Seasteading(seasteading.org)
seasteading.org
Seasteading
https://www.seasteading.org/
234 comments
These guys are just like every other group that wants to setup their own society "free" of government. But look closely at their plans. They don't want to get rid of nation states. They just want to setup their own nation states under their own legal structure
So, basically following the precedent of human beings across all of recorded human history and almost certainly for much longer.
Ask them their opinions on the big crimes (murder/rape/arson etc). Will they allow me to keep slaves on my seastead? Of course not.
In 2019, savvy humans should look askance at everyone who proposes new governments or changes to existing governments without prioritizing a first-principles approach to preserving fundamental human rights. As far as we know, such a principles based approach -- which disperses power and takes into account people's natural tendency towards groupthink/tribalism, bias, and corruption -- does the best job of preserving human rights and increasing the general welfare. It's not perfect. It will have problems, but it's a lot better than everything else we've tried.
There isn't something magic in people that suddenly changes them to angels, if we'd only make some deep, profound realization. That's some of the oldest ideological snake oil there is. It's no more valid now in 2019 than when stone buildings were the technological marvel of the day and mythologies were the best societal and epistemological proposals going around. The best we have ever done is a set of rules that keeps individual people from being treated unfairly like garbage and acts to disperse power.
These are nothing more than rich randians complaining about their tax bracket.
Everyone is "nothing more" than _insert reductive term here_. History shall judge them by their works.
So, basically following the precedent of human beings across all of recorded human history and almost certainly for much longer.
Ask them their opinions on the big crimes (murder/rape/arson etc). Will they allow me to keep slaves on my seastead? Of course not.
In 2019, savvy humans should look askance at everyone who proposes new governments or changes to existing governments without prioritizing a first-principles approach to preserving fundamental human rights. As far as we know, such a principles based approach -- which disperses power and takes into account people's natural tendency towards groupthink/tribalism, bias, and corruption -- does the best job of preserving human rights and increasing the general welfare. It's not perfect. It will have problems, but it's a lot better than everything else we've tried.
There isn't something magic in people that suddenly changes them to angels, if we'd only make some deep, profound realization. That's some of the oldest ideological snake oil there is. It's no more valid now in 2019 than when stone buildings were the technological marvel of the day and mythologies were the best societal and epistemological proposals going around. The best we have ever done is a set of rules that keeps individual people from being treated unfairly like garbage and acts to disperse power.
These are nothing more than rich randians complaining about their tax bracket.
Everyone is "nothing more" than _insert reductive term here_. History shall judge them by their works.
[deleted]
>So, basically following the precedent of human beings across all of recorded human history and almost certainly for much longer
Fair enough, but do they have a navy? A few months (years?) back, there was a "territorial dispute" between seasteaders and a South East Asian state - Singapore IIRC; the side with the tax-funded, floating gun platforms won.
Fair enough, but do they have a navy? A few months (years?) back, there was a "territorial dispute" between seasteaders and a South East Asian state - Singapore IIRC; the side with the tax-funded, floating gun platforms won.
I have some questions for you. Is it possible to distinguish between someone who believes taxes are bad for society, or immoral, from someone who's unhappy about their tax bracket? Between someone who believes regulations do more harm than good from someone who is pissed off at a couple of minor regulations? Between someone who believes in experimenting with new forms of governance and someone who wants to dominate the poor?
Surely some of those ideas attract selfish people, but is it that unreasonable to think that a lot of them actually believe in the stated mission?
Surely some of those ideas attract selfish people, but is it that unreasonable to think that a lot of them actually believe in the stated mission?
I have some questions for you. Is it possible to distinguish between someone who believes taxes are bad for society, or immoral, from someone who's unhappy about their tax bracket?
If that is a problem, it is a problem for those advocating these policies. If you selflessly advocate policies benefiting the wealthy, low and behold, many of those seeking to benefit will appear. If these types generate corruption or exploitation, how do you filter them out?
In general, a lot of low-regulation, low-tax advocates claim that selfishness isn't a problem, that these approaches can benefit everyone even when everyone looks out for themselves.
The problem with such approach is they don't consider that those attracted to these approaches for selfish reasons aren't going to be satisfied with simply an efficient, meritocratic system that turns selfishness to a universal benefit and that instead the truly selfish cheat, take any resource they can get access to and essentially spoil many idealized "general benefit through individual benefit" systems, turning them into just "the strong prey on the weak" approaches.
And those on the sidelines looking at the situation can say, "Oh, looks a few people actually believed this stuff, too bad for them that the overall process was swamped by those just aiming for a buck." But this situation doesn't raise our overall admiration for any of them.
If that is a problem, it is a problem for those advocating these policies. If you selflessly advocate policies benefiting the wealthy, low and behold, many of those seeking to benefit will appear. If these types generate corruption or exploitation, how do you filter them out?
In general, a lot of low-regulation, low-tax advocates claim that selfishness isn't a problem, that these approaches can benefit everyone even when everyone looks out for themselves.
The problem with such approach is they don't consider that those attracted to these approaches for selfish reasons aren't going to be satisfied with simply an efficient, meritocratic system that turns selfishness to a universal benefit and that instead the truly selfish cheat, take any resource they can get access to and essentially spoil many idealized "general benefit through individual benefit" systems, turning them into just "the strong prey on the weak" approaches.
And those on the sidelines looking at the situation can say, "Oh, looks a few people actually believed this stuff, too bad for them that the overall process was swamped by those just aiming for a buck." But this situation doesn't raise our overall admiration for any of them.
With high taxes, governments must have huge amount of power to be able to collect and spend all the money. So then, this same people you talk about, go into the government. And usually they manage to do much more harm this way than in low tax case where power is distributed to more people.
Feel free to give us a historical example where the "low tax case" distributed power to "more" people.
This year Russia introduced new taxes and that worsened the already bad economic situation. Europe doesn't produce nearly the same amount of innovation and startups as US, most likely because of higher taxes on business. Because taxes in US are not higher, people like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk can spend their money on things they find important instead of all that money being handled by the few people in the government.
I am not saying that the tax should be 0% as governments provide some useful services, but 50% is way too much to buy a bundle of services you can't pick from. The only way to find a better balance is to be able to experiment with different ways of organizing government, and seasteading could help with this.
I am not saying that the tax should be 0% as governments provide some useful services, but 50% is way too much to buy a bundle of services you can't pick from. The only way to find a better balance is to be able to experiment with different ways of organizing government, and seasteading could help with this.
So your example of a "low tax case" distributing power to "more" people is Russia.
I think whatever point there is to this argument has been made.
I think whatever point there is to this argument has been made.
No, please read the rest of the comment. My main example was USA vs Europe, where lower US taxes make possible things like SpaceX.
Space X relies on government contracts and government funded research not the tax savings of tech billionaires. And yes I read the rest.
ESA also relies on government funding, but its chief was saying that reusability is not needed because with reusable rockets workers would have nothing to do half of the year. And other NASA contractors didn't get much done either. So a particular millionaire keeping his millions was crucial for the whole thing to succeed. Could someone working at NASA accomplish the same? Yes if there was a good way to measure good and bad decisions made by different people, so that multiple routes are explored, and failing route is discarded despite its proponent being a respected person, but unfortunately we do not have a working way for that other than money.
I hope you agree that so far in all places where state tried to take all the money and redistribute everyone ended up worse off (USSR, North Korea, Cuba, Maoist China, Venezuela). You may not agree, but as far as i can tell Europe is lagging behind USA in terms of innovation because of higher taxes. And Singapore's economy is growing faster than US because of lower tax rate.
I am not suggesting that all taxes should be eliminated or even that they should be returned to their pre WW1 levels, but based on this i think it is a reasonable hypothesis that lower tax could be more beneficial for society, and if some people want to test that out on a seastead they should not be met with hostility for trying to destroy the social state and not pay taxes.
I hope you agree that so far in all places where state tried to take all the money and redistribute everyone ended up worse off (USSR, North Korea, Cuba, Maoist China, Venezuela). You may not agree, but as far as i can tell Europe is lagging behind USA in terms of innovation because of higher taxes. And Singapore's economy is growing faster than US because of lower tax rate.
I am not suggesting that all taxes should be eliminated or even that they should be returned to their pre WW1 levels, but based on this i think it is a reasonable hypothesis that lower tax could be more beneficial for society, and if some people want to test that out on a seastead they should not be met with hostility for trying to destroy the social state and not pay taxes.
> Is it possible to distinguish between someone who believes taxes are bad for society, or immoral
Ask them if they are currently living in a country with a centralized government, a police force, civil society, etc. If the answer is yes, you don't have to listen to them anymore.
Ask them if they are currently living in a country with a centralized government, a police force, civil society, etc. If the answer is yes, you don't have to listen to them anymore.
Probably not really. If you really hate paying taxes you can convince yourself that taxes are bad. If you ignore all evidence to the contrary and just really hate filing paperwork and following rules, you can convince yourself that regulation is harmful. If you actually want to experiment with new forms of governance, you will need to convince lots of other people to go along instead of just declaring yourself sovereign and then complaining that other countries don't recognize your right to do that just because you're rich.
And if you hate the rich, you can convince yourself that no tax rate is too high. If you just really hate big business, there's no such thing as a bad regulation, because anything that makes life harder for business is a good thing.
Is it possible to distinguish someone who thinks taxes are good from society from someone who hates everyone better off from themselves?
Is it possible to distinguish someone who thinks taxes are good from society from someone who hates everyone better off from themselves?
Absolutely you can distinguish. The person who hates everyone better off than themselves would have to make a special exemption for themselves so that all their money wouldn't be taxed away too and leave them at best on an even playing field with those they (previously?) hated. The person who believes taxes are good for society would of course happily (or at least voluntarily) pay their share of whatever the mandated tax was. Inverting the original question semantically doesn't mean that you've provided a valid counter-example.
> The person who hates everyone better off than themselves would have to make a special exemption for themselves so that all their money wouldn't be taxed away too and leave them at best on an even playing field with those they (previously?) hated. The person who believes taxes are good for society would of course happily (or at least voluntarily) pay their share of whatever the mandated tax was.
So what does this mean for people who support progressive tax brackets? Since they think they should pay a smaller share of their income than others - and specifically that those better off should pay more than they do.
So what does this mean for people who support progressive tax brackets? Since they think they should pay a smaller share of their income than others - and specifically that those better off should pay more than they do.
This simply speaks to the impetus behind progressive taxes: that each additional dollar has decreasing marginal utility. Therefore, to extract the maximum amount of value for society in aggregate, it makes the most sense to put the highest taxes on money that has the least utility.
You could also make the argument along other lines, such as that the wealthiest individuals have benefitted most from the cohesion/quality of the society, and should therefore be most responsible for its upkeep in kind.
You could also make the argument along other lines, such as that the wealthiest individuals have benefitted most from the cohesion/quality of the society, and should therefore be most responsible for its upkeep in kind.
I don't see the relevance here. Upthread you were saying that it was impossible to distinguish "wanting lower taxes because taxes are bad" and "wanting lower taxes because I want more money". Holding similar standards of evidence would make it impossible to distinguish "I want higher taxes because the government can do better things with the money" or "I want higher taxes because of the marginal utility of money" from "I want higher taxes because fuck the rich". You then suggested that you could tell the higher-tax positions apart by the speaker's willingness to comply with the increased taxes. But in a progressive tax system, the speaker is proposing higher tax rates for others than for themselves - which is very similar to "making(sic) a special exemption for themselves so that all their money wouldn't be taxed away too and leave them at best on an even playing field with those they (previously?) hated".
Making the exemption wider doesn't really escape your earlier argument.
Making the exemption wider doesn't really escape your earlier argument.
No, the person proposing the progressive tax is simply saying that there is an optimal, non-zero level of taxation that creates the best outcome for society as a whole. This person could be at the top or bottom bracket with no effect on the argument. The richest in our society actually generally agree with that notion, cf. Gates, Buffett, as well as those who have the most to "gain" directly through distribution of public services.
And yes, even though it wasn't my point to begin with, it is possible to distinguish ideologies in the case of wanting higher taxes vs in the case of wanting lower taxes by outcome. In the case of wanting lower taxes, without regard to ideology, both payers would want the taxes on themselves to tend to zero. In the case of higher taxes, the ideologies do differ by outcome in that the ideological party will want to pay something herself, whereas the disgruntled party would have to impose taxes on "the rich" and not on themselves (relatively) to achieve a desirable outcome (this assumes they don't "hate" themselves as well).
