliminating externalities is not the goal
> We currently have two primary forms of government: dictatorship and democracy.
Hate to break it to you, but democracy and dictatorship are not mutually exclusive. See Kenneth Arrow.[1]
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theo...
Hate to break it to you, but democracy and dictatorship are not mutually exclusive. See Kenneth Arrow.[1]
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theo...
> We currently have two primary forms of government: dictatorship and democracy.
No, we have a third form: plutocracy.
No, we have a third form: plutocracy.
There is no democracy, there's a farce of it. Most people don't get to decide on almost anything, except via direct protest. You get to pick "representatives" from 2 or 3 alternatives. These alternatives are heavily decided by electability that is directly related to funding and the few people do the most of it.
"democracy is the worst form of Government except for all the rest"
That's until you realize that representative democracy (rule of majority) is effectively an authoritarian system, which is based on the monopoly of force and the monopoly of currency, and which incentivizes politicians with low time preference to spend more money than what they take (by force) through taxes, therefore indebting and impoverishing the whole population progressively.
There's a social organization system that allows for individual freedoms: free markets with no centralized governments. It's not a setup that will be implemented through revolutions, reforms or good will. It's inevitable that we'll get there as the cost of transactions becomes increasingly small (therefore making centralized systems of organization not viable). Refer to the work of Ronald Coase to understand why that is.
That's until you realize that representative democracy (rule of majority) is effectively an authoritarian system, which is based on the monopoly of force and the monopoly of currency, and which incentivizes politicians with low time preference to spend more money than what they take (by force) through taxes, therefore indebting and impoverishing the whole population progressively.
There's a social organization system that allows for individual freedoms: free markets with no centralized governments. It's not a setup that will be implemented through revolutions, reforms or good will. It's inevitable that we'll get there as the cost of transactions becomes increasingly small (therefore making centralized systems of organization not viable). Refer to the work of Ronald Coase to understand why that is.
Please don't take HN threads further into generic ideological flamewar. It leads to tedious, repetitive, and usually nasty discussions—see first reply below.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
My observation is not ideological, it's a reference to the work of an economist...
People understand these words differently, but by the standards that apply on HN, it's definitely ideological and generic. These are things we're trying to avoid, because internet forums don't have anything new to say about them. The arguments just get increasingly repetitive and nasty.
Why pick on this comment, though? The whole thread here is an ideological debate between forms of government and is repetitive; you may as well lock the whole thing at this point.
The comment was significantly more generic, which makes for worse discussion, especially on divisive topics: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu....
One thing to look for is whether a comment remains anchored in the specific content of an article, or has become unmoored from it. Most of this thread retains at least some contact with it. Even the parent of the comment I replied to (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21866584), which is pretty generic, has at least a wispy string connecting it to the OP. But https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21867096 just goes into talking points.
One thing to look for is whether a comment remains anchored in the specific content of an article, or has become unmoored from it. Most of this thread retains at least some contact with it. Even the parent of the comment I replied to (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21866584), which is pretty generic, has at least a wispy string connecting it to the OP. But https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21867096 just goes into talking points.
skywhopper(1)
Tried web in normal and private mode, can not read.
Works in normal mode with uBlock, blocking all 3d-party content, allow assets.bwbx.io, block the rest.
worked fine with javascript and cookies turned off.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/umatrix/
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/umatrix/
This might help: https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-firefox
If high intelligent without selfishness people would make some state that has low taxes and simple whitelist of actions without changing it will be great place to live.
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his bro?
I can't tell if that's a typo or not, but it's great.
Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all night.
This is as suspicious and creepy to me as the unbridled control Alphabet sought with Sidewalk Labs’ Toronto experiment.
Because of other comments and my inability to edit my original comment I wanted to link this to my own parent note for context:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-sidewalk-la...
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-sidewalk-la...
We have corporations as big or bigger as countries. The class war has ended. What are we going to do?
The largest corporation (not government-owned) in existence today is a microscopically small fragment of the size of the corporate behemoths of 100 years ago, and the corporations of one hundred years ago were microscopically minuscule compared to the largest corporations of 400 years ago.
Not only that, but the ancient proto-corporations were not partners with government, they were governments.
For about 20 years, the Mississippi Company was worth between $5-7 trillion, adjusted for inflation. That's about 6 Microsofts, and at the time of the Mississippi Company there were many chartered trading companies that ruled over their dominions with iron fists. Microsoft doesn't have a private army.
How did puny little Microsoft/Google/Apple/BP/GE/Chase/whoever/whatever "end" the class war when Standard Oil did not?
Not only that, but the ancient proto-corporations were not partners with government, they were governments.
For about 20 years, the Mississippi Company was worth between $5-7 trillion, adjusted for inflation. That's about 6 Microsofts, and at the time of the Mississippi Company there were many chartered trading companies that ruled over their dominions with iron fists. Microsoft doesn't have a private army.
How did puny little Microsoft/Google/Apple/BP/GE/Chase/whoever/whatever "end" the class war when Standard Oil did not?
