Often when debating strangers on the internet, it requires checking a book to see if the quote was true or in context. That's what I would use this for, since there's not always a PDF on rapidshare or something.

It could work like this:

1. People go to the library, take some books home, and scan them in.
2. People who support the project donate some anonymous bitcoins.
3. The system automatically divides the bitcoins to each person taking part in the project each month. The more pages you upload, the bigger your share of the donations.
4. Continue until every book existing in the world is uploaded, for free, without any restrictions, in one amazing library for every person on the planet to access.

My question was whether he wrote something, which he thinks is wrong, purposefully.

As someone who supports limited government, I don't have a problem with this. My reasoning is that a president is at considerable more risk of assassination then an ordinary person. A salary of 400k may look like a lot, but it isn't enough to hire military jets and so on privately.

I might be misunderstanding this. Are you saying that Immanuel Go doesn't actually believe what he writes, that's just playing a role for fun?

Remember the idea is to make government itself a marketable good with open competition. Which means central planning can still be selected for (by the migration of people) if it's done well. Libertarians will generally expect the winners of it to be similar to their views, but there's nothing stated in the rules that it's true.

I'm unsure why socialists or traditional anarchists are not as interested.

Cruise ships can hold several thousand people, it seems to have the same issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_ship_pollution_in_the_United_States

Which would make me a prefer a floating city with sewage regulation, due to the public choice problem behind it. My understanding is that modern septic tanks get rid of exess water, leaving only solid waste behind to be pumped every few years. So not everywhere will need a waste treatment plant. The first seasteads are going to ship it back to shore.

It isn't supposed to be self-substaining (as I've had to repeat several times). They want to trade with other countries, most goods will still be imported even with a few thousand people. I will put that in bold text if I have to say that again!

I can't make the same connection with evolution so you so might need to clarify it a bit, as I assume others will have the same problem. Perhaps you could provide an example of a real-world geno/phenotype with this property?

You are right about the community being too small. 200 good individuals (the initial raft) could probably make the worst kinds of governments still work. But this is supposed to be a long-term project, the idea to have governments (eventually) act like corporations, with market forces selecting for them. So if you don't like your government you could detach your property and go somewhere else. Under that system, seasteads will start to stick together under particularly effective/uncorrupt systems and we'll start to see city states of few thousand people.

If you bother having a read of the FAQ, the project makes no mentions of morals (good and evil) and isn't even anti-government, though it's mostly libertarians interested in it right now. They want to test all sorts of societies, including socialist ones, but even most libertarians want a government.

Something I would like to see to tried is direct-democracy, e-democracy specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-democracy

Perhaps it would be a better rebuttal to mentioning that it's soldiers, not defense contractors, doing the donating.

Is there a stream of this? At what time?

My understanding of the huge 'bitcoin bubble' a few months back was that it was caused by a senator clamoring to shut down Silk Road and Bitcoins. Saying quite openly that bitcoins were being used to buy drugs.

So it might be that the more moral outrage there is, the faster bitcoin is learnt about and adopted. If that's true, then it makes it worthwhile to support the use of bitcoin for immoral activities, even if that's not what personally interests you.

I think your jumping to conclusions by assuming there isn't a price. There is a price here: the useful information gained from experimenting with various untested societies.

I don't think the seasteaders are asking for US defense, but I still think it would be worth the money even if they did.

Which isn't really the goal of the project. From the website:

"Many similar ventures failed because they expected billions to materialize out of thin air. Our ideas for seastead financing are far more realistic. The basic idea is to proceed in self-financing, incremental steps."

Why not? Isn't the ability to experiment with new governments and societies a very useful thing? They state repeatedly on the website that this isn't restricted to libertarianism. So I assume various forms of socialism could be tested aswell. The only criteria is that people should always be allowed to leave.

It seems to me that there's a lot to learn here, what ever your political views are.

Perhaps you should of read the link I posted? Have a look at this quote below:

We don’t think our libertarian supporters expect to create a perfect libertarian paradise where they can do whatever they want without any interference. They are simply looking for a significant improvement over the territorial status quo. To see how large a gain this might be, try the following thought experiment: Look at all the states currently in existence and consider how a libertarian might hand select the best available policies from among them to create a new, single set of institutions.

For example, there are countries in Europe (Switzerland, The Netherlands and Portugal) with fairly lax drug laws (social freedom). There are economic havens (Luxembourg, Bahamas) with very low tax rates (economic freedom). None are perfect from a libertarian perspective. The drug-tolerant countries tend to be left-leaning states with high taxes. The tax havens tend to be more right-wing and socially restrictive. Libertarians feel the combination of these two types of freedoms is worth striving for, even if either is restricted to the maximum level currently tolerated by any of the powers-that-be. Such a state would be far more libertarian than any currently in existence without pushing the legal envelope or creating any radically new policies.

In practice, some libertarians think they can achieve even more freedom than this. Countries really do have a great deal of leeway in their internal affairs, after all. A libertarian seastead should easily be able to have no zoning laws or building codes, low taxes, no import/export tariffs, few restrictions on weapons, local consumption of drugs, no minimum wage, no legislated work week, no coerced welfare system, no eminent domain and many other items from a laundry list of common libertarian policies.

Sure, there are definite limitations. Actions seen as a serious threat to the security of other nations ought not be tolerated, such as letting terrorists launder money, exporting drugs to countries where they are illegal, or researching or building weapons of mass destruction, particularly with nuclear capabilities.

For those interested in this, I suggest reading the detailed and well-written FAQ here: http://seasteading.org/about-seasteading/frequently-asked-questions

By the way check out the seasteading FAQ: http://seasteading.org/about-seasteading/frequently-asked-questions#freedom_without_interference

It's very detailed and goes over several of questions raised in this thread, including things like piracy.