And yes, even though it wasn't my point to begin with, it is possible to distinguish ideologies in the case of wanting higher taxes vs in the case of wanting lower taxes by outcome. In the case of wanting lower taxes, without regard to ideology, both payers would want the taxes on themselves to tend to zero. In the case of higher taxes, the ideologies do differ by outcome in that the ideological party will want to pay something herself, whereas the disgruntled party would have to impose taxes on "the rich" and not on themselves (relatively) to achieve a desirable outcome (this assumes they don't "hate" themselves as well).
"I want higher taxes because the government can do better things with the money"
Note that this thinking only applies to nations which are currency users, not currency issuers.
For a nation with it's own fiat currency (currency issuers) government spending creates money, and the role of taxes is not to fund spending. Taxes fulfill other roles, like controlling inflation and expressing social policy.
Note that this thinking only applies to nations which are currency users, not currency issuers.
For a nation with it's own fiat currency (currency issuers) government spending creates money, and the role of taxes is not to fund spending. Taxes fulfill other roles, like controlling inflation and expressing social policy.
> For a nation with it's own fiat currency (currency issuers) government spending creates money, and the role of taxes is not to fund spending. Taxes fulfill other roles, like controlling inflation and expressing social policy.
If government spending creates money where does the money the government spends come from?
If government spending creates money where does the money the government spends come from?
Are you unclear on the meaning of create?
What gives it value? If you free spend and free print money to pay for said spending, the value goes away. Quite quickly, as well.
> Since they think they should pay a smaller share of their income than others
What's your point? They also think they should pay a higher share of their income than others.
What's your point? They also think they should pay a higher share of their income than others.
I think the point is that by the GGP's (defterGoose's) standards, that's not differentiable from someone who just hates the rich. (And, frankly, if I started saying that the optimal tax brackets would be 99% for all income over $200k and 1% for all income $50k-$200k, the fact that I would pay more than some other people would not be particularly relevant)
Yep. And if they make more, they think they should pay an even higher share. Which, notes, will still leave them with more money.
Hell, my roommate pays as much in taxes than I make, yet he still comes home with more money than I do.
Hell, my roommate pays as much in taxes than I make, yet he still comes home with more money than I do.
TLDR: "Anyone I disagree with is justifying incorrect opinions." Your argument cuts both ways and can be applied to any issue, and is therefore illogical.
> Is it possible to distinguish between someone who believes taxes are bad for society, or immoral, from someone who's unhappy about their tax bracket?
In the end, does it matter? We don't really know what each other is thinking. If we're debating social framework (like tax), we can only judge people based on their behavior. If their behavior is indistinguishable, how they arrived there is irrelevant, in a sense.
In the end, does it matter? We don't really know what each other is thinking. If we're debating social framework (like tax), we can only judge people based on their behavior. If their behavior is indistinguishable, how they arrived there is irrelevant, in a sense.
Not really. People make moral arguments to justify economic gains. Whether they really believe in the argument makes no difference if the same argument is being made.
[deleted]
>> Is it possible to distinguish between someone who believes taxes are bad for society, or immoral, from someone who's unhappy about their tax bracket?
Yes. All the flat tax supporters. A great many people, wealthy people, feel that taxation should not be progressive. They agree that taxes are necessary but disagree with them paying more than poor people do.
Also, use-based taxation proponents. They agree that infrastructure needs to be built and that taxes are required to do so, but do not believe that they should pay for such things if they are not using them.
So yes, there are a great many east lines to be drawn between people who think taxation is evil and those simply unhappy with how much they as individuals have to pay.
Yes. All the flat tax supporters. A great many people, wealthy people, feel that taxation should not be progressive. They agree that taxes are necessary but disagree with them paying more than poor people do.
Also, use-based taxation proponents. They agree that infrastructure needs to be built and that taxes are required to do so, but do not believe that they should pay for such things if they are not using them.
So yes, there are a great many east lines to be drawn between people who think taxation is evil and those simply unhappy with how much they as individuals have to pay.
Aren't seasteders of this sort just extreme use-based taxation proponents, when you get down to it?
And if they ever manage to build a few houses on a barge outside territorial waters, about 12 miles, they'll call on the closest government for emergency rescue a few hours into the first good storm.
Or when they need an appendix removed. Then they want a "real" doctor, someone who learned their trade at a well-regulated hospital. Someone who is licensed by a medical board. Someone who has access to nice clean drugs manufactured in a lab subject to inspections. And then they want insurance coverage so they aren't out of pocket if something goes wrong during the operation. And then they expect some sort of rules-based enforcement structure to regulate all of these things. And don't forget some sort payment structure to support all these people ... This is getting complicated. Someone should write all these complicated rules down in a big book. Just don't call them laws.
Then not too different from living in a undeveloped/least developed country?
There are two big problems with 12 miles: 1) not far enough for economic zones [0] and 2) once you leave a country, you need a visa to return, which can be problematic.
[0] https://www.theadvocates.org/2019/05/couple-could-be-impriso...
[0] https://www.theadvocates.org/2019/05/couple-could-be-impriso...
I don't get the feeling from their site that their mission is to eliminate government or create a truly "free" society as much as it is to experiment with ideas around governance.
This exactly. Many seasteaders are anarchists but many just want to be able to experiment with governance.
I think the whole point is to test the assumptions on governance. Countries don't start with answers to those questions because they aren't problems yet and they may never be problems for them. And to assume those are solved problems anywhere else is myopic. Existing countries don't even agree how those issues should be handled.
Pretty much what China Mieville pointed out about them.[1]
[1] http://inthesetimes.com/article/3328/floating_utopias
[1] http://inthesetimes.com/article/3328/floating_utopias
"It is a small schadenfreude to know that these dreams will never come true. There are dangerous enemies, and then there are jokes of history. The libertarian seasteaders are a joke. The pitiful, incoherent and cowardly utopia they pine for is a spoilt child’s autarky, an imperialism of outsourcing, a very petty fascism played as maritime farce: Pinochet of Penzance."
That is cutting :)
An enjoyable read, thanks for the link.
That is cutting :)
An enjoyable read, thanks for the link.
I see then as hackers of society and laws. That they will probably end up with a replica is not the point. We hack to hack, to grok the systems. Let's not stop hackers hacking because we know better.
Hacking a computer is great in that you probably cannot damage the internal components of that machine.
Hacking society has issues given that random internal change of a society can have serious consequences for the members of that society.
Modern democratic society has various safety nets that to various extents cushion members from random fluctuations that happen even without hacking.
Sure, it seems fine when a group of individuals start-up a system "knowing what they're getting into". But it's generally no really possible for 19 year old joining the latest new trend to really know what they're getting into. We saw a whole flock of cults and unfortunate effects coming out of the hippy communes in the 1960s. But when a commune went bad, it was somewhat minor because the people could just leave. I shudder to what happens if things go bad in a platform in the middle of the ocean (and recall problems have already appeared).
Hacking society has issues given that random internal change of a society can have serious consequences for the members of that society.
Modern democratic society has various safety nets that to various extents cushion members from random fluctuations that happen even without hacking.
Sure, it seems fine when a group of individuals start-up a system "knowing what they're getting into". But it's generally no really possible for 19 year old joining the latest new trend to really know what they're getting into. We saw a whole flock of cults and unfortunate effects coming out of the hippy communes in the 1960s. But when a commune went bad, it was somewhat minor because the people could just leave. I shudder to what happens if things go bad in a platform in the middle of the ocean (and recall problems have already appeared).
It wasn't always the case where hacking computers could be done without consequence. In the beginning a great war was conducted by the original MIT hackers against university officials who were trying to pry control of the system away from them.
Similarly, it's the dream of every hacker to find a sandbox world where they can experiment to their heart's content. These government and society hackers as much as anyone.
There have been examples throughout history of 'partial sovereignty', the one closest to mind is that of the Native American nations in the US. They're sovereign in most of the ways that matter while still retaining the ability to bring in the grownups when things get serious.
The other example I can think of is the British concept of political devolution, whereby four independent countries with their own governments fit neatly into the collective United Kingdom, whereby the countries can demand ever greater self-rule through democratic process. This is how Ireland became both the Republic of Ireland and the UK country of Northern Ireland arose. What's now the Republic of Ireland wanted a complete break, while Northern Ireland still wants to be a part of the UK.
This is different from the federal system that most countries use, where provinces are forever subordinate to the larger collective. There is no political process available for secession in the US or most anywhere else except the UK, so demands for self-governance usually result in nothing or in civil war.
We should greatly encourage people to experiment with new political structures, and we can look to the Brits for inspiration on how to make that work. They tolerated Sealand until the whole project collapsed under its own weight. Which is pretty much how you want it to happen. War is the usual instrument by which new sovereignties are created. A peaceful way to blow away political cruft has great potential to eventually improve a lot of lives. It's been shown that the primary thing that keeps many people in perpetual poverty is rules, it's the founding principle behind the concept of charter cities.
There's room for experimentation here.
Similarly, it's the dream of every hacker to find a sandbox world where they can experiment to their heart's content. These government and society hackers as much as anyone.
There have been examples throughout history of 'partial sovereignty', the one closest to mind is that of the Native American nations in the US. They're sovereign in most of the ways that matter while still retaining the ability to bring in the grownups when things get serious.
The other example I can think of is the British concept of political devolution, whereby four independent countries with their own governments fit neatly into the collective United Kingdom, whereby the countries can demand ever greater self-rule through democratic process. This is how Ireland became both the Republic of Ireland and the UK country of Northern Ireland arose. What's now the Republic of Ireland wanted a complete break, while Northern Ireland still wants to be a part of the UK.
This is different from the federal system that most countries use, where provinces are forever subordinate to the larger collective. There is no political process available for secession in the US or most anywhere else except the UK, so demands for self-governance usually result in nothing or in civil war.
We should greatly encourage people to experiment with new political structures, and we can look to the Brits for inspiration on how to make that work. They tolerated Sealand until the whole project collapsed under its own weight. Which is pretty much how you want it to happen. War is the usual instrument by which new sovereignties are created. A peaceful way to blow away political cruft has great potential to eventually improve a lot of lives. It's been shown that the primary thing that keeps many people in perpetual poverty is rules, it's the founding principle behind the concept of charter cities.
There's room for experimentation here.
Similarly, it's the dream of every hacker to find a sandbox world where they can experiment to their heart's content. These government and society hackers as much as anyone.
Technically, "sandbox" an area of safe experiment cordorned from the rest of the system. Seasteading would have real, permanent consequences considering the agenda involves recruiting a large number of people.
It's been shown that the primary thing that keeps many people in perpetual poverty is rules, it's the founding principle behind the concept of charter cities.
This claim is dubious in the extreme. In the areas of the world with little poverty, you generally find well developed rule system. Similarly, areas with great, squalid levels of poverty often have few-to-no rules.
Technically, "sandbox" an area of safe experiment cordorned from the rest of the system. Seasteading would have real, permanent consequences considering the agenda involves recruiting a large number of people.
It's been shown that the primary thing that keeps many people in perpetual poverty is rules, it's the founding principle behind the concept of charter cities.
This claim is dubious in the extreme. In the areas of the world with little poverty, you generally find well developed rule system. Similarly, areas with great, squalid levels of poverty often have few-to-no rules.
> Seasteading would have real, permanent consequences considering the agenda involves recruiting a large number of people.
Sure, that's kind of the whole point. Try things out. You can always move back to your home country if it doesn't work out. Exactly what consequences are you trying to claim would happen?
The point of these kinds of things are that everybody can have a say in how things are run, a bit like an HOA where everybody isn't just creating an intentional living community, they're creating a whole new concept for organizing a society. The United States alone has many examples of this, from communes all the way up to the Mormon church. Lots of failures, a few phenomenal successes.
> In the areas of the world with little poverty, you generally find well developed rule system. Similarly, areas with great, squalid levels of poverty often have few-to-no rules.
That's the charter city argument. No rules means that people with power get to decide who gets to do what. By making a new city with new, commerce-friendly rules, the hope is to replicate the success of Hong Kong.
Sure, that's kind of the whole point. Try things out. You can always move back to your home country if it doesn't work out. Exactly what consequences are you trying to claim would happen?
The point of these kinds of things are that everybody can have a say in how things are run, a bit like an HOA where everybody isn't just creating an intentional living community, they're creating a whole new concept for organizing a society. The United States alone has many examples of this, from communes all the way up to the Mormon church. Lots of failures, a few phenomenal successes.
