MacFall: Nobody goes to a frontier because it is comfortable. They go because they prefer liberty to the cushions in their prison cell.
Nobody goes to a frontier because it is comfortable. They go because they prefer liberty to the cushions in their prison cell.
Romantic notions don't bring freedom.
I think there are better options. And since I really think that people who plan on moving to platforms , really, really, really know nothing about anything practical and in the middle of an ocean atop a slab of concrete and rebar is no place to be stupid. Which is one of the many reasons I could never reccommend moving to a floating Galtland..Not only do I think it would fail but someone would eventually have to save someone from being eaten by an Albatross.
And islands? Maybe. It did wonders for Marlon Brando. But we have to again look at where it is and who lives there and if no one lives there then why doesn't anyone live there?
I'd be especially wary of any island that Polynesians never settled or if they settled there they died off. Polynesians were the greatest frontiersmen the world has ever seen and if they could not settle an island then I am convinced that no one can settle an island.
http://www.comebackalive.com/phpBB2 Travel, Adventure Travel, Arguments, Recipes.
Twirlcan: MacFall: Nobody goes to a frontier because it is comfortable. They go because they prefer liberty to the cushions in their prison cell. Romantic notions don't bring freedom.
There's nothing romantic about beeing a frontiersman. People go to frontiers knowing the risk, knowing the certain cost, and wanting to do it anyway. And a frontier does give those who settle it freedom while it lasts. The problem is, it doesn't last.
Still, places like that could be assets to a broader movement involving economic secession and geopolitical strategies such as the Free State Project.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Assuming frontiersmen go to the frontier for freedom and assuming those who don't have cushioned prison cells is a pretty romantic notion.
Most who have done it have done so for less ideal notions and more practical ones. Like my Norwiegan relatives who came in the 1860s wanted relgious freedom...which they found in the Netherlands working for the Frisians but what they really prefered was cheap farmland...which they found in Iowa. Migrating for freedom sounds better than migrating for easy hay and silage, so that is the story that sticks but what kept them there was hay, silos, and seedcorn.
I hope the sealibertarians succeed...even me who hates the open sea woudl benifit from its success (especially since I set up computer systems to transmit power, run trains and clean sewage) but I do think that the Free State project is a better idea since no dramamine would be required to live in New Hampshire, and if it fails...then you are in the same boat as the other cushioned prisoners and not devouring one another in a life raft.
I wish them luck..I really do but I just cannot stop myself from trying to discourage them.
Twirlcan: Assuming frontiersmen go to the frontier for freedom
Assuming frontiersmen go to the frontier for freedom
That is not the only motivation, but it is certainly a major one.
and assuming those who don't have cushioned prison cells is a pretty romantic notion.
No, it's a realistic one. Taxation is enslavement; governments tax people. If you live under a government, you are a slave. Just because we have cool stuff here that we wouldn't have in a frontier setting doesn't change that fact.
I think seasteading libertarians will benefit American libertarians by being a model society to prove that the free market doesn't fail. I don't believe it as a long-term goal to set up ocean platforms.
Friedreich: I think seasteading libertarians will benefit American libertarians by being a model society to prove that the free market doesn't fail. I don't believe it as a long-term goal to set up ocean platforms.
I would not want to put my free markety advocacy eggs in that basket (actually the platforms would be a great place to gather exotic bird eggs and guano...good thing I don't believe in patents). If we had a "Just as Twirlcan Predicted" platform where all the occupants ate each other after failing to trade silver coins for off site disk storage and their supply of potable urine ran out, that would not prove the market a failure...it would prove sun baked platforms are terrible places to live and that perhaps there are better ways to achieve freedom than dying of exposure. But the market would not fail because of it, it would in fact prove that markets favor the non-fatal ideas.
But if it succeeded it would have the wonderful effect of showing that I am wrong and the market in the hands of the right people can result in profits , freedom and the right to mercilessly taunt me. But it would not prove that living on an ocean platform is always a good idea, just like opening a retail store is not always a good idea because Wal Mart does so well at it.
