Micronation seasteading

http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2008/05/seasteading

What's your opinion on this? Would an Austrian school invest in their own platform?

Friedreich:

What's your opinion on this? Would an Austrian school invest in their own platform?

If it the cost estimate of $100,000,000 for a platform accommodating 2,000 people holds up, I think there might be a market for these things. Assuming the governments of the world don't intervene in some capacity. For some reason, I suspect they wouldn't like the competition.

My main problem is that they appear to approach this as an experiment in government optimization, rather than offering freedom.

From the article:

"If you're not flying a flag … any country can do whatever they want to you," he said.

That statement sounds to me like the seed of their eventual destruction.  It indicates their willingness to compromise rather than defend, and so governments won't have to intervene, just threaten to.

I've been watching this for a while. It has a lot of promise, but as I tried to work out the actual social and organizational dynamics of it (as opposed to the engineering issues), I ran into some pretty big problems right off the bat.  It has the same flaws any gulch-style agora has, in that security thorugh isolation is a pretty thin defense in today's world, and the fact that it is a market that starts off with a huge handicap that it never really shakes.  It has the same problem with incremental issues that political movements have, namely that until reaching a certain threshold, incremental advances bring little or no concrete benefits.

I hope they do well.   Like the Paulvilles (even less likely to succeed, in my opinion), it might not be an ultimate solution, but if it succeeds to any extent, it will help the rest of us in indirect ways, and if it fails, we can all learn from watching the details of how that failure plays out.

 

 

histhasthai:

it is a market that starts off with a huge handicap that it never really shakes

I think economically such platforms would be successful. Though not really on their own merits, but on providing services and commodities that are illegal elsewhere. This, of course, will make them a target for pretty much every state around.

Sure, there's plenty of opportunity to trade.  And they'd have to trade for most of their goods.  That's one of the problems with gulching - to achieve the isolation needed for it, you have to go to the places least populated.  In today's world, those are pretty much by definition the places where it is hardest to live off the land.

Though they can trade, the structural problem they start with is that the same isolation they think will protect them makes trade very, very expensive.  And so they're limited to high-margin trades, and illegal trade is usually a much higher margin.  But as soon as they make themselves the target of the hostile governments we're all surrounded by, that isolation turns from a defensive advantage to a vulnerability.

My guess is that to survive, they'll end up spending an enormous amount of time in courts around the world, with all the cost and compromise that entails.

 

 

histhasthai:

My guess is that to survive, they'll end up spending an enormous amount of time in courts around the world, with all the cost and compromise that entails.

I seriously doubt that they will, nor can, take the contraband trade post route. If this thing ever takes off, it will probably be a quirky hangout place for rich people. The only other realistic economic prospect is for the economy to be information based. But to attract anyone, it would still have to offer considerably more freedom than existing states. Which, again, might make it a target.

It would be better for them simply to ignore governments altogether, and scream bloody murder to any sympathetic press when governments act aggressively. Neither are good options, but I think that's the less bad one.

MacFall:

It would be better for them simply to ignore governments altogether, and scream bloody murder to any sympathetic press when governments act aggressively.

 

That didn't help the Republic of Minerva.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Minerva

I think Micronation Sea-Steading is a dumb idea.  I wish those luck who try it and hope they prove me wrong but I don't think they will so I have to go with "dumb idea" to be polite and when I am feeling less polite I have to go for "swindler magnet".

Not all successful people credit the state as the reason for their success, in fact I think very few who are outside of getting direct government money do, but they are successful in spite of the state and not because of it.  So why on earth would a successful person relocate to a really expensive platform to eat canned food and urinate in a bucket?  They wouldn't. 

The people who try to form these places seem to be of the idea that if they just put up an internet gambling site or a cafe that sells marijuana that a plumber who likes getting high and slot machines will eventually come and save them.  The people who never participate in these schemes are always the type who find success in a place that is not a recent wayside for migratory birds.

So what of the "John Galt's" who try to form these places or the ones who try to move there?  I think the people in the article above are not swindlers but other oceansteaders would be.  The google and paypal folks who want to do this are just going to lose money because the only people who want to live on an ocean platform are either crazy or losers and crazy losers tend to be moochy, debt ridden, filled with stupid ideas of supply and demand (like that everyone wants to give money to people living on platform) and anti-social....Not the kind of group that you want to be stuck in the middle of the ocean with.

My faith in anarchy and libertarianism is one of socialising, family and community ties and using the knowlege aquired through these institutions to create natural interactions and markets.  I would rather see the state be made a platform in the middle of the ocean than to see libertarians move to one.

 

 

I would rather see the state be made a platform in the middle of the ocean than to see libertarians move to one.