> In the areas of the world with little poverty, you generally find well developed rule system. Similarly, areas with great, squalid levels of poverty often have few-to-no rules.
That's the charter city argument. No rules means that people with power get to decide who gets to do what. By making a new city with new, commerce-friendly rules, the hope is to replicate the success of Hong Kong.
[deleted]
But let's stop them (or at least criticise them heavily) when they're doing it just to avoid any responsibility to others, when they're doing it out of an idea of "I've got mine, screw you".
If they were genuine attempts to recast society in a new light, they would be interesting. Most of them are simply childish attempts to evade tax. And many, many people trying to opt out of things like social safety nets will end up needing them. Are we to leave them to die, as their choice would seem to dictate?
If they were genuine attempts to recast society in a new light, they would be interesting. Most of them are simply childish attempts to evade tax. And many, many people trying to opt out of things like social safety nets will end up needing them. Are we to leave them to die, as their choice would seem to dictate?
> But let's stop them (or at least criticise them heavily) when they're doing it just to avoid any responsibility to others, when they're doing it out of an idea of "I've got mine, screw you".
From where do you get the right to "stop them" (which implies initiating or (at least escalating if you believe they have aggressed against you, which I'd love to here your rationale for that) aggression against them)? Do you believe you have a right to other people's stuff? Where do you believe rights come from?
From where do you get the right to "stop them" (which implies initiating or (at least escalating if you believe they have aggressed against you, which I'd love to here your rationale for that) aggression against them)? Do you believe you have a right to other people's stuff? Where do you believe rights come from?
"Or at least criticise them heavily"
Additionally they want (need) to leech off whatever larger nation they are floating nearest to. So they get to take advantage of all the benefits and conveniences provided by a mature country without contributing to the costs required to maintain it.
Its like all the people who claim they want to live out in the wilderness tax free and be left alone but in reality they live just on the edge of society so they can continue to come and go as they please.
Its like all the people who claim they want to live out in the wilderness tax free and be left alone but in reality they live just on the edge of society so they can continue to come and go as they please.
So if you live off the coast of some country, that country is liable to take care of you? Or maybe the seasteaders would simply pay for whatever services they need? Just like humans have traded for most of their existence?
Or maybe by "take advantage of" you mean "trade"?
If the navy deters pirates from operating in the area, even if the sea-steaders never see the pirates, would they still have to pay the navy?
Would the seasteaders be their own country? Then maybe the navy of another country wouldn't automatically come to their aid, unless they negotiate a deal?
> So if you live off the coast of some country, that country is liable to take care of you?
If they ever get into a storm and need help: yes.
If they ever get into a storm and need help: yes.
It doesn't look like your criticism has much to do with what they are proposing.
[deleted]
Plenty of apparently innocuous proposals have an agenda or ulterior motive behind them.
Therefore this one does?
[deleted]
wow. i came here to post a few snarky comments. strangely happy to see others have beat me to it.
See also: "Galt's Gulch of Chile" (2014).
https://www.salon.com/2014/09/16/ayn_rands_capitalist_paradi...
https://www.salon.com/2014/09/16/ayn_rands_capitalist_paradi...
Yeah. Like some libertarians who want to live on a space ship with no darn environmentalists.
Is there a difference between anarchy and libertarianism? I always thought there was...
Why would anyone want to get rid of nation states? Merging them would create even larger and slower bureaucracies, breaking them into smaller pieces would not be allowed. The only solution is to let them be and try to build something new.
> Ask them their opinions on the big crimes (murder/rape/arson etc). Will they allow me to keep slaves on my seastead?
Are you complaining that there are not enough crazy people?
No one wants to escape the real laws, because they are proven to be necessary for the society to work, and everyone agrees about them. The "minor regulations" are the laws that make all the difference.
> These are nothing more than rich randians complaining about their tax bracket
When this "rich randians" make the technology for living and working in a floating city cheap, they not only will get what they want but also will make it possible for "brave marxians" to try out their ideas too, and maybe they'll finally will build the society that will show to everyone that high taxes and planned economy are the best things.
> Ask them their opinions on the big crimes (murder/rape/arson etc). Will they allow me to keep slaves on my seastead?
Are you complaining that there are not enough crazy people?
No one wants to escape the real laws, because they are proven to be necessary for the society to work, and everyone agrees about them. The "minor regulations" are the laws that make all the difference.
> These are nothing more than rich randians complaining about their tax bracket
When this "rich randians" make the technology for living and working in a floating city cheap, they not only will get what they want but also will make it possible for "brave marxians" to try out their ideas too, and maybe they'll finally will build the society that will show to everyone that high taxes and planned economy are the best things.
> maybe they'll finally will build the society that will show to everyone that high taxes and planned economy are the best things.
I'm not holding my breath
I'm not holding my breath
Neither do i, but if some people truly believe that communism/socialism can work without iron curtain keeping people inside, they should be happy about seasteading as it will give them a way to test their hypothesis.
>When this "rich randians" make the technology for living and working in a floating city cheap, they not only will get what they want but also will make it possible for "brave marxians" to try out their ideas too, and maybe they'll finally will build the society that will show to everyone that high taxes and planned economy are the best things.
I'm looking forward to an union of floating egoists, equipped with fancy glasses, a gallant smile, and contempt for spooked randians and marxists, while unsucessfully trying to disrupt the dairy market.
I'm looking forward to an union of floating egoists, equipped with fancy glasses, a gallant smile, and contempt for spooked randians and marxists, while unsucessfully trying to disrupt the dairy market.
> No one wants to escape the real laws, because they are proven to be necessary for the society to work, and everyone agrees about them.
There are (next to) no laws that are internationally agreed upon.
There are (next to) no laws that are internationally agreed upon.
While not the exact specifics, no, but can you point to a society which actively encourages theft and murder? I'm talking not for special circumstances (ie. execution for crimes), but the straight up "I just wanted to stab a dude" murder.
>> a society which actively encourages theft and murder?
15th century England. The royal houses, and most of the entire landed aristocracy, were encouraged to murder and steal from each other regularly. Those who exercised and demonstrated the most power, the greatest capacity for violence, were promoted. That's how we picked kings.
"By the grace of god", a phrase in many constitutional documents to this day, isn't a beam of light. Victory in battle was evidence of divine approval. It means that God picked your side in whatever war was fought to put your family on the throne. Violence was the core of society then and, arguably, remains so in constitutional monarchies today. (Canada, UK, Australia etc).
15th century England. The royal houses, and most of the entire landed aristocracy, were encouraged to murder and steal from each other regularly. Those who exercised and demonstrated the most power, the greatest capacity for violence, were promoted. That's how we picked kings.
"By the grace of god", a phrase in many constitutional documents to this day, isn't a beam of light. Victory in battle was evidence of divine approval. It means that God picked your side in whatever war was fought to put your family on the throne. Violence was the core of society then and, arguably, remains so in constitutional monarchies today. (Canada, UK, Australia etc).
15th century England had no ritual or requirements in order to lawfully murder another human being? 15th century England, which had had the beginnings of English Common Law for 2 centuries, had no laws against murder? The Magna Carta wielding English had no laws against murder?
In the Magna Carta:
"39. No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."
In the Magna Carta:
"39. No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."
Although to be fair not all Englishmen in the 15th century would be freemen.
When Magna Carta was signed, there will have been a large number of villeins and other serfs. A serf is recognised in law as a person and so you can't _own_ them, indeed they can own other things. Villeins are serfs that come with land. Like you'll own a bunch of farm land, and there will be fifty people who you don't own, but they aren't allowed to leave without permission. They farm stuff, you feed them, it's... well it's not very nice, but it isn't chattel slavery, people would have voluntarily become villeins because it meant food security when famines were a possibility.
Anyway, by the 15th century there are fewer villeins, it just doesn't make as much sense as a plague has wiped a bunch of people out, making labour very valuable - but until the 1500s there are at least some left in England.
But I'm pretty sure that killing serfs was not considered OK. I dunno if they'd have executed you for it, and that period wasn't really into prisons, but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have gone "OK, that seems fine, nothing to see".
When Magna Carta was signed, there will have been a large number of villeins and other serfs. A serf is recognised in law as a person and so you can't _own_ them, indeed they can own other things. Villeins are serfs that come with land. Like you'll own a bunch of farm land, and there will be fifty people who you don't own, but they aren't allowed to leave without permission. They farm stuff, you feed them, it's... well it's not very nice, but it isn't chattel slavery, people would have voluntarily become villeins because it meant food security when famines were a possibility.
Anyway, by the 15th century there are fewer villeins, it just doesn't make as much sense as a plague has wiped a bunch of people out, making labour very valuable - but until the 1500s there are at least some left in England.
But I'm pretty sure that killing serfs was not considered OK. I dunno if they'd have executed you for it, and that period wasn't really into prisons, but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have gone "OK, that seems fine, nothing to see".
Oh yeah, the Magna Carta was certainly focused on the upper class (as the person I was responding to was as well), but it shows a respect for life and property - may that get muddied by class issues? I'm sure it did, but people they recognized as being full people (I'm simplifying the relationship a bit) were afforded the right to live.
Society, not country. Among the landed aristocracy violence was expected. Sons were trained as warriors for the inevitable family conflicts.
>> no laws against murder
Murder is a crime, an unlawful killing. A law forbidding something already defined as a crime is circular. A great many killings, those in combat, were not illegal and therefore not murder. So while murder was illegal killing was not, at least not always. And at the highest levels those who won the war, those best at killing, decided who would be punished, if anyone. The legal definitions were beside the point.
>> no laws against murder
Murder is a crime, an unlawful killing. A law forbidding something already defined as a crime is circular. A great many killings, those in combat, were not illegal and therefore not murder. So while murder was illegal killing was not, at least not always. And at the highest levels those who won the war, those best at killing, decided who would be punished, if anyone. The legal definitions were beside the point.
You're describing lawful combat, which had rules. For instance - you'd never see a nobleman kill a noblewoman without recourse. I'm talking the taking of another human's life without reason or justification - just a wanton disregard for human life and no need to rationalize the death.
The opposite of "we can't agree on laws" is not "we encourage the behaviour that most places have those laws in place to discourage". What you should be asking is "show me a country that doesn't have laws for what we commonly consider illegal behaviour".
So okay: slavery is horrible, and illegal (by law) in a lot of places. But not in Mali, where hundreds of thousands of people are either indentured servants, or quite literally slaves.
So okay: slavery is horrible, and illegal (by law) in a lot of places. But not in Mali, where hundreds of thousands of people are either indentured servants, or quite literally slaves.
You're right - encourage was the wrong word. Every country will have laws that we don't like, I get that, but I'm arguing that there is a common ground there - it may not be very big, and it may be pretty basic when it comes to what it's covering, but I don't think there's a nation on earth where murder is perfectly OK. There are SOME basic elements everybody follows.
Let's go back to your use of "society" instead of country, and you pretty quickly run into things like Boko Haram or ISIL, where murder is barely a punishable offense. And these are groups who _very clearly want_ to form their own countries. (and thankfully, so far are prevented from doing so, at high cost).
So: sure, it's reasonable to assume any well-intentioned group of people will come up with some kind of basic law book, but not everyone is well-intentioned, and the question about "who runs the court?", especially for a place as tiny as this, is an excellent question to pose, because you really can't rely on common sense to lead to fair trials.
So: sure, it's reasonable to assume any well-intentioned group of people will come up with some kind of basic law book, but not everyone is well-intentioned, and the question about "who runs the court?", especially for a place as tiny as this, is an excellent question to pose, because you really can't rely on common sense to lead to fair trials.
Boko Haram or ISIL are not killing people in the group they are killing outsiders who according to their views are enemies. This groups do not want to form their own countries, they want to take as many existing countries as possible and force people to live by their laws. Any examples you think of will be some crazy fanatics or remnant of some medieval traditions, and even there murder will be allowed only according to some hierarchy.
> "who runs the court?", especially for a place as tiny as this
While they are tiny they'll have to use court of an existing country.
> "who runs the court?", especially for a place as tiny as this
While they are tiny they'll have to use court of an existing country.
Did the Boko Haram or ISIL kill their own in-groups?
I too would like to hear of the country where 1) Don't kill and 2) Don't steal are not in some way specified in law.
Some satanist cults come to mind. Thankfully darwinism takes care of that.
But if you re looking for a similar example take the armies. They all have lawful license to murder they just disagree on who to kill.
But if you re looking for a similar example take the armies. They all have lawful license to murder they just disagree on who to kill.