Yea, the "Free State Project". The fact that 1) in over 7 years only 8000 people have signed up and 2) they advertise in "Cannabis Culture" magazine, shows me how serious this project is. They still will live in the United States, they still will pay federal taxes, and they will still be bound by all federal laws including IP laws. Sheesh, New Hampshire has a property tax!! Yea, there's your libertarian state.
I'm sorry but there is no way a small seed community, built within a large existing government entity, will work. Sure, they may delude themselves for a while and say "See, we are free!!". But it's just a sham. Just because they live in a state without sales tax doesn't mean they are living the libertarian dream.
Same thing goes for purchasing an island. Sure, you can buy one and live there and say "See, I'm free!". But you will still be paying taxes to the nation that owns the island, and you will still be bound by all their laws.
No, the only way it will ever work is to start fresh. While I feel that a floating platform, secured to the ocean floor, is the best route...it most certainly isn't the only way. A small, well-funded group of people could easily purchase an old freighter and retrofit it with living quarters, a water distillation system, some basic hydroponic gardens, and park it outside of a country's EEZ and call it home. Sure, they need weapons to defend it. One of the reasons that Minerva failed was that they didn't leave anyone there to defend it.
Jonas: I'm sorry but there is no way a small seed community, built within a large existing government entity, will work. [...] No, the only way it will ever work is to start fresh.
I'm sorry but there is no way a small seed community, built within a large existing government entity, will work. [...]
No, the only way it will ever work is to start fresh.
Starting fresh has the same kind of problems, unless you mean a single atomic world-wide revolution. ("Atomic" meaning all at once, not nuclear weapons.) The fundamental thing about both approaches is that they can't take advantage of incremental benefit. The seed community is not free at all until it reaches a certain threshhold that allows it to defend its independence. The revolutionary community is not free at all until it reaches a certain threshhold that allows it to defend its independence.
But those aren't the only alternatives. A distributed community that is 1% free, then 10% free, then 20%.... That community can sustain itself, build resources, gradually deprive governments of resources, and defend itself from the start by virtue of the fact that, unless they can round up everyone, taking out a part of the community only reduces the size of it, it does not undermine the community as a whole. An agorist network can absorb damage, a concentrated community has a single point of failure.
The state won't go away once enough people want the state to go away, the state will effectively disappear once enough people no longer care that much whether it stays or goes. We don't need a revolution, we need millions of them.
You guys are acting like states have some sort of single goal to crush any form of voluntary government they encounter. They don't. There are tons of small island nations out there which aren't being attacked by larger states. States have no more incentive to attack small, voluntary governments than they do small involuntary ones. The reason they don't go around conquering small island nations anymore is because mass communication keeps them from being able to get away with that sort of thing. I seriously doubt politicians care whether or not a seastead's government came into power by voluntary means or coercion; in fact I'd bet they'd never even think along those terms, and would just see it as another tiny nation.
For seasteads to prevent themselves from being annexed, I'd think they'd have to work as hard as possible to legitimze themselves in the eyes of the public of a nearby nation. Given the media fallout that would occur if a seastead (presumably equiped with many cameras and many people posting videos to YouTube) was annexed by the USA, I really don't think it would be worthwhile for a democractic state to do. 2,000 people is nothing.
I'd think economic sanctions would be far more likely. If a seastead starts dealing in contraband (real or information-based), it could have some problems.
Grant: You guys are acting like states have some sort of single goal to crush any form of voluntary government they encounter. They don't. There are tons of small island nations out there which aren't being attacked by larger states. States have no more incentive to attack small, voluntary governments than they do small involuntary ones. The reason they don't go around conquering small island nations anymore is because mass communication keeps them from being able to get away with that sort of thing. I seriously doubt politicians care whether or not a seastead's government came into power by voluntary means or coercion; in fact I'd bet they'd never even think along those terms, and would just see it as another tiny nation. For seasteads to prevent themselves from being annexed, I'd think they'd have to work as hard as possible to legitimze themselves in the eyes of the public of a nearby nation. Given the media fallout that would occur if a seastead (presumably equiped with many cameras and many people posting videos to YouTube) was annexed by the USA, I really don't think it would be worthwhile for a democractic state to do. 2,000 people is nothing. I'd think economic sanctions would be far more likely. If a seastead starts dealing in contraband (real or information-based), it could have some problems.
