Millionaires with fat bank accounts in Panama and Switzerland would be my first guess. Kidnap and ransom can be quite a profitable industry.
New Country for Old Libertarians: Seasteading Institute
- Thread starter lukep
- Start date
Millionaires with fat bank accounts in Panama and Switzerland would be my first guess. Kidnap and ransom can be quite a profitable industry.
You want to make self sustaining floating cities to test out new forms of government? What's not to get?
It's retarded. The best form of government is a single ruler who is incorruptible, wise and protects the interests of his people. Since you'll never find one, we might as well elect the one that slings the best bullshit cause at least he'll bullshit other countries as well as he bullshits us.
Fucking project talks about unlocking human potential? What a joke. Not all humans are created equal. Most people don't give a shit about bettering the human race, they just want to relax and not get fucked in the ass every time they turn around.
Want to fix a real problem? Cure aging. Then at least the brilliant minds can continue inventing race improving wonders instead slowly becoming useless bags of shit and then dying.
If I owned one of these (and everyone was armed to the teeth), I would be too tempted to test Tonga's patience.
OK so I took you up on your challenge.
1. These guys are boring.
2. They all lisp ---- just sayin'......
They spend forever arguing is the technology possible (and free trade theory etc) - if someone thinks the technology is not possible - why even argue with them - they are not worth the time. Of course it is possible technologically.
The questions I have, and I went through several of their boring videos, is how they would provide for the basics of society. As it stands it looks like a vacation resort where everyone lives - but they need a structure of some sort - or is everyone saying that is the point - no structure needed. No means of settling disputes etc?
I do not see people living together without disputes etc - that is what I wanted to see - practical implementation. Not technological arguments.
In the film with Friedman on that vimeo page he gets into the possible dispute-settling solutions by referencing similar situations in history. There are many ways to do it and it mostly depends on when a seastead or conglomeration of seasteads want to break away from the mainland and become officially a nation. -Because until that day they should grow to be stable enough while enjoying the protective rights of the mother country (USA) to become initially self-sufficient.
It's like the US laws will suddenly stop working on that day, and they'll need to have something set up DEPENDING ON THEIR SIZE AND ABILITY at that point to switch over to.
My problem with this growth-in-port scenario is that their source of money won't be the same in port as it will out at sea. The best way to make money in international waters will be far better than the best way to make money in San Francisco harbor, so how can they really prove to themselves or anyone else that they're "ready" before heading out?
I guess it would at least prove that they are technologically ready.
It's like the US laws will suddenly stop working on that day, and they'll need to have something set up DEPENDING ON THEIR SIZE AND ABILITY at that point to switch over to.
My problem with this growth-in-port scenario is that their source of money won't be the same in port as it will out at sea. The best way to make money in international waters will be far better than the best way to make money in San Francisco harbor, so how can they really prove to themselves or anyone else that they're "ready" before heading out?
I guess it would at least prove that they are technologically ready.
Joe in his rush to be clever, actually hits on an important point. We need an objective, impartial, incorruptible final arbiter to organize life and society. We have it, it just isn't a man.
Time and the physical limitations of the universe give us all the guidance we need.
Time and the physical limitations of the universe give us all the guidance we need.
I have to assume you're talking about software then?
Hmm.
Something like a open-source justice system where everyone can see the code of this arbiter and everyone knows how it works?
I could see the bickering going back and forth over decades on so many matters... And over time issues that we feel one way about now we may change how we feel as a race later. (Like tracking ppl with RFID tags. Sounds horrible but what if one day everyone WANTS to be tracked because it makes them safe from some kind of virus or gives them mental net access? You never know.)
The point is that if it's a system that gets made and is then closed down & locked hard, then we'll need to open it again and tinker in the future.
But if it's an open system that is unlocked, then it's corruptible and it shouldn't take very long at all for the big Corporations to program logic into it that benefits them.
I LOL'd at that too for the same reason... Sheesh...
I am certain I do not understand the point being made. Which may make you both LoL again, but if you could take a moment to 'splain I would appreciate it.
You're overlooking the strongsuits of libertarianism & capitalism itself to a laughable degree.
Trade, commerce, shipping, and any small manufacturing industry needed will not be very likely unknown or unwelcome to a boatload of libertarians.
Still think the challenges are too tough?
Look at Catalina Island for instance... Not a lot of natural resources there, (mostly from ocean) but it's 22 miles away from the US coast and comfortably supports a population of over 3,000 in style. The real estate prices are a bit high but the food & other materials isn't that much more pricey at all. Commerce with the nearby coastline fixes that.
As I said earlier I think I am oftentimes confusing Anarchy with Libertarianism.
I suppose that Libertarians live by some rule book just as RP advocates adherence to the Constitution. I suppose that this would form the foundation for a certain amount of accountability and rule of law.
My previous comments were focused at the fact that people cannot live together, work on their own businesses etc, and do so without some accountability to a set of ground rules.