Satanic cults are exceedingly and aren't societies - and I'll bet they even have rules - can't kill the in-group for instance.
> They all have lawful license to murder they just disagree on who to kill.
That falls under the special circumstances, and implies that normally murder is unlawful.
> They all have lawful license to murder they just disagree on who to kill.
That falls under the special circumstances, and implies that normally murder is unlawful.
This is one of those concepts that seems to come out of thinking of the law as similar to software. It's not, because software is run by computers while law is run by humans.
If you find a straightforward loophole in software, the computer running it will e.g. happily hand you information you're not supposed to have[1]. If you find that kind of loophole in the law, then the humans running it will usually just tell you to go home. They know that you know what they meant.
Laws can still have loopholes, but they are generally more subtle and complicated. Fixing them often has obvious unintended consequences. They're more like speculative execution bugs[2] than buffer overruns.
[1]- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartbleed
[2]- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectre_(security_vulnerabilit...
If you find a straightforward loophole in software, the computer running it will e.g. happily hand you information you're not supposed to have[1]. If you find that kind of loophole in the law, then the humans running it will usually just tell you to go home. They know that you know what they meant.
Laws can still have loopholes, but they are generally more subtle and complicated. Fixing them often has obvious unintended consequences. They're more like speculative execution bugs[2] than buffer overruns.
[1]- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartbleed
[2]- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectre_(security_vulnerabilit...
Wasn't one of the largest tax fraud scandals[1] just that?
> An international group of bankers, lawyers and stockbrokers - reportedly with links to the City of London - appears to have fiddled the tax system, employing practices which were at best unethical, at worst illegal.
> With a bit of imaginative paperwork, and by exploiting a procedure which allows more than one person or institution to simultaneously own a share, they were able to claim numerous tax refunds. The practice was outlawed in 2012.
In my (incomplete) understanding this was a vulnerability in the law that has not been patched until 2012 when it had already been exploited for a while. It wasn't just tax avoidance but extracting money from treasuries, so it should be blatantly obvious that this was not the intent of the lawmaker.
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40199259
> An international group of bankers, lawyers and stockbrokers - reportedly with links to the City of London - appears to have fiddled the tax system, employing practices which were at best unethical, at worst illegal.
> With a bit of imaginative paperwork, and by exploiting a procedure which allows more than one person or institution to simultaneously own a share, they were able to claim numerous tax refunds. The practice was outlawed in 2012.
In my (incomplete) understanding this was a vulnerability in the law that has not been patched until 2012 when it had already been exploited for a while. It wasn't just tax avoidance but extracting money from treasuries, so it should be blatantly obvious that this was not the intent of the lawmaker.
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40199259
From the article:
> In the first type, German banks and stockbrokers bought and sold shares for foreign investors in a way which allowed them to claim a tax refund for which they were not eligible. Many question the legality of the practice.
This is more "nobody noticed they were doing it" than "it was obviously happening, and the government shrugged its shoulders." Obviously, unlike a computer, it is quite possible for humans to just not notice that you're doing an illegal thing.
> In the second (a more complicated variation), investors and banks bought and sold shares just before and just after dividends were paid. With a bit of imaginative paperwork, and by exploiting a procedure which allows more than one person or institution to simultaneously own a share, they were able to claim numerous tax refunds. The practice was outlawed in 2012.
This is a subtle loophole, which probably did not admit an easy patch without serious unintended consequences (the category for which I used Spectre as an example).
> In the first type, German banks and stockbrokers bought and sold shares for foreign investors in a way which allowed them to claim a tax refund for which they were not eligible. Many question the legality of the practice.
This is more "nobody noticed they were doing it" than "it was obviously happening, and the government shrugged its shoulders." Obviously, unlike a computer, it is quite possible for humans to just not notice that you're doing an illegal thing.
> In the second (a more complicated variation), investors and banks bought and sold shares just before and just after dividends were paid. With a bit of imaginative paperwork, and by exploiting a procedure which allows more than one person or institution to simultaneously own a share, they were able to claim numerous tax refunds. The practice was outlawed in 2012.
This is a subtle loophole, which probably did not admit an easy patch without serious unintended consequences (the category for which I used Spectre as an example).
But note that these loopholes involve taxation. Tax laws are based on intricate policy considerations. They aren't based on 10-commandments, carved in stone, legal principals. They are expected to be updated regularly. Courts will often presume "loopholes" in tax code to be there for a reason and throw the law back at the legislature for corrections.
General Anti-Avoidance Rules fix this.
A GAAR (which lots of countries have these days) goes roughly like this:
If you do something that only makes sense because it reduces your liability to taxation, that doesn't work, and tax is due as if you hadn't done it.
The UK's version uses a "double reasonableness" test, which tells a jury that the way to assess the rule is not just to decide whether they, ostensibly reasonable people, think the accused did something that makes no sense except to avoid tax, but that they should imagine whether _any_ hypothetical reasonable person could have thought it was reasonable to do this. That's a deliberately high bar for the tax authorities.
I don't think having an Irish subsidiary with four employees that supposedly sells all your products produced in China under direction of staff mostly based in Swindon seems reasonable if not for the tax benefit, but somebody else might reasonably think so, and so I concede that a "double reasonableness" test would allow you to keep claiming the tax benefits of doing that.
On the other hand, if you pay hardly any taxes because you claim to be a "second hand car dealer" but it turns out you never saw any of these cars you were supposedly dealing in, know nothing about cars, and had arranged in advance for the cars to be bought and sold at a calculated loss so as to avoid taxation, now I struggle to imagine how any reasonable person could not see that for what it is, and so (sure enough) real celebrities who tried such a scheme ended up having to pay their taxes (and for the lawyers they'd hired to try to argue this was fine).
Another fun element of GAAR is to require people who sell avoidance schemes to tell you about them. The requirement goes like this. If you sell somebody a tax avoidance scheme that doesn't work you're in hot water _unless_ you told the tax authorities about this scheme first. This way the authorities know what's coming, and the people who dream up schemes keep their income, the only downside is if you're a grifter hoping to avoid taxes it might be less likely to work now. Boo hoo.
A GAAR (which lots of countries have these days) goes roughly like this:
If you do something that only makes sense because it reduces your liability to taxation, that doesn't work, and tax is due as if you hadn't done it.
The UK's version uses a "double reasonableness" test, which tells a jury that the way to assess the rule is not just to decide whether they, ostensibly reasonable people, think the accused did something that makes no sense except to avoid tax, but that they should imagine whether _any_ hypothetical reasonable person could have thought it was reasonable to do this. That's a deliberately high bar for the tax authorities.
I don't think having an Irish subsidiary with four employees that supposedly sells all your products produced in China under direction of staff mostly based in Swindon seems reasonable if not for the tax benefit, but somebody else might reasonably think so, and so I concede that a "double reasonableness" test would allow you to keep claiming the tax benefits of doing that.
On the other hand, if you pay hardly any taxes because you claim to be a "second hand car dealer" but it turns out you never saw any of these cars you were supposedly dealing in, know nothing about cars, and had arranged in advance for the cars to be bought and sold at a calculated loss so as to avoid taxation, now I struggle to imagine how any reasonable person could not see that for what it is, and so (sure enough) real celebrities who tried such a scheme ended up having to pay their taxes (and for the lawyers they'd hired to try to argue this was fine).
Another fun element of GAAR is to require people who sell avoidance schemes to tell you about them. The requirement goes like this. If you sell somebody a tax avoidance scheme that doesn't work you're in hot water _unless_ you told the tax authorities about this scheme first. This way the authorities know what's coming, and the people who dream up schemes keep their income, the only downside is if you're a grifter hoping to avoid taxes it might be less likely to work now. Boo hoo.
> This is a subtle loophole, which probably did not admit an easy patch [...]
That's probably false. It's enough to make sure entities holding shares can never set up a system to avoid paying taxes on them. And in any case holding shares can not result in net gain (so no tax credit can result from holding shares).
The law always can be amended and further complicated, even in inconsistent ways! And let courts sort it out. (And then fix it again, and repeat.)
That's probably false. It's enough to make sure entities holding shares can never set up a system to avoid paying taxes on them. And in any case holding shares can not result in net gain (so no tax credit can result from holding shares).
The law always can be amended and further complicated, even in inconsistent ways! And let courts sort it out. (And then fix it again, and repeat.)
> This is more "nobody noticed they were doing it" than "it was obviously happening, and the government shrugged its shoulders." Obviously, unlike a computer, it is quite possible for humans to just not notice that you're doing an illegal thing.
That sounds exactly like a zero-day bug of the sort that caused e.g. Heartbleed and Shellshock.
That sounds exactly like a zero-day bug of the sort that caused e.g. Heartbleed and Shellshock.
The bigger mistake is that paper and being clever will trump the power of guns.
You know you're on HN when the law is explained with an analogy to computer code and not the other way around ;)
Getting way off-topic but Stanford Law School had a project trying to encode law as code: https://law.stanford.edu/codex-the-stanford-center-for-legal...
You believe that the existence of government-free land is a "loophole in the law" ?
Well, yes. Maritime treaties exist to facilitate trade, so that you aren't subject to some absurd law just because that country decided your boat was in that jurisdiction. They obviously don't exist to give folks a place to commit murder without consequences.
Likewise, while starting a country is plausibly a moral good, enabling that is not the purpose of maritime treaties. Countries refuse to recognize other terrestrial countries all the time, even if they have clear borders and obviously-powerful governments internally (e.g. PRC and ROC each refusing to recognize the other, most of the middle east not recognizing Israel). Putting your country on a boat doesn't somehow increase your legitimacy before the international community.
Likewise, while starting a country is plausibly a moral good, enabling that is not the purpose of maritime treaties. Countries refuse to recognize other terrestrial countries all the time, even if they have clear borders and obviously-powerful governments internally (e.g. PRC and ROC each refusing to recognize the other, most of the middle east not recognizing Israel). Putting your country on a boat doesn't somehow increase your legitimacy before the international community.
> enabling that is not the purpose of maritime treaties.
Neither is preventing it. So why is it a 'loophole'. (leaving aside the issue that it would be very hard to justify the legitimacy of such a law)
Neither is preventing it. So why is it a 'loophole'. (leaving aside the issue that it would be very hard to justify the legitimacy of such a law)
It doesn't prevent it, but it also doesn't prevent any nearby country from folding you up if they feel like it. The premise of seasteading seems to be that they are somehow prevented from doing this by maritime treaties.
No, i think the premise is that, since governemnets have claimed sovereignity over any terrain on earth, including the moon and planets, the only places where it's possible to set up ship for a new country nonviolently is the middle of the oceans. Seasteaders understand that they'd have to build their own defenses, and don't rely on nearby countries for protection.
Right, this is exactly the misapprehension. The agreement that nobody claims the middle of the ocean does not exist for the purpose of letting folks create their own countries, it exists for the purposes of allowing everyone's ships to pass through. Starting a country is unlikely to go better in the middle of the ocean than in e.g. the middle of the Mojave.
> does not exist for the purpose of letting folks create their own countries
Says who? this is an arbitrary interpretation.
Further, there is obviously no law about how and where to create a new country, as the UN by definition will defend the status quo as a union of sovereign nations. Most countries emerged violently and illegally in their beginning, and got recognized later (including the US).
The mojave is in the middle of what the world recognizes as a sovereign state, it would be a much more difficult starter and impossible to find allies.
Says who? this is an arbitrary interpretation.
Further, there is obviously no law about how and where to create a new country, as the UN by definition will defend the status quo as a union of sovereign nations. Most countries emerged violently and illegally in their beginning, and got recognized later (including the US).
The mojave is in the middle of what the world recognizes as a sovereign state, it would be a much more difficult starter and impossible to find allies.
> > does not exist for the purpose of letting folks create their own countries
> Says who? this is an arbitrary interpretation.
> Further, there is obviously no law about how and where to create a new country, as the UN by definition will defend the status quo as a union of sovereign nations. Most countries emerged violently and illegally in their beginning, and got recognized later (including the US).
> The mojave is in the middle of what the world recognizes as a sovereign state, it would be a much more difficult starter and impossible to find allies.
I think what amalcom is getting at, is that maritime law does not offer any protection to aspiring nation states. It is in place solely to allow free travel. That same free travel would allow another sovereign who happens upon your budding nation state to take it with impunity (unless the state is prepared for armed conflict with another, more established (and probably more populated and wealthy) state).
> Says who? this is an arbitrary interpretation.