Thanks for your comment. I did not mean to blame the end of the class war on the mega-corps.
I certainly hope it’s not cede all control in one swoop to a couple of rich guys who think they know what’s best for everyone.
Im all for experimenting. I’m not for handing over local legal power to a corporation in one fell swoop because they promise to pay for my taxi as long as I’m in their good books.
No—the immediacy and totality they’re pursuing is the thing that bothers me. Little compromise seems to be offered. They seem to think like vey corporations do—they should be able to “just buy it”. I don’t like that. Not everything is for sale.
Im all for experimenting. I’m not for handing over local legal power to a corporation in one fell swoop because they promise to pay for my taxi as long as I’m in their good books.
No—the immediacy and totality they’re pursuing is the thing that bothers me. Little compromise seems to be offered. They seem to think like vey corporations do—they should be able to “just buy it”. I don’t like that. Not everything is for sale.
> They seem to think like vey corporations do—they should be able to “just buy it”. I don’t like that. Not everything is for sale.
Are you referring to buying land from a country? That's a form of cession, and it's certainly not unprecedented (see: Louisiana Purchase). In my eyes, it's the moral way to go about acquiring land, with the alternatives being annexation and conquest.
Under what conditions are you okay with territorial control changing hands? Can land only be sold to other existing governments?
Are you referring to buying land from a country? That's a form of cession, and it's certainly not unprecedented (see: Louisiana Purchase). In my eyes, it's the moral way to go about acquiring land, with the alternatives being annexation and conquest.
Under what conditions are you okay with territorial control changing hands? Can land only be sold to other existing governments?
It wasn’t just real estate they wanted. They wanted judicial control over a region in Toronto while still retaining the benefits of being a Canadian locale. They seemed to think that was for sale.
I'm not aware of what you're referring to, but even if some entity wants to start an independent country in an area that was under the control of Canada and Toronto, what is your exact issue with it? Why is it not for sale? Is the issue that the theoretical small country would have open borders, and they'd expect the same from Canada? Should both countries have closed borders so that Canadians and the residents of the small country couldn't benefit from each other? If the borders were closed, would it be okay?
I don’t think you’re reading my comments or responding in good faith here as I explicitly stated what I was looking talking about.
Have a nice holiday.
Have a nice holiday.
I'm sorry you feel that way. When I said that I wasn't sure what you were referring to, I meant that I'm not familiar with the case you mentioned in Toronto. I searched for it but didn't find anything regarding what sort of control over the area they wanted. Perhaps it would have been better for me to ask for clarification about that specific case rather than creating a hypothetical scenario.
The Sidewalks Labs Toronto waterfront project. There’s a plethora of articles and a wealth of information on the subject...
Edit: it’s one of the first items returned in a search of the subject— https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-sidewalk-la...
Edit: it’s one of the first items returned in a search of the subject— https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-sidewalk-la...
As a historical "for scale", a bunch of rich businessmen once bailed out the American federal government: https://historydaily.org/panic-of-1893
In 2008, the American federal government bailed out JP Morgan: https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/jpmorgans-12-billion...
Now you tell me, who's bigger? America has huge companies that are nevertheless tiny in relation to her GDP and government expenditure. America happens to be quite populous, geographically-large, rich in resources, and highly-developed. It stands to reason that she supports many of the world's largest companies.
In 2008, the American federal government bailed out JP Morgan: https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/jpmorgans-12-billion...
Now you tell me, who's bigger? America has huge companies that are nevertheless tiny in relation to her GDP and government expenditure. America happens to be quite populous, geographically-large, rich in resources, and highly-developed. It stands to reason that she supports many of the world's largest companies.
There's a somewhat progressive government in Honduras,
Pres gets kidnapped by military and flown out of the country
Thiel + friends get ready to buy out a piece bringing prosperity and justice
Down the road, the still hotter thing in Seasteading will be physical security.
Do-it-yourself city-states will be like owning hard metal gold, and for the same reason: once you reach the tipping point of being valuable, you become a target to own/eliminate.
For a more near-fetched, though not precisely analogous example of the this kind of issue, see Deepwater Horizon => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon
Do-it-yourself city-states will be like owning hard metal gold, and for the same reason: once you reach the tipping point of being valuable, you become a target to own/eliminate.
For a more near-fetched, though not precisely analogous example of the this kind of issue, see Deepwater Horizon => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon
There’s a much simpler example in armed attempts to take the Principality of Sealand
If this sounds like a dorky joke post, it's not.
Isn't this literally motivated by the same neo-fuedal oligarchical narcissism that made the bad guy in BioShock build essentially the same thing as this? Tell me one of these "seasteads" won't get hit by some speedboat pirates and decide OK, we're gonna arm up and hey why not build down? And you know what? No one's gonna say we can't do human experiments on our residents, so why not? As long as they sign their names to it.
Just stay in Palo Alto or whatever, and pay your god damned taxes. This is bleak, bleak stuff.
“Do I want to create the first venture-backed city-state? Hell yeah”