For example the Galt's Gulch society in Atlas Shrugged assumes people pursuing their self interest can live together because it is in their self interest - but she gave man too much credit. It is not something that can truly be implemented as she wrote - except for maybe the elitist vision she had where it was only the top of the top that actually made it to Galt's Gulch - the rest had to make their way elsewhere.
Anyhow, lukep I appreciate your response and I understand the desire to want to function without government intervention but even trial lawyers do serve a purpose in a functioning society. Maybe I am simply a pessimist and believe that in the end, there will always be people screwing up Utopia's with human nature, which I believe to be inherently selfish and bad.
I suppose that Libertarians live by some rule book just as RP advocates adherence to the Constitution. I suppose that this would form the foundation for a certain amount of accountability and rule of law.
My previous comments were focused at the fact that people cannot live together, work on their own businesses etc, and do so without some accountability to a set of ground rules.
For example the Galt's Gulch society in Atlas Shrugged assumes people pursuing their self interest can live together because it is in their self interest - but she gave man too much credit. It is not something that can truly be implemented as she wrote - except for maybe the elitist vision she had where it was only the top of the top that actually made it to Galt's Gulch - the rest had to make their way elsewhere.
Anyhow, lukep I appreciate your response and I understand the desire to want to function without government intervention but even trial lawyers do serve a purpose in a functioning society. Maybe I am simply a pessimist and believe that in the end, there will always be people screwing up Utopia's with human nature, which I believe to be inherently selfish and bad.
Yes, it sounds like you are confusing libertarianism with anarchy.
Here's an interesting way to discern the two: IQ points.
The way I see it, you have to be smart enough to know what your liberty is worth to be a libertarian. You can't be told what liberty is and know, you have to learn it yourself over time. Liberty is a concept that absolutely 0% of those on welfare programs understand. Just a word on a dollar bill to them.
Meanwhile, if you're stupid & still don't want any form of socialism to coddle you; then you're just an anarchist.
How quaint.
Utopia is a vision of extreme socialism.
As I understand the seastead's mission, a libertarian paradise is the opposite end of the paradise spectrum; absence of all socialism while still being an ideal lifestyle... A hard concept to grasp but I think I can fully envision it... It looks kind of like star trek deep space 9's promenade if I'm not mistaken. Lots of capitalists like Quark in there, & fun, fun, for everyone.
Here's an interesting way to discern the two: IQ points.
The way I see it, you have to be smart enough to know what your liberty is worth to be a libertarian. You can't be told what liberty is and know, you have to learn it yourself over time. Liberty is a concept that absolutely 0% of those on welfare programs understand. Just a word on a dollar bill to them.
Meanwhile, if you're stupid & still don't want any form of socialism to coddle you; then you're just an anarchist.
You think we're trying to create Utopia?
How quaint.
Utopia is a vision of extreme socialism.
As I understand the seastead's mission, a libertarian paradise is the opposite end of the paradise spectrum; absence of all socialism while still being an ideal lifestyle... A hard concept to grasp but I think I can fully envision it... It looks kind of like star trek deep space 9's promenade if I'm not mistaken. Lots of capitalists like Quark in there, & fun, fun, for everyone.
So liberty lovers are literally being driven into the sea....I say we stay here and fight. The more people that turn off the monolith media, the better our cause does with apolitical drones.
Libertarianism is for adults that realize that there is no Utopia, so we'd rather just be left the fuck alone and do what naturally flows out of us.
Atlas Shrugged is a work of fiction, not a treatise on government.
So what happens when what flows out of you interferes with what flows out of me and we are on the same sea platform?
[As an aside I like Atlas Shrugged because it helps the average person understand how they are being manipulated by the media, organizations, and government and it helps people to clarify their worldviews in a way that few other books can.]
Well, that is why I'm not an anarchist. I think the Fore Fathers had it pretty well figured out based on knowledge of centuries of abuse of power by governments.
I think Jefferson would agree with your thoughts on human nature.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"Free government is founded in jealousy, not confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind those we are obliged to trust with power.... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."[/FONT] -- [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Thomas Jeffferson, 1799[/FONT]
OK so if we bind man/power by the chains of the constitution then a libertarian society is governed by an agreed to set of rules? If so, then what do we do when a situation arises that is outside the bounds of the constitution? Are we to have courts? Are we to have officers of these courts? At what point are libertarians simply re-creating the society we already have?
You Seasteads will turn into these massive homeowner associations.
I simply do not understand, and maybe you can point me to a resource to read on the web, that will explain how these libertarian societies plan to function. Once again I know this is all LoL to many of you that I "do not get it" but in the end - I think it is you that "does not get it" - Man cannot operate without some form of governance - from that governance you will quickly fall into abuses, power sharing, etc - To me all of this talk of libertarian societies is ridiculous in practice.