> Further, there is obviously no law about how and where to create a new country, as the UN by definition will defend the status quo as a union of sovereign nations. Most countries emerged violently and illegally in their beginning, and got recognized later (including the US).
> The mojave is in the middle of what the world recognizes as a sovereign state, it would be a much more difficult starter and impossible to find allies.
I think what amalcom is getting at, is that maritime law does not offer any protection to aspiring nation states. It is in place solely to allow free travel. That same free travel would allow another sovereign who happens upon your budding nation state to take it with impunity (unless the state is prepared for armed conflict with another, more established (and probably more populated and wealthy) state).
There is always a government.
It might be two guys with guns, or it might be a huge bureaucracy that runs on the rule of law or anywhere in between.
But it's always there.
It might be two guys with guns, or it might be a huge bureaucracy that runs on the rule of law or anywhere in between.
But it's always there.
> or it might be a huge bureaucracy that runs on the rule of law
You forgot to mention that in that case it's just one guy with the only gun
You forgot to mention that in that case it's just one guy with the only gun
The one guy better not sleep.
That's just false.
Disagree.
As soon as one person's actions can affect another person a system arises for resolving their inevitable conflicts and facilitating cooperation if required. What do you call that system? Many would call that "government." That does seem appropriate if the definition of government is:
> the political system by which a country or a community is administered and regulated.
Of course, "government" as manifested in multi-million person nations is significantly evolved from it's abstract underpinnings both etymologically and philosophically. Same is true of the notions of political, community, administered, and regulated. But all that evolution (both its pros and cons) falls out logically from the foundational relationship of two beings with agency trying to figure out how and if to restrain that agency when it conflicts with the other's.
EDIT: I see from a sibling you're referring to "Anarchism." That doesn't free anyone for the reality of government it just changes where the restraining lines get drawn. In practice, the lines predictably get drawn in favor of the powerful just as they do in more mainstream systems of government.
As soon as one person's actions can affect another person a system arises for resolving their inevitable conflicts and facilitating cooperation if required. What do you call that system? Many would call that "government." That does seem appropriate if the definition of government is:
> the political system by which a country or a community is administered and regulated.
Of course, "government" as manifested in multi-million person nations is significantly evolved from it's abstract underpinnings both etymologically and philosophically. Same is true of the notions of political, community, administered, and regulated. But all that evolution (both its pros and cons) falls out logically from the foundational relationship of two beings with agency trying to figure out how and if to restrain that agency when it conflicts with the other's.
EDIT: I see from a sibling you're referring to "Anarchism." That doesn't free anyone for the reality of government it just changes where the restraining lines get drawn. In practice, the lines predictably get drawn in favor of the powerful just as they do in more mainstream systems of government.
billiam(1)
I wanted to actually dig into this, and see if there's anything that's underlying the ideas that are worth really considering but I've got to say, this really turned me off:
"When an Island or Peninsula breaks free from a larger country and creates its own legal structure, dramatic increases in prosperity often occur within 1 generation.
Under British rule Hong Kong habour was little more than a dockyard for the Royal Navy. Now thanks to modern trade rules and numerous land reclamation projects, the skyline features an abundance of skyscrapers."
That's just dishonest. Firstly, Hong Kong was not just a dockyard for the British Navy in 1997, it was already an incredibly rich place, with many skyscrapers and huge amounts of autonomy. Try googling a photo of Hong Kong in 1997. Secondly, it is has not broken free from a larger country, it was returned from the British Empire to Chinese control.
"Before World War 2, rickshaws were the primary form of transport in Singapore. Now there is a vast public transport infrastructure, including high speed rail networks and expressways."
Okay, what a funky timeline. Before WW2 Singapore was very poor! Along with basically everyone else in that region. It gained independence in 1959, but let's not talk about what happened in between!
None of the examples they give seem to offer anything other than "Pro tip: Be a tax haven". Singapore, Mauritius, Hong Kong? Notice what these places have in common? Like Jesus Christ guys could you not find a single example of a country whose independence made it wealthy without being a straight up tax haven for the surrounding larger countries?
"When an Island or Peninsula breaks free from a larger country and creates its own legal structure, dramatic increases in prosperity often occur within 1 generation.
Under British rule Hong Kong habour was little more than a dockyard for the Royal Navy. Now thanks to modern trade rules and numerous land reclamation projects, the skyline features an abundance of skyscrapers."
That's just dishonest. Firstly, Hong Kong was not just a dockyard for the British Navy in 1997, it was already an incredibly rich place, with many skyscrapers and huge amounts of autonomy. Try googling a photo of Hong Kong in 1997. Secondly, it is has not broken free from a larger country, it was returned from the British Empire to Chinese control.
"Before World War 2, rickshaws were the primary form of transport in Singapore. Now there is a vast public transport infrastructure, including high speed rail networks and expressways."
Okay, what a funky timeline. Before WW2 Singapore was very poor! Along with basically everyone else in that region. It gained independence in 1959, but let's not talk about what happened in between!
None of the examples they give seem to offer anything other than "Pro tip: Be a tax haven". Singapore, Mauritius, Hong Kong? Notice what these places have in common? Like Jesus Christ guys could you not find a single example of a country whose independence made it wealthy without being a straight up tax haven for the surrounding larger countries?
Less than two weeks after a 'Seastead' got dismantled and towed away by the Thai navy:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/thai-navy-dismantles-floating-...
https://www.theepochtimes.com/thai-navy-dismantles-floating-...
A good illustration of why it might not be such a great idea to fly no flag and claim no nation: anybody who floats up with a gun bigger than yours can go right ahead and subject you to whatever "law" they feel like.
If you fly the US flag, but claim no subdivision, one would have the benefits of citizenship without having to pay state and local taxes. As far as I can tell, registering a ship only requires citizenship, but it would make any dispute complex.
Not a lawyer, but there was an era where citizens lived in US territories.
Not a lawyer, but there was an era where citizens lived in US territories.
>Not a lawyer, but there was an era where citizens lived in US territories
Citizens still live in US territories. Also, there are places in the United States where birth does not confer US citizenship [0].
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Samoa#Nationality
Citizens still live in US territories. Also, there are places in the United States where birth does not confer US citizenship [0].
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Samoa#Nationality
> If you fly the US flag, but claim no subdivision, one would have the benefits of citizenship without having to pay state and local taxes.
That doesn't seem right - why don't refugees, who appear to already be attempting to boat across large swaths of water, simply fly the US flag then?
That doesn't seem right - why don't refugees, who appear to already be attempting to boat across large swaths of water, simply fly the US flag then?
Flying the flag is not what matters. It is the registration of the ship in a country that matters. The flag is just the announcement where you are registered. And the US will probably not register a refugee boat and of the them the protection that comes with the registration.
For a start, they aren't trying to live in those large swathes of water, they're trying to reach somewhere else to live. Turning up at a border waving a US flag but having no valid US passport won't get you in...
> one would have the benefits of citizenship without having to pay state and local taxes.
I assume you'd need to be a citizen beforehand, right?
I assume you'd need to be a citizen beforehand, right?
Not quite, large part of international treaties get embedded into law that extents past just the treaty partners. Enforcement can be hard though..
[deleted]
I read the seasteading book, and thought it made a fairly convincing case that seasteads could produce vast amounts of food, biofuel, and carbon sequestration.
I do think that setting out to build a "city" is not the way forward. Early experiments in deep-water aquaculture have been very profitable. Expand on that, and settlement will happen organically.
I do think that setting out to build a "city" is not the way forward. Early experiments in deep-water aquaculture have been very profitable. Expand on that, and settlement will happen organically.
Your comment reminds me of GreenWave: https://www.greenwave.org/our-work
Ecologically and economically sustainable underwater 3D farms.
Ecologically and economically sustainable underwater 3D farms.
Yep, exactly the sort of thing I mean.
Another good book on the topic is Tim Flannery's Sunlight and Seaweed.
Another good book on the topic is Tim Flannery's Sunlight and Seaweed.
Something tells me these guys are more motivated by tax evasion than by saving the environment.
If you are always buying groceries at the store next door, and one day find a store with better prices, would buying from the new store be "payment evasion"? The same applies to governments if your current one doesn't provide the service you need you have all the rights to try to find a better one. And whether you move to an existing country or try to create a new one doesn't make a big difference.
This is disingenuous. The store next door isn't providing you with any services beyond the grocery transactions you engage in. A country, on the other hand, largely does. If you actually move from one country to another legitimately, cut ties with the former, and engage solely with the services of the latter, then no one's going to accuse you of tax evasion either. Governments are much less transactional than it's often popular to make them out to be, because there are whole lot of background, foundational services that they provide the people seem to like to pretend simply appear out of thin air.
> cut ties with the former, and engage solely with the services of the latter, then no one's going to accuse you of tax evasion either.
If your worry is that an existing government will allow some rich people to register as living on seastead and not pay taxes, then this doesn't have anything to do with seastead, and is only a failure of the government. If US allowed such a scheme there would not be any need to build a seastead, any corrupt government in any small country would be happy to provide all that is needed for a fraction of the cost.
On the other hand very similar thing is already happening in places like Russia where families of many government officials live in US and Europe using the money stolen back in home. (One city mayor even got a US green card requiring to live half of the year in the US, at the same time keeping his post and giving speeches on how bad is USA).
> because there are whole lot of background, foundational services that they provide the people seem to like to pretend simply appear out of thin air.
That is because the services that governments provide are bundled, which makes it hard for people to see what is the foundational service they are paying for and which is something that no one wants but has to buy because some bureaucrat 50 years ago managed to pass a law. Experiments with seastead governments would help to make the bundles more explicit.
If your worry is that an existing government will allow some rich people to register as living on seastead and not pay taxes, then this doesn't have anything to do with seastead, and is only a failure of the government. If US allowed such a scheme there would not be any need to build a seastead, any corrupt government in any small country would be happy to provide all that is needed for a fraction of the cost.
On the other hand very similar thing is already happening in places like Russia where families of many government officials live in US and Europe using the money stolen back in home. (One city mayor even got a US green card requiring to live half of the year in the US, at the same time keeping his post and giving speeches on how bad is USA).
> because there are whole lot of background, foundational services that they provide the people seem to like to pretend simply appear out of thin air.
That is because the services that governments provide are bundled, which makes it hard for people to see what is the foundational service they are paying for and which is something that no one wants but has to buy because some bureaucrat 50 years ago managed to pass a law. Experiments with seastead governments would help to make the bundles more explicit.
Sure, but I think OP is referring to avoiding future taxes as still tax evasion, even if all current debts are settled.
Seasteading is not motivated by environmental concerns , but mainly by libertarian concerns to escape regulations and governments. How would they evade taxes in international territory where there are no taxes?
[edit since i m blocked from replying]:
- US is unique in taxing worldwide income. I would assume the colonists would renounce any other citizenship anyway, and the colony does not have taxes.
- They could not move any financial assets or to the colony unless it is somehow recognized internationally. There is no way to evade taxes.
- The only possible way to tranfer assets is to convert them to cryptocurrency , which presumably would only be useful in the colony. And there 's probably not going to be a way to move large sums of money out of the colony, unless international banks agree to cooperate with it.
[and a tangent]
It's "interesting" to contrast the reactions of HN 2019 compared to 10 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=194028
[edit since i m blocked from replying]:
- US is unique in taxing worldwide income. I would assume the colonists would renounce any other citizenship anyway, and the colony does not have taxes.
- They could not move any financial assets or to the colony unless it is somehow recognized internationally. There is no way to evade taxes.
- The only possible way to tranfer assets is to convert them to cryptocurrency , which presumably would only be useful in the colony. And there 's probably not going to be a way to move large sums of money out of the colony, unless international banks agree to cooperate with it.
[and a tangent]
It's "interesting" to contrast the reactions of HN 2019 compared to 10 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=194028
They would evade taxes from moving from where they currently live (and pay those taxes, which they're not able to evade via fancy constructs) to "Nowhere Land" where they (apparently) are not taxed at all.
Alas, "Nowhere Land" may figure at one point that they need to generate income for basic maintenence and other necessary expenses. Basic maintenance, which can be very, very costly out at sea.
Alas, "Nowhere Land" may figure at one point that they need to generate income for basic maintenence and other necessary expenses. Basic maintenance, which can be very, very costly out at sea.
There are taxes in international waters. If you are a US citizen you owe income tax no matter where you earn your income. Hiding your income and not paying income tax is evading taxation.
https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/taxp...
https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/taxp...
