<...>
It can if the populace is comprised of like-minded millionaires. Not quite sure how you could apply that model to regular countries with massive and diverse populations without it ending up in the usual "massive mansions surrounded by slums" scenario many east Asian countries seem to exhibit.
Libertarianism isn't just for the wealthy. In fact, the reverse is true: today, the wealthy have unprecedented control via their huge influence over governments; as a result, the rich get richer and the poor are kept in their place. A seastead would at first probably be populated mostly by higher-income people due to the great initial expense, but over time this'd change. People go where opportunities are, and a minimally-regulated seastead will offer tons of opportunities for everyone. With the sweat of your brow, a seastead can become your city as well!
<...>
Honestly, this just sounds like picking uncontrolled corporations working as intended (maximum profits at the expense of everyone else) over governments that aren't (corruption, inefficiency, etc.). The "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" would simply be the intended result rather than an unfortunate consequence. As much as you people seem to go on how "authoritarian" the US is (I mean mass surveillance does seem to be a massive issue), you seem to take a lot of the things for granted. It starts from small things like general safety after dark (even in the capital, stepping out after dark without a group isn't exactly considered safe) or having to pay western Europe prices with eastern Europe wages to more broad issues like not having to fear for "liberation" from our former "friends" from the East. All of which really makes me question whether any of you understand what libertarianism truly entails in the old world or do you just not care?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but libertarianism hinges on as much individual social and economic freedom as possible, right? Which means price gouging on vital medicinal goods (
see the Epipen price gouging scandal), de-facto oligopolies that crackdown on any rising competition (
see Internet providers in the US), exploitative business practices on both the employee (extremely long working hours, low wages, unpaid overtime, fired after a project) and consumer (Skinner box-based pricing schemes, thinly veiled gambling schemes available to children, etc.) sides (
see Electronic Arts), uncontrolled environmental pollution (
see oil and coal industries), a higher education system that sets you back decades financially (unless you happen to be a genius or have rich parents) and a healthcare system where a person has to wear a vest warning others not to call an ambulance when he has a seizure since that would cost him a third of his monthly paycheck are all fine since they don't violate any rights if you don't use these (often vital) goods and / or services, right?
Hell, all of this is under the US's so called "authoritarian" capitalism. How about child labor, piss poor working conditions and wages (since everyone's gotta eat and there's always someone looking for work), pollution to the point where wearing protective masks is mandatory if you don't want to die by 40 from lung cancer, healthcare financially off-limits to a big chunk of the working class? Even if we were to ignore all of this and assume that hard work = wealth, what about the elderly, who are incapable of working anymore, the mentally or physically disabled, the people who got fucked over / used and disposed of afterwards by the aforementioned exploitative individuals / corporations? Are you going to just leave them to die? If not, where are you going to get the money from? The bare minimum taxes that'll already be spread thin in order to maintain security and basic infrastructure?
Call me cynical, but I think I might be living in a different world, 'cause yours sounds like candyland.
Things to watch out for, to be sure, but past and fictional failures shouldn't prevent us from trying to create better societies.
Any sovereign micro-nation in the middle of literally nowhere, who isn't associated with a world power (or is an offshore tax haven), is sooner or later going to either face "liberation"
That's why to start with you have to fly the flag of some country under a special agreement. Then any attacks will be equal to an attack on the flag country. Long-term, once there are a lot of seasteads, they can build their own independent militaries and work together for mutual defense.
It can if the populace is comprised of like-minded millionaires. Not quite sure how you could apply that model to regular countries with massive and diverse populations without it ending up in the usual "massive mansions surrounded by slums" scenario many east Asian countries seem to exhibit.
<...>
And while I support a libertarian seastead, the great thing about seasteading is that you can create many seasteads with different societies. If you want a mixed-economy government with whatever measures against corruption you think will work, you could do it.
Fair points. Can't really object or add to anything here.
Show Posts