If you plan to function without governance - then tell me how that could work - it cannot.
bro, if you think our current society operates within the confines of the constitution...i'm afraid i'm too tired to school you on that one.
we started with a Constitutional Republic ("if you can keep it" as franklin said, we didn't keep it, it was eroded by central planners). if you read the Bill of Rights it could be summed up with "LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE, GOVERNMENT"
is it perfectly libertarian? no. the constitution talks about APPORTIONED taxes...a lot of anarcho/libertarians will say that is oppression and tyranny. in fact, no one argues with each other more than libertarians.
i call myself a "libertarian" because we are so far from our founding and i need to describe myself outside of the fascists and socialists who are the mainstream. to be accurate i'm a Constitutionalist like Ron Paul.
people can talk about anarchy as an ideal all day long. i wouldn't even bother arguing with them. man always organizes for the greater good. the Fore Fathers did this near perfectly in my opinion.
look at wickedfire. it has a government and we are all better off for it. it grew naturally. (some would argue its too wild west and we could use a constitution so that we aren't at the whim of a moderator who is in a bad mood that day, etc) if it wasn't for the banhammer it would quickly devolve into Digital Point... and we would all enjoy many monies bros!!!
Wickedfire does not have a government, it has owners because it is property.
We could say Jon is the legitimate owner, because he established Wickedfire without property conflicts, that is, he has the highest claim to ownership here (none have a better claim than he does).
The problem with Objectivists and self-styled constitutionalists is that they do not understand the implications of a society based on private property, and corresponding property rights.
This is why most anarcho-capitalist, voluntaryist libertarians are easier to deal with, simply because they don't subscribe to all sorts of mythical nonsense like founding geniuses and whatnot.
Ron Paul is philosophically an anarchist, and he has said many times the Constitution is flawed. The Patriot movement has branded him as this super constitutionalist, however Paul would have disagreed with several portions of the constitution, and probably argued the bill of rights didn't go far enough.
But then, how many of you have read Paul's books, new and old? How many of you have read Mises or Rothbard?
If you don't want to give man credit, fine. I can agree with that to a large degree. Then you certainly don't want to give some men carte blanche power over life and property vis a vis a government. Those guys in Washington, or any other capital, are not holier or more angelic than any other human being.
And anyone who thinks their government is accountable to them, good luck trying to arrest a politician or charge them with a crime.
In fact, Hans Hoppe makes the argument that such power attracts the most corruptible around us, and only a true exception can spend time around such opportunity to dominate his fellow man and stay morally true.
Remember, Congress has 544 members who are not Ron Paul, and only one Ron Paul. Thus illustrating the theory that the same flawed humans that people necessitate require a government, usually end up forming the government and in the long run, running any nation into the ground.
If you really want to be a sincere and intelligent libertarian, research natural rights, property rights theory, negative rights, and Austrian economics. These are the bedrock ideas that form the core of serious and consistent libertarianism.
Just agreeing with Ron Paul on election platforms or political positions misses the very foundation he draws his original and enduring inspiration from.
Anyone interested in reading sources, PM me. Of all the things I do @WF, sharing ideas privately might end up being the most worthwhile.
We could say Jon is the legitimate owner, because he established Wickedfire without property conflicts, that is, he has the highest claim to ownership here (none have a better claim than he does).
The problem with Objectivists and self-styled constitutionalists is that they do not understand the implications of a society based on private property, and corresponding property rights.
This is why most anarcho-capitalist, voluntaryist libertarians are easier to deal with, simply because they don't subscribe to all sorts of mythical nonsense like founding geniuses and whatnot.
Ron Paul is philosophically an anarchist, and he has said many times the Constitution is flawed. The Patriot movement has branded him as this super constitutionalist, however Paul would have disagreed with several portions of the constitution, and probably argued the bill of rights didn't go far enough.
But then, how many of you have read Paul's books, new and old? How many of you have read Mises or Rothbard?
If you don't want to give man credit, fine. I can agree with that to a large degree. Then you certainly don't want to give some men carte blanche power over life and property vis a vis a government. Those guys in Washington, or any other capital, are not holier or more angelic than any other human being.
And anyone who thinks their government is accountable to them, good luck trying to arrest a politician or charge them with a crime.
In fact, Hans Hoppe makes the argument that such power attracts the most corruptible around us, and only a true exception can spend time around such opportunity to dominate his fellow man and stay morally true.
Remember, Congress has 544 members who are not Ron Paul, and only one Ron Paul. Thus illustrating the theory that the same flawed humans that people necessitate require a government, usually end up forming the government and in the long run, running any nation into the ground.
If you really want to be a sincere and intelligent libertarian, research natural rights, property rights theory, negative rights, and Austrian economics. These are the bedrock ideas that form the core of serious and consistent libertarianism.
Just agreeing with Ron Paul on election platforms or political positions misses the very foundation he draws his original and enduring inspiration from.
Anyone interested in reading sources, PM me. Of all the things I do @WF, sharing ideas privately might end up being the most worthwhile.