The founder of the Seasteading Institute, Patri Friedman (son David Friedman and grandson of Milton Friedman), is a libertarian anarchist. So yeah, undermining the concept of the nation-state is really built into the DNA of the whole venture. It goes beyond tax avoidance.
He's an anarcho-capitalist, which has little in common with most strains of historical anarchism, despite the name.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Sorry to detract from your main point, but how is it possible to be an anarchist and a libertarian at the same time? Those are fairly mutually exclusive based on my understanding.
The libertarian type of anarchism is called anarcho-capitalism.
It's based on property rights and the non aggression principle.
It's based on property rights and the non aggression principle.
Have to chime in here, since I once studied the history of anarchism as a social/economic/political movement.
Anarchism was overwhelmingly a socialist movement, contemporary with Marxism and communism. Many anarchists debated the ideal forms of socialism vigorously at congresses held by groups like the First International. Historically, Marxism and communism won the most mindshare, with rare exceptions like the Spanish Civil War.
Leading 19th c. anarchist thinkers, like Bakunin and Kropotkin, would have laughed you out of the room if you had claimed anarchism was in any way not a leftist movement.
This conception is from a much later argument of economist Murray Rothbard from the mid-20th c., and owes more to the Austrian school of economics then any strain of anarchist thinking. Rothbard drew upon some individualist anarchist writers, but tossed out all the economic parts he disagreed with, and called it anarcho-capitalism. Claiming anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism reveals a complete misreading of, or disdain for, the overwhelming majority of anarchist thought.
Now for an interesting follow-up: the term "libertarian" underwent the same change in America, but even more thoroughly, to the point that only historians recall its leftist origins. (Outside America, "libertarian" is more synonymous with anarchism.)
To quote Rothbard above: "One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, 'our side,' had captured a crucial word from the enemy... 'Libertarians'... had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over..."
Anarchism was overwhelmingly a socialist movement, contemporary with Marxism and communism. Many anarchists debated the ideal forms of socialism vigorously at congresses held by groups like the First International. Historically, Marxism and communism won the most mindshare, with rare exceptions like the Spanish Civil War.
Leading 19th c. anarchist thinkers, like Bakunin and Kropotkin, would have laughed you out of the room if you had claimed anarchism was in any way not a leftist movement.
This conception is from a much later argument of economist Murray Rothbard from the mid-20th c., and owes more to the Austrian school of economics then any strain of anarchist thinking. Rothbard drew upon some individualist anarchist writers, but tossed out all the economic parts he disagreed with, and called it anarcho-capitalism. Claiming anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism reveals a complete misreading of, or disdain for, the overwhelming majority of anarchist thought.
Now for an interesting follow-up: the term "libertarian" underwent the same change in America, but even more thoroughly, to the point that only historians recall its leftist origins. (Outside America, "libertarian" is more synonymous with anarchism.)
To quote Rothbard above: "One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, 'our side,' had captured a crucial word from the enemy... 'Libertarians'... had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over..."
There's Anarchism as the social/economical/political movement and then there's anarchism as the greek word for "no leader/government"...
Anarcho-capitalism is not a type of the former, but it is a type of the later.
Anarcho-capitalism is not a type of the former, but it is a type of the later.
That's not what anarcho-capitalists mean when they use the word "anarchism", though. They are explicitly claiming a relationship to 19th c. socialist anarchism, not that "linguistic analysis means this word used elsewhere should also apply to our unrelated ideas".
There's a famous account on Reddit of a naïve US anarcho-capitalist kid hanging out with Greek anarchists. Things don't end well for the ancap!
https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/3ucp8y/...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/3ucp8y/...
It's impossible to mention anarcho-capitalism in a non-ancap forum without more traditional anarchists coming in and screaming into the wind that anarcho-capitalism isn't real anarchism. In the end, the normies don't know enough about the debate to have an opinion, or care, or even realize it exists, and the ancaps don't care what the socialist anarchists think on the matter.
The whole debate feels like a fruitless exercise to reclaim territory that is long lost.
The whole debate feels like a fruitless exercise to reclaim territory that is long lost.
How do they deal with the unquestionable fact that aggression exists?
I think they propose voluntarily subscribed-to private cops/legal jurisdictions with either voluntarily subscribed-to arbitration contracts for inter-jurisdictional conflicts or insurance payouts for when some one who subscribes to no jurisdiction (or one with no arbitration agreement with yours) stabs/robs/whatevers you.
Basically as it is now but instead of the law and tax being collected based on location, you get to freely choose what law(s)-enforcement you want to be under.
Basically as it is now but instead of the law and tax being collected based on location, you get to freely choose what law(s)-enforcement you want to be under.
>you get to freely choose what law(s)-enforcement you want to be under
Until someone under a different LE company accuses of a crime. Then you'll be subject to their process (unless, of course, your LE company has more guns).
Until someone under a different LE company accuses of a crime. Then you'll be subject to their process (unless, of course, your LE company has more guns).
Well the hardcore version is that the different LE company can't subject you to their process unless you consent and if you didn't the restitution for whatever crime they say you committed would be paid for by their own insurance company.
why would you ever agree then? Well maybe because they have an agreement with your LE company and you'd find yourself dropped as a client if you didn't or you both use the same insurance company and they'd jack up your rates if you didn't. More extremely you might be fired and become unhireable as a liability and unless you already have sufficient arable land to subsistence farm you will die of starvation or be shot for trespassing (initiating force) on the sidewalk that you can no longer pay for the use of.
Don't take this as me thinking it is at all a workable scheme also I'm definitely not AnCap and I don't hang out in their circles so this kinda just the low-nuance version that I've picked up via osmosis.
why would you ever agree then? Well maybe because they have an agreement with your LE company and you'd find yourself dropped as a client if you didn't or you both use the same insurance company and they'd jack up your rates if you didn't. More extremely you might be fired and become unhireable as a liability and unless you already have sufficient arable land to subsistence farm you will die of starvation or be shot for trespassing (initiating force) on the sidewalk that you can no longer pay for the use of.
Don't take this as me thinking it is at all a workable scheme also I'm definitely not AnCap and I don't hang out in their circles so this kinda just the low-nuance version that I've picked up via osmosis.
It's a lot of mental gymnastics that serve as a "reductio ad absurdam" argument, proving that the fundamental organizing axiom of human societies is still "might makes right" rather than "right is derived from mutually-agreed-upon moral principles".
The last arguments of kings are still guns.
The end state of all theoretical non-aggressive libertarian societies is that they are conquered through force by some form of cartel. In my opinion, seasteading, which is predicated on mutual non-aggression for prosperity, is strictly inferior to hiring a bunch of ex-CIA and ex-GRU contractors to destabilize and take over a pre-existing dictatorial country, and then rewrite its laws from scratch. The moral high ground loses to boots on the ground, every time.
If you can't or won't preemptively attack and annex another country's territory, you're better off trying to colonize space, where nation-states can't reach you as easily, or start by building the nuclear warheads, and then build the floating cities. The veneer of civilization is thin, and one gun is no longer sufficient for one man to defend his castle.
The last arguments of kings are still guns.
The end state of all theoretical non-aggressive libertarian societies is that they are conquered through force by some form of cartel. In my opinion, seasteading, which is predicated on mutual non-aggression for prosperity, is strictly inferior to hiring a bunch of ex-CIA and ex-GRU contractors to destabilize and take over a pre-existing dictatorial country, and then rewrite its laws from scratch. The moral high ground loses to boots on the ground, every time.
If you can't or won't preemptively attack and annex another country's territory, you're better off trying to colonize space, where nation-states can't reach you as easily, or start by building the nuclear warheads, and then build the floating cities. The veneer of civilization is thin, and one gun is no longer sufficient for one man to defend his castle.
I wonder at what age one would voluntarily to subscribe to these contracts (at birth?), and who would observe, notarize and attest to the subscription and track compliance with all the permutations of its finalized terms?
Obligatory Blockchain woo preemption:
"The agent's model of what you are interested in would always be a cartoon, and in return you will see a cartoon version of the world through the agents eyes" - Jaron Lanier
Obligatory Blockchain woo preemption:
"The agent's model of what you are interested in would always be a cartoon, and in return you will see a cartoon version of the world through the agents eyes" - Jaron Lanier
Read 'Snow Crash' and pay special attention to the police forces and prison operators
The non-aggression principle means that you shouldn't start the aggression, it doesn't mean that you can't defend yourself.
Which sounds uncontroversial, but there are devils in detailing what constitutes aggression.
I remember a libertarian telling me once that they believed it was unethical to start a war in order to free slaves, because violence is only ok in self defence and the slaves could rise up on their own.
That's not in line with the NAP. Slaves are by definition the subjects of aggression since they have been stripped of their natural self-ownership right. So it is definitely not unethical to help them.
To my mind, "not in line with" implies that it'd motivate violation of the principle. It seems like it's rather a stricter (... which doesn't necessarily mean better or worse) standard than the NAP (or at least the most common interpretations of it).
I'm no expert, but I believe that the historical response is "yar, matey"
In other words: bigger guns
In other words: bigger guns
Opposition to age of consent laws for minors engaging in sexual activity is also a popular cause among the ancaps.
If you think anarcho-capitalism is weird, read about Anarcho-communism[1]. It always seemed intuitive to me that collectivism and anarchism were mutually exclusive, but apparently that's not the case.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism
You can prepend "anarcho-" to just about any "-ism" and find someone willing to explain how it would work in theory while decrying the lack of experimental evidence due to opposition by nation-states.
I'd call myself an "anarcho-pragmatist" now. That's based on not wasting breath or effort on stuff that's almost guaranteed not to work. My current recommendations to like-minded individuals are to support labor unions (or invent some other institution that counters plutocratic trends), and to oppose consolidation of broadcast media. I have long ago abandoned the non-aggression principle as being too dependent on people arguing over the meaning of "aggression".
I'd call myself an "anarcho-pragmatist" now. That's based on not wasting breath or effort on stuff that's almost guaranteed not to work. My current recommendations to like-minded individuals are to support labor unions (or invent some other institution that counters plutocratic trends), and to oppose consolidation of broadcast media. I have long ago abandoned the non-aggression principle as being too dependent on people arguing over the meaning of "aggression".
Anarchism was a 19th c. socialist movement, and anarcho-communism was one of its main strains, if not the biggest. Given its origins, it shouldn't be a surprise that anarchism is collectivist.
Anarcho-communism is contrasted by anarcho-syndicalism, which argued for unions/industries being the organizing principle rather than communes/towns.
Anarcho-communism is contrasted by anarcho-syndicalism, which argued for unions/industries being the organizing principle rather than communes/towns.
You can find out more about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
relevant subreddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/GoldandBlack/
relevant subreddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/GoldandBlack/
It's a simple and frequent mistake to believe that sovereign autonomy is wholly self-determined, and seasteading is the prime example for this.
Sovereign autonomy is not determined by oneself. It is determined by others, specifically by recognizing the sovereignty. Without recognition, it's basically impossible to conduct any type of transaction with the outer world, for lack of jurisdiction.
Sovereign autonomy is not determined by oneself. It is determined by others, specifically by recognizing the sovereignty. Without recognition, it's basically impossible to conduct any type of transaction with the outer world, for lack of jurisdiction.
It almost always requires violence to create a state, and at the very least, it does require the capacity for violence. A State has a violence on monopoly and the ability to defend itself from anyone else who says, "You are part of my State/Country/Kingdom".
If you could hire a private army, or maybe an army of pirates, Seasteading would work. But you have to pay them. Conquerors often paid armies by charging taxes to the lands they conquered, placing them in debt. The solders who were injured and missing arms/legs got their reward by collecting taxes and maintaining the taken land.
The book Debt: The First 5,000 Years, goes into this concept in great detail. Another book in this genre is The Dictators Handbook.
If you could hire a private army, or maybe an army of pirates, Seasteading would work. But you have to pay them. Conquerors often paid armies by charging taxes to the lands they conquered, placing them in debt. The solders who were injured and missing arms/legs got their reward by collecting taxes and maintaining the taken land.
The book Debt: The First 5,000 Years, goes into this concept in great detail. Another book in this genre is The Dictators Handbook.
> A State has a violence on monopoly […]
A game of Monopoly will turn the most affable man violent (you probably meant the monopoly on violence).
A game of Monopoly will turn the most affable man violent (you probably meant the monopoly on violence).
Everyone else might still ignore you. Nobody recognizes Abkhazia, even though it's kinda self-governing.