Of course, we all would.  But the simple fact of the matter is that "the state" is everywhere and it is not going away anytime soon.  People who wish for a life outside the state, or even for a life with minimal government intrusion, are out of luck.  The system is not going to change...ever.  There are too many powerful people with too much money on the line to ever let that happen.

The only option is to make something new.  If you want to make something new, there are only two places open to you:  space and the oceans.

The oceans are the only chance for a near-term colonization option, and floating platforms are far simpler and cheaper than underwater habitats.

 

histhasthai:

Though they can trade, the structural problem they start with is that the same isolation they think will protect them makes trade very, very expensive. 

If they were worried about the cost of trade, couldn't they build colonies near shipping and cruiseship lanes to cut down costs? 

 

 

 

 

 

The oceans are the only chance for a near-term colonization option, and floating platforms are far simpler and cheaper than underwater habitats.

 

Of course they are.  Given the choice between crazy and more crazy I will chose crazy.

But states are not all powerful.  If I believed they were all powerful I would favor "liberal" type reforms over abolishment.  And they are everywhere and they do collapse and can collapse...the trick is to make sure no entity replaces a failed one and that can only be done by people consenting that none is needed or ignoring the ones that try to pop up.  Convincing people to do this will rest  on the shoulders of admired people advocating that no state is needed.

The problem with the "Galt's Gulch" theory is not that the state comes in and conquers them but that it was created by a writer in a contained and fictionalised world of her own design. The same reason that Sherlock Holmes is a genius in fiction but in real life cocaine addicts who write monographs on tobbacco ash are not good crime solvers...in fact I would guess they would be the worst possible crime solvers.  In real life, capitalist supermen who isolate themselves on ocean platforms, in space or underwater would not really be capitalist supermen..they would be deluded people who run out of drinking water.

Twirlcan:

But states are not all powerful. 

I guess I am just more of a pessimist.  I don't believe that any free society will ever come from the ashes of an old one.  Time and time again through history we see powerful governments collapse...only to be replaced by another powerful government.

There are two reasons for this.  One, people are cowards.  They fear change, and when a corrupt leader or ruling junta collapses all they want is for things to go back "the way they were".  They are not thinking "oh, here is my chance to implement a new type of free society".  They are thinking "I don't care who is in charge, as long as I can feed my family".  The likelihood of any libertarian finding an existing country, causing it's collapse, and then forging a new society based on libertarian principles in its wake is nil.  You might as well hope for a libertarian to be elected president of the US in November by a surprise write-in third-party vote.

Second, land is rare.  There is a reason why they call the term a "vaccuum"...there are not many forces stronger than it.  As soon as any existing state falls apart, other states swarm all over it.  Even if some libertarian somewhere found a country in the process of collapse and tried to take it over they would have plenty of competition...from well-armed, powerful, and rich neighbors who would much rather take over that country's assets then let them be part of a grand social experiment in libertarian principles.

No, the only chance there is of any libertarian...or libertarian-like...society being formed is for something to start fresh...free of all the baggage that comes with any existing state.  Since all the land is taken, you have no choice but to start in the only unclaimed area of the planet...the oceans.

The other great thing about starting a floating colony is that everyone who is part of your new society is there by intent.  There is no need to convert the cowardly masses.  You start a new society, and you invite anyone who shares your principles to come along.  You start off with a strong population base that already agrees on a basic set of rules and principles.

I think buying an island migth be a better idea. I mean, islands can't be easily sunken...

Has there ever been an attempt to colonize an island for at least one generation before a government steps in? It doesn't seem like a government could be able to defend its actions if it wanted a whole new generation to pay taxes.

 

Twirlcan:

I think Micronation Sea-Steading is a dumb idea.  I wish those luck who try it and hope they prove me wrong but I don't think they will so I have to go with "dumb idea" to be polite and when I am feeling less polite I have to go for "swindler magnet".

Not all successful people credit the state as the reason for their success, in fact I think very few who are outside of getting direct government money do, but they are successful in spite of the state and not because of it.  So why on earth would a successful person relocate to a really expensive platform to eat canned food and urinate in a bucket?  They wouldn't.

Nobody goes to a frontier because it is comfortable. They go because they prefer liberty to the cushions in their prison cell.

 

I think buying an island migth be a better idea.

You can find plenty of islands for sale at http://www.privateislandsonline.

But good luck trying to setup an independent society on one of them.  You might buy the island, but you are still under control by the host government.  You would have better luck setting up a libertarian society on a ranch in Waco, Texas.

All the land on the entire globe has been claimed by someone.  Period.

That means you have to make new land.  And then be able to defend it.  Floating platforms are, IMHO, the best method for this.