This is partially why I thought while the notion of PirateBay attempting to raise funds for Sealand, previously, was noble, it would've failed anyways for the simple fact that it's PirateBay; even if they did not conduct any illegal activity in Sealand after buying it, their activity elsewhere would give ample reason for any other state to impose sanctions on them; if not in the case of the U.S., also to utilize physical force to enforce intellectual property laws against them.I'm more convinced that such will become more common place, rather than stamping out voluntary governments with force, with the advent of the US ACTA Multi-Lateral Intellectual Property Trade Agreement ** [ see here: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Proposed_US_ACTA_multi-lateral_intellectual_property_trade_agreement_(2007) ]
Grant:You guys are acting like states have some sort of single goal to crush any form of voluntary government they encounter.
No, they act in their interests. And the interests of governments, on the whole, are always in conflict with the interests of individuals. No, government doesn't want to crush small independent community per se. But when those interests conflict, if the independent community's pursuit of their interests gets successful enough to become a threat to some government, that government will act against that community.
It doesn't have to be violent. It doesn't even have to be as overt as blockades, embargoes, trade sanctions. It could be as apparently benign as import regulations, banking regulations, indirect economic pressure on the community's trading partners. And it doesn't have to be directed at that community, even covertly. If the community is trading with some country to the level that the government of that country sees its interests getting undermined, it may do something like restrict or tax all imports, without even knowing or caring what the specific affect on the independent community is.
And here's the thing. One reason most of the people here are interested in libertarian style independent communities is that they think such communities will be economically successful. After a long enough time, that translates into economically powerful. So, in effect, the reason a lot of us are interested in these communities is the same reason that will make them more likely to be perceived as a threat by governments.
histhasthai:No, they act in their interests. And the interests of governments, on the whole, are always in conflict with the interests of individuals.
That's no more true than the statement that the interests of individuals are always in conflict with the interests of other individuals. Governments aren't some unnatural external force: they're groups of humans who have gotten together and agreed to conduct their affairs in a certain way. That's not to say that every person governed has agreed to be governed. But people use force against each other in the absence of governments anyway, so that's nothing special.
If these communities are unable to survive in the face of action taken by other individuals and governments, then you haven't found an ideal way of organising human communities. You've found a utopia that doesn't work because it doesn't fully appreciate human nature.
Callisthenes:That's no more true than the statement that the interests of individuals are always in conflict with the interests of other individuals.
I hope you don't mean to imply that I said that every interest of government is in conflict with every interest of individuals. I said "on the whole", but to clarify, I meant that the highest interest of government is hostile to the highest interest of individuals, and vice-versa. But modern tyrranies, for instance, have an interest in the economic prosperity of their subjects that coincides with their subjects' interest in their own economic prosperity. Tyrants learn too, and the new breed seem, for the most part, to have learned that it is not in the interest of a parasite to kill the host.
Callisthenes:Governments aren't some unnatural external force: they're groups of humans who have gotten together and agreed to conduct their affairs in a certain way
That's correct. The part you miss is that these people are acting against their own interests. They obviously don't think so, but they are. Government itself is not a moral agent, but it does have interests (technically, it's that the people who comprise it have an interest in regards to it that is separate from the interests they hold individually). That's the problem with heiracrchal organizations, including corporations, they (effectively) have interests without moral agency. Divorce those two, and there's going to be problems.
Callisthenes:If these communities are unable to survive in the face of action taken by other individuals and governments, then you haven't found an ideal way of organising human communities. You've found a utopia that doesn't work because it doesn't fully appreciate human nature.
That's absolutely correct.
The seed community is not free at all until it reaches a certain threshhold that allows it to defend its independence. The revolutionary community is not free at all until it reaches a certain threshhold that allows it to defend its independence.
It is one thing to defend a small, floating platform from an unorganized band of poorly-armed thugs. It is another thing to seceed from the United States.
I think it much more likely that a group of a hundred or so people with basic small arms can do a pretty good job of defending a floating community from your average group of pirates. I don't think that even 20,000 people in a compound in New Hampshire can defend themselves against the United States military.
I agree with the other posters that I don't see the American military taking an active role in destroying a small ocean-bound floating community...especially if it is not engaged in any illegal trade.