I've never heard of this State. It's very similar to Transnistria (which some of the world recognizes as a nation, but most UN countries still recognize as part of Moldova).
Kinda? Can you be kind enough to elaborate.
Well, it's dependent on Russia to even exist. It's not like it has an independent foreign policy and depending who you ask, is not really self-governing at all:
https://www.newsweek.com/how-russias-fsb-colonized-abkhazia-...
https://www.newsweek.com/how-russias-fsb-colonized-abkhazia-...
And how do you solve this chicken and egg problem? Declare autonomy peacefully -> get drowned with nukes. Declare autonomy with war -> be labeled a terrorist and get drowned with nukes. So, geopolitics have reached their final, permanent stage forever?
It seems a lot harder than it used to be, but new countries do emerge from time to time. South Sudan is pretty recent. Got there with plenty of violence, but no risk of getting nuked as far as I know.
What country would nuke another country for declaring autonomy???
Nation lines get redrawn frequently in major wars.
We are certainly not beyond having another major, cataclysmic war.
We are certainly not beyond having another major, cataclysmic war.
You don’t need recognition.
In fact, some sovereign nations lived for thousands of years without even being known to the outside world.
It’s nice to have though.
In fact, some sovereign nations lived for thousands of years without even being known to the outside world.
It’s nice to have though.
A cautionary tale on how this is likely to turn out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Foundation
> Part of a reef, normally a metre below sea level at high tide, was piled high with sand and a small stone platform was erected carrying the flag of the Republic of Minerva—a white torch on a blue background. The 'President of Minerva,' Morris Davis, declared at the time: "People will be free to do as they damn well please. Nothing will be illegal so long it does not infringe on the rights of others. If a citizen wishes to open a tavern, set up gambling or make pornographic films, the government will not interfere." Tonga’s claim to the reef was recognized by the South Pacific Forum in September 1972. A Tongan expedition was sent to enforce the claim, arriving on 18 June 1972. The Flag of the Tonga was raised on 19 June 1972 on North Minerva and on South Minerva on 21 June 1972.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Foundation
> Part of a reef, normally a metre below sea level at high tide, was piled high with sand and a small stone platform was erected carrying the flag of the Republic of Minerva—a white torch on a blue background. The 'President of Minerva,' Morris Davis, declared at the time: "People will be free to do as they damn well please. Nothing will be illegal so long it does not infringe on the rights of others. If a citizen wishes to open a tavern, set up gambling or make pornographic films, the government will not interfere." Tonga’s claim to the reef was recognized by the South Pacific Forum in September 1972. A Tongan expedition was sent to enforce the claim, arriving on 18 June 1972. The Flag of the Tonga was raised on 19 June 1972 on North Minerva and on South Minerva on 21 June 1972.
For a more recent example: https://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-trader-chad-elwartow...
> Elwartowski and Thepdet's seastead was part of an experiment led by the Seasteading Institute, a group backed by Peter Thiel, the Silicon Valley billionaire behind PayPal.
> The floating home of Chad Elwartowski and his girlfriend, Supranee Thepdet, was towed ashore by Thai authorities on Monday to be taken apart, and the couple have been accused of violating Thailand's sovereignty, an offense that can carry the death penalty or life in prison, Sky News reported.
> Elwartowski and Thepdet's seastead was part of an experiment led by the Seasteading Institute, a group backed by Peter Thiel, the Silicon Valley billionaire behind PayPal.
> The floating home of Chad Elwartowski and his girlfriend, Supranee Thepdet, was towed ashore by Thai authorities on Monday to be taken apart, and the couple have been accused of violating Thailand's sovereignty, an offense that can carry the death penalty or life in prison, Sky News reported.
Also that story about what happens when you claim an abandoned WWII platform, call it a sovereign country, attempt to web host some sketchy material, and fend off the British Navy.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050602082455/http://www.havenco...
https://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-society/the-curious-case...
https://www.sealandgov.org/
http://web.archive.org/web/20050602082455/http://www.havenco...
https://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-society/the-curious-case...
https://www.sealandgov.org/
RDL is on HN.
https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=rdl
https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=rdl
There's a certain parallel to "a solution in search of a problem".
I haven't thought of a witty way to phrase the problem; "a utopia in search of a social movement", maybe?
It's really fun to design your new utopian community: the principles, the laws, the layout of the streets in the city (or the ships, in this case). But this is precisely backwards. You aren't playing SimCity, or SimSeastead. You can't just build (or make blueprints for) your ideal city, then summon a hoard of obedient minion-citizens to build it and inhabit it and behave in the way you have dictated.
The social movement has to come first: you need a large group of people, with similar aims and goals, working together, making decisions and plans a group. Then maybe you build a city. Or a commune. Or a co-op. Or who knows; the group may end up with other needs that you didn't anticipate.
Hypothetically you could build your community around your utopian vision, but why should they flock to you? All you've got is an idea. I've got some ideas, and so has every other person who might hypothetically be interested in joining your community. Why should I join you on your seastead instead of you joining me in my mountain enclave, or my seastead in a different ocean, or exactly like your seastead started out, except it's my seastead, I make the decisions?
Start by building a community, a movement. Or stick to writing fiction and playing the Sims.
I haven't thought of a witty way to phrase the problem; "a utopia in search of a social movement", maybe?
It's really fun to design your new utopian community: the principles, the laws, the layout of the streets in the city (or the ships, in this case). But this is precisely backwards. You aren't playing SimCity, or SimSeastead. You can't just build (or make blueprints for) your ideal city, then summon a hoard of obedient minion-citizens to build it and inhabit it and behave in the way you have dictated.
The social movement has to come first: you need a large group of people, with similar aims and goals, working together, making decisions and plans a group. Then maybe you build a city. Or a commune. Or a co-op. Or who knows; the group may end up with other needs that you didn't anticipate.
Hypothetically you could build your community around your utopian vision, but why should they flock to you? All you've got is an idea. I've got some ideas, and so has every other person who might hypothetically be interested in joining your community. Why should I join you on your seastead instead of you joining me in my mountain enclave, or my seastead in a different ocean, or exactly like your seastead started out, except it's my seastead, I make the decisions?
Start by building a community, a movement. Or stick to writing fiction and playing the Sims.
"On January 13, 2017 we signed a Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) with French Polynesia [...] agreeing to cooperate on developing legislation for The Floating Island Project by the end of 2017"
Is there any more news on this?
Is there any more news on this?
polynesia pulled out of the agreement
> On March 3, 2018, a mayor from French Polynesia said the agreement was "not a legal document" and had expired at the end of 2017 in response to a challenger trying to make it an issue for the May, 2018 elections.
> On March 3, 2018, a mayor from French Polynesia said the agreement was "not a legal document" and had expired at the end of 2017 in response to a challenger trying to make it an issue for the May, 2018 elections.
Let's ignore the contentious legal aspects and focus on the general idea: Create a floating structure that offers space for living, working or agriculture. Has this been done with areas that are much larger than a typical house boat?
What kind of waves/storms can these structures deal with?
What kind of waves/storms can these structures deal with?
Large ships do very poorly in waves.
The last thing you want happening in a storm is to lose power. Without power you can't angle yourself perpendicular to the waves. When that happens, broadside waves make the ship bob like a corkscrew. If you don't capsize, this makes the situation beyond recovery.
Waves tend to make large ships lose power easily because the engine oil sloshes in the pan, or the sump pit. The oil pump or inlet is located in a fixed place and can't be moved around. We're talking large engines here. Anyhow, the pump can't keep up with the flow due to this sloshing effectively cycling its flow rate and the engine starts overheating and it has to be throttled down then later shut off so it doesn't seize up. Once the engine is shut off and the vessel is no longer under command, the sloshing gets worse. Emergency battery power drains quickly. Meanwhile the fuel - bunker oil - cools off and turns into asphalt - it needs to be heated up to 120+ degrees F to be usable.
Even if you don't shut the engine off, in stormy weather the fuel filters get clogged up faster and have to be constantly cleaned. The fuel itself, bunker oil, is chunky to begin with and the additional sloshing somehow gunks up the filters faster. In one famous case, the engineers had to do it every few minutes in a storm and that required complete enclosure disassembly and reassembly. That particular ship survived that storm, but not another.
The last thing you want happening in a storm is to lose power. Without power you can't angle yourself perpendicular to the waves. When that happens, broadside waves make the ship bob like a corkscrew. If you don't capsize, this makes the situation beyond recovery.
Waves tend to make large ships lose power easily because the engine oil sloshes in the pan, or the sump pit. The oil pump or inlet is located in a fixed place and can't be moved around. We're talking large engines here. Anyhow, the pump can't keep up with the flow due to this sloshing effectively cycling its flow rate and the engine starts overheating and it has to be throttled down then later shut off so it doesn't seize up. Once the engine is shut off and the vessel is no longer under command, the sloshing gets worse. Emergency battery power drains quickly. Meanwhile the fuel - bunker oil - cools off and turns into asphalt - it needs to be heated up to 120+ degrees F to be usable.
Even if you don't shut the engine off, in stormy weather the fuel filters get clogged up faster and have to be constantly cleaned. The fuel itself, bunker oil, is chunky to begin with and the additional sloshing somehow gunks up the filters faster. In one famous case, the engineers had to do it every few minutes in a storm and that required complete enclosure disassembly and reassembly. That particular ship survived that storm, but not another.
Most current plans don't use ships as the basis of a seasteading at least not currently. Most designs that have actually been tried are something like this [0] spar platform reminiscent of the RP Flip [1] which is extremely stable passively in waves. They have very small cross sections to the waves so mostly just bob up and down with the motion of the waves. We already know how to build these pretty large (see oil rigs).
[0] https://ocean.builders/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/spar.png
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RP_FLIP
[0] https://ocean.builders/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/spar.png
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RP_FLIP
The ship that didn't survive- was that the El Faro?
I didn't realise this kind of malfunction of the oil pump was common. I thought it was particular to the design of the pump on that vessel.
I didn't realise this kind of malfunction of the oil pump was common. I thought it was particular to the design of the pump on that vessel.
Aye, El Faro.
Remember few months ago when the Norwegian Cruise ship lost power and 1,300 passengers had to be evacuated by helicopter? That wasn't the only disabled ship in the area due to the storm. Once NTSB releases a report, you might see this as a cause, fuel sloshing. Large ships are just not designed or meant to be in waves and it's not economical to design them to be. So you check weather far in advance and steer clear of it.
El Faro's master looked at an old weather report regularly delayed by 12-18 hours or some such due to additional processing from BVS (his preferred software for checking weather) and didn't cross-check it with another source like NWS throughout the days, despite being challenged by the crew. He ended up steering the ship right into the eye of a hurricane.
Remember few months ago when the Norwegian Cruise ship lost power and 1,300 passengers had to be evacuated by helicopter? That wasn't the only disabled ship in the area due to the storm. Once NTSB releases a report, you might see this as a cause, fuel sloshing. Large ships are just not designed or meant to be in waves and it's not economical to design them to be. So you check weather far in advance and steer clear of it.
El Faro's master looked at an old weather report regularly delayed by 12-18 hours or some such due to additional processing from BVS (his preferred software for checking weather) and didn't cross-check it with another source like NWS throughout the days, despite being challenged by the crew. He ended up steering the ship right into the eye of a hurricane.
Oh, yes- I remember the Norwegian ship. I don't remember the details- I'll keep an eye out for the report. Thanks.
>> He ended up steering the ship right into the eye of a hurricane.
I know. I've read the NTSB report. And the bridge transcript. Most harrowing thing I've ever read.
I got the feeling though that there was fault with the land crew who tied down the cars in the holds inappropriately. If I remember correctly, first there was water in the holds, possibly from a burst pipe hit by a car moving about freely; then the cars started slipping around on the wet floor; then they started listing to port; then the oil pump gave up; then the captain turned his port to the wind to counter the list; then they lost power; and by that time they were in the eye wall of the hurricane and they were lost. Perhaps, if it hadn't been an old ship and if the cargo had been secured properly, we wouldn't know there ever was a ship with that name. Despite the captain's mistakes.
>> He ended up steering the ship right into the eye of a hurricane.
I know. I've read the NTSB report. And the bridge transcript. Most harrowing thing I've ever read.
I got the feeling though that there was fault with the land crew who tied down the cars in the holds inappropriately. If I remember correctly, first there was water in the holds, possibly from a burst pipe hit by a car moving about freely; then the cars started slipping around on the wet floor; then they started listing to port; then the oil pump gave up; then the captain turned his port to the wind to counter the list; then they lost power; and by that time they were in the eye wall of the hurricane and they were lost. Perhaps, if it hadn't been an old ship and if the cargo had been secured properly, we wouldn't know there ever was a ship with that name. Despite the captain's mistakes.
It really was terrible. The audio transcription puts you right there and just wow.
Like you said think it was a number of factors, but I think the other ones only compounded the situation after the master committed the ship to the float plan. He looked at an outdated weather report, didn't know the software options to plot the up-to-date hurricane overlay, company didn't permit any of the crew to have access to the ship's satellite phone (and presumably internet access that came with it) for a double check, then he dismissed a confrontation about the conflicting NWS report from the 2nd mate, then delayed pulling up updated information from his lagging weather report and went to sleep.
The design of the ship played a factor too. It was a retrofitted RO/RO ship with waived safeties, and had ventilation hatches that apparently lowered the de-facto lowest-point-of-water-ingress (forgot the actual parameter name) underneath the unsecured hatches, which were - unsecured. Or unreliable. New engineer started doing maintenance mid-storm, lowering the engine's power output, and I think the loose cargo became a factor afterwards.
Like you said think it was a number of factors, but I think the other ones only compounded the situation after the master committed the ship to the float plan. He looked at an outdated weather report, didn't know the software options to plot the up-to-date hurricane overlay, company didn't permit any of the crew to have access to the ship's satellite phone (and presumably internet access that came with it) for a double check, then he dismissed a confrontation about the conflicting NWS report from the 2nd mate, then delayed pulling up updated information from his lagging weather report and went to sleep.
The design of the ship played a factor too. It was a retrofitted RO/RO ship with waived safeties, and had ventilation hatches that apparently lowered the de-facto lowest-point-of-water-ingress (forgot the actual parameter name) underneath the unsecured hatches, which were - unsecured. Or unreliable. New engineer started doing maintenance mid-storm, lowering the engine's power output, and I think the loose cargo became a factor afterwards.
Cruise ships do pretty well. I looked up prices and capacities and found you can build a large cruise ship for about $100K per resident. The biggest ship I found could house 9000 people.
Seasteads would mostly use aquaculture, so you don't need much growing room on the ship. If you're close to a shipping lane you can trade for other foods you want, just like everybody else does.
Seasteads would mostly use aquaculture, so you don't need much growing room on the ship. If you're close to a shipping lane you can trade for other foods you want, just like everybody else does.
The images here are charming, but there's not nearly enough population density in those to make them viable. The images display floating luxury homes complete with a yard.
Most home owners associations are political messes. This seems like a slightly larger version of that but with far more responsibility in more areas.
I read: "Seasteading is building floating societies with significant political autonomy".
So when they go outside the jurisdiction (and protection) of a nation-state and their law enforcement, the first question that comes to my mind is: what about piracy?
And as a matter of fact, they have a youtube channel "tough questions" talking about that (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PLUZ9bzUGY) - tldr: it's gonna be private security firms, so it's not gonna be cheap ... and they claim only 2% of world's oceans are even considered piracy waters, but I think that's going to change as soon as there are wealthy communities floating in unprotected waters ...
So when they go outside the jurisdiction (and protection) of a nation-state and their law enforcement, the first question that comes to my mind is: what about piracy?
And as a matter of fact, they have a youtube channel "tough questions" talking about that (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PLUZ9bzUGY) - tldr: it's gonna be private security firms, so it's not gonna be cheap ... and they claim only 2% of world's oceans are even considered piracy waters, but I think that's going to change as soon as there are wealthy communities floating in unprotected waters ...
> it's gonna be private security firms, so it's not gonna be cheap
One could say that police and military are not cheap either
One could say that police and military are not cheap either
Maybe they'll just have to go around and collect donations from residents to pay the security. And just require them to pay if they don't raise enough
...
...
While I'm very much on-side with you on this one, I suppose their argument would be that it would be a voluntary association.
Sure, right until they start applying it to people who are born and raised there and don't have the resources to travel and start lives somewhere else.
[deleted]
These clowns have no clue what it takes to live on the sea. None of them have any serious experience in marine engineering, or in operating large ships or offshore platforms. They'll be begging the Coast Guard for rescue when the first big storm comes through.
If they even survive it. The open ocean is hostile beyond belief. Anyone trying to setup a stable city out there does not understand or respect it's terrifying power. https://youtu.be/aBM7NgMhg90
It takes a bay of some kind to do this semi-safely, but you won't find those 12 miles out from continents and if you do (basically reef atolls) they're almost certainly claimed by a government or very, very far away from civilization, and completely incapable of sustaining life in a way most people would want to live.
It takes a bay of some kind to do this semi-safely, but you won't find those 12 miles out from continents and if you do (basically reef atolls) they're almost certainly claimed by a government or very, very far away from civilization, and completely incapable of sustaining life in a way most people would want to live.
I don't think they plan to build those megastructures with their bare hands.
I don’t think that GP was implying that they would. Even a structure built by machines can fail catastrophically if poorly designed or operated. The ocean floor is littered with ships that weren’t “built with their bare hands”.
I assume they will hire qualified people to operate them
Sounds very similar to Sealand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand
Every July in the California Delta near Rio Vista I go to a weeklong festival called Ephemerisle, created 15 years ago to promote interest in seasteading.
It’s full of Burners, SV people, and seasteading investors hanging out on yachts, barges, tugboats, and lots of DIY crafts: DeLorean hovercraft, flame boat with 100kW sound system, etc.
Odd that, unless I missed it, their blog mentions nothing about the Thai Navy destroying a seastead...
https://fee.org/articles/the-world-s-first-seasteaders-are-n...
https://fee.org/articles/the-world-s-first-seasteaders-are-n...
Does it seem odd to anyone else that French Polynesia is their testbed for "a floating legal entity designed to maximize personal and economic freedom," given that personal liberty and pursuit of happiness were not at all underlying principles of Tahitian society?
How does sewage treatment and trash disposal work in this kind of setup?
Two minute video answering the question[1].
Summary: they'll use a "urine diverting dry toilet" to collect the feces- which supposedly will be used for fertilizer.
They don't say what exactly will be done with the urine, so likely dumped back into the ocean.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd2FCpU5wu8&list=PLDgJp6DTkM...
Summary: they'll use a "urine diverting dry toilet" to collect the feces- which supposedly will be used for fertilizer.
They don't say what exactly will be done with the urine, so likely dumped back into the ocean.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd2FCpU5wu8&list=PLDgJp6DTkM...
It's legal to dump human waste in the ocean once you're in international waters.
Can you provide more detail on that?
I don't think, for example, that cruise ships are allowed to dump their shit (and other refuse) into the sea, provided they're in international waters.
I don't think, for example, that cruise ships are allowed to dump their shit (and other refuse) into the sea, provided they're in international waters.
Depends where they're registered. The vast majority of countries have signed on to the conventions forbidding dumping, and can enforce it on ships flagged in their countries, but a seastead intending to dump would presumably not sign on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARPOL_73/78
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARPOL_73/78
Interesting.
Thank you
Thank you
Matter of legality aside, it happens anyway.
"Carnival Corporation ships illegally dumped more than 500,000 gallons of treated sewage, 12 gallons of oil, 11,000 gallons of food waste & dozens of physical objects into the ocean during its first year on probation (4/17-4/18)."
That reporter's summary came from her tweet: https://twitter.com/taydolven/status/1118233060569493504
The full story: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/tourism-cruises/ar...
She published her data: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ERS2c_Kn4m9Ov4DfmzTh...
The large list of incidents have inane stuff, some human stuff, some funny stuff and some ironic stuff all mixed in with very serious stuff. You have to pick through a lot of entries and text to make sense of it.
Empathic: "While the ship was alongside in Mahogany Bay, Isla Roatan, a passenger accidentally dropped her purse into the sea from the pier. The MARPOL Annex V violation was reported to the port authority."
Funny? Inane? They had to file a report anyway: "During loading of provisions in Galveston, Texas, a shore side worker placed a pallet of watermelons on the ship's platform. Due to the pallet not being correctly positioned on the platform, the pallet tilted causing a number of watermelons to fall. All the watermelons were recovered from the netting placed below the ship's loading platform."
Ironic: "While alongside in Galveston, Texas, as a passenger was boarding the ship, he dropped his paper boarding pass, which was blown overboard and into the water in violation of MARPOL Annex V. The Harbor Master was informed by the ship's local agent. No additional actions were requested."
Serious: "Approximately 467 cubic meters of treated black water/sewage and 6.2 cubic meters of comminuted food waste was discharged inside Bahamian Archipelagic Baseline between June 13, 2017, and June 15, 2017, due to misinterpretation of Bahamas baselines listed in ENV 1001."
That's about 120,000 gallons.
"Carnival Corporation ships illegally dumped more than 500,000 gallons of treated sewage, 12 gallons of oil, 11,000 gallons of food waste & dozens of physical objects into the ocean during its first year on probation (4/17-4/18)."
That reporter's summary came from her tweet: https://twitter.com/taydolven/status/1118233060569493504
The full story: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/tourism-cruises/ar...
She published her data: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ERS2c_Kn4m9Ov4DfmzTh...
The large list of incidents have inane stuff, some human stuff, some funny stuff and some ironic stuff all mixed in with very serious stuff. You have to pick through a lot of entries and text to make sense of it.
Empathic: "While the ship was alongside in Mahogany Bay, Isla Roatan, a passenger accidentally dropped her purse into the sea from the pier. The MARPOL Annex V violation was reported to the port authority."
Funny? Inane? They had to file a report anyway: "During loading of provisions in Galveston, Texas, a shore side worker placed a pallet of watermelons on the ship's platform. Due to the pallet not being correctly positioned on the platform, the pallet tilted causing a number of watermelons to fall. All the watermelons were recovered from the netting placed below the ship's loading platform."
Ironic: "While alongside in Galveston, Texas, as a passenger was boarding the ship, he dropped his paper boarding pass, which was blown overboard and into the water in violation of MARPOL Annex V. The Harbor Master was informed by the ship's local agent. No additional actions were requested."
Serious: "Approximately 467 cubic meters of treated black water/sewage and 6.2 cubic meters of comminuted food waste was discharged inside Bahamian Archipelagic Baseline between June 13, 2017, and June 15, 2017, due to misinterpretation of Bahamas baselines listed in ENV 1001."
That's about 120,000 gallons.
Dumping in the ocean, I strongly suspect.
Would likely involve incinerators.
[deleted]
I've always been curious about initiatives like this.
What happens if there becomes resource exhaustion and similar problems? How would the safety of the inhabitants be ensured in events like that?
What happens if there becomes resource exhaustion and similar problems? How would the safety of the inhabitants be ensured in events like that?
Seems like Peter thiel was tired of not getting libertarians elected in the USA so he went and made his own country.
> Obsolete political systems conceived in previous centuries are ill-equipped to unleash the enormous opportunities in twenty-first century innovation.
I wonder if woman's suffrage is included in his thoughts on obsolete political systems?
> The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of "capitalist democracy" into an oxymoron
> Obsolete political systems conceived in previous centuries are ill-equipped to unleash the enormous opportunities in twenty-first century innovation.
I wonder if woman's suffrage is included in his thoughts on obsolete political systems?
> The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of "capitalist democracy" into an oxymoron
Reminds me of the movie Waterworld.
Also "Outer Heaven" from the Metal Gear Solid games.
These folks take the Bluthton concept a bit too seriously.
Just buy a sailboat.
more like , a big ship or something like a retired oil rig. It needs to go in deep waters (>200 miles off the coast) and stay there for extended periods of time (and weather). A cruise ship would be ideal as it can be relatively self-sustaining. A bunch of cruise ships would be enough to start a big city.
People sail around the world all the time. As in: retirees in 30-feet yachts.
Libertarian wet dream if ever there was one. They'll learn by tragedy how international diplomacy works.
Rogue waves will be fun.
Off-Topic:
The site horrible "jitters" when scrolling around, pretty much unreadable/unuseable.
At least for me with Chrome 74 on Fedora. Firefox 67 is fine.
Ask them their opinions on the big crimes (murder/rape/arson etc). Will they allow me to keep slaves on my seastead? Of course not. May I operate an industrial smelter and dump the waste overboard? May I buys some guns, capture other seasteads and setup my own dictatorship? These people don't want to escape the real laws, just the handful of minor regulations with which they disagree. These are nothing more than rich randians complaining about their tax bracket.