Silicon Valley billionaire funding creation of artificial libertarian islands

[AyeYo]

If they can't afford to insure from disaster, they can't afford to start an island. It's a god damn stupid point. Governments aren't the only ones who can provide disaster relief.

So they have to hire a 24/7 operational rescue service?  And since no one else would need a service like that, they'll be the only customer.  So that new service can charge them pretty much whatever it wants.


This island keeps getting more and more expensive.

No, you lack imagination. There are independent contractors out there. Hospital helicopters, ship crews, the works. These kinds of services are hired privately all the time. You don't need one company. You make something in-house.

Really?  Can you link me to the website of a contractor that does sea rescues in the middle of the Pacific Ocean?

[Anonymous]

If they can't afford to insure from disaster, they can't afford to start an island. It's a god damn stupid point. Governments aren't the only ones who can provide disaster relief.

So they have to hire a 24/7 operational rescue service?  And since no one else would need a service like that, they'll be the only customer.  So that new service can charge them pretty much whatever it wants.


This island keeps getting more and more expensive.

No, you lack imagination. There are independent contractors out there. Hospital helicopters, ship crews, the works. These kinds of services are hired privately all the time. You don't need one company. You make something in-house.

Really?  Can you link me to the website of a contractor that does sea rescues in the middle of the Pacific Ocean?

For a small fee but I would rather contract it myself.

The fact is there are various companies with fleets of helicopters. In time of disaster, all you have to do hire out on-call qualified personnel and rent one of the helicopters. It's not hard unless you're lazy and you want somebody to do it all for you which is only to be expected from a statist drone.

[ansible adams]

Suppose for a moment that you have a "starter" seastead, Seatopia, of several platforms and 2000 people that is independent from any existing government. How is Seatopia going to remain independent? You're not included in any existing intergovernmental agreements, treaties, or trade organizations. That means that any nation that doesn't like your experiment can impose punitive restrictions on trade with Seatopia at trivial cost to its domestic economy but very significant costs to Seatopia.

The Seasteading Institute offers this naïve explanation as to why it won't happen:

The first seasteads will operate under the same maritime laws as existing ships... Although [cruise] companies have major operations within U.S. territorial waters, the U.S. does not interfere very much with their operations. This is due, in part, to the fact that cruise lines bring in jobs and revenue to the U.S. economy. If the U.S. were to try to interfere too much, the cruise lines would simply move their operations elsewhere. Similarly, seasteads will trade extensively with land-based businesses. The people who profit from those relationships will encourage their government not to interfere and drive away the seastead’s business.

By the same logic, the United States does not and can not impose punitive restrictions on trade with Cuba or Iran. Theory says it doesn't happen because it would be economically undesirable. The theory needs some work.

[AyeYo]

If they can't afford to insure from disaster, they can't afford to start an island. It's a god damn stupid point. Governments aren't the only ones who can provide disaster relief.

So they have to hire a 24/7 operational rescue service?  And since no one else would need a service like that, they'll be the only customer.  So that new service can charge them pretty much whatever it wants.


This island keeps getting more and more expensive.

No, you lack imagination. There are independent contractors out there. Hospital helicopters, ship crews, the works. These kinds of services are hired privately all the time. You don't need one company. You make something in-house.

Really?  Can you link me to the website of a contractor that does sea rescues in the middle of the Pacific Ocean?

For a small fee but I would rather contract it myself.

The fact is there are various companies with fleets of helicopters. In time of disaster, all you have to do hire out on-call qualified personnel and rent one of the helicopters. It's not hard unless you're lazy and you want somebody to do it all for you which is only to be expected from a statist drone.

So you can't give me the names of any companies that do mid-Pacific rescues?  You can rent a helicopter for sight seeing no problem.  I'm just interested in seeing what companies have the resources to rescue an entire community thousands of miles out at sea.

[Anonymous]

If they can't afford to insure from disaster, they can't afford to start an island. It's a god damn stupid point. Governments aren't the only ones who can provide disaster relief.

So they have to hire a 24/7 operational rescue service?  And since no one else would need a service like that, they'll be the only customer.  So that new service can charge them pretty much whatever it wants.


This island keeps getting more and more expensive.

No, you lack imagination. There are independent contractors out there. Hospital helicopters, ship crews, the works. These kinds of services are hired privately all the time. You don't need one company. You make something in-house.

Really?  Can you link me to the website of a contractor that does sea rescues in the middle of the Pacific Ocean?

For a small fee but I would rather contract it myself.

The fact is there are various companies with fleets of helicopters. In time of disaster, all you have to do hire out on-call qualified personnel and rent one of the helicopters. It's not hard unless you're lazy and you want somebody to do it all for you which is only to be expected from a statist drone.

So you can't give me the names of any companies that do mid-Pacific rescues?  You can rent a helicopter for sight seeing no problem.  I'm just interested in seeing what companies have the resources to rescue an entire community thousands of miles out at sea.

Let me spell it out for you:

-The services and people we need exist.

-I hire them out and bring them together.

-Rescue happens.

People don't hire other companies for these sorts of these things. They essentially start their own.

[AyeYo]

The first seasteads will operate under the same maritime laws as existing ships... Although [cruise] companies have major operations within U.S. territorial waters, the U.S. does not interfere very much with their operations. This is due, in part, to the fact that cruise lines bring in jobs and revenue to the U.S. economy. If the U.S. were to try to interfere too much, the cruise lines would simply move their operations elsewhere. Similarly, seasteads will trade extensively with land-based businesses. The people who profit from those relationships will encourage their government not to interfere and drive away the seastead’s business.

LOL  That's classic.  Because the economic bolstering of doing business with a community of a couple thousand people (at most) definitely outweighs the advantage of simply blockading food from the community and then seizing all the assets.

[NghtRppr]

call the Coast Guard for help

No, just call FEMA. That really worked out well for New Orleans. Oh wait, I forgot, you're one of those idiots that thinks the government has your best interests at heart and can never fuck up.

Totally irrelevant to what I said.

You're just not intelligent enough to see the connection.

[J180]

Suppose for a moment that you have a "starter" seastead, Seatopia, of several platforms and 2000 people that is independent from any existing government. How is Seatopia going to remain independent? You're not included in any existing intergovernmental agreements, treaties, or trade organizations. That means that any nation that doesn't like your experiment can impose punitive restrictions on trade with Seatopia at trivial cost to its domestic economy but very significant costs to Seatopia.

I have heard it argued that the impact of American trade restrictions on Cuba is quite small, since trade has a marginal value. I.e. Trade with the first country is very valuable, trade with the 50th country isn't so important.

Considering how many economists seem to dismiss the power of punitive trade restrictions, that makes me very suspicious about your claim that it could have significant costs. At least unless it involves several countries (such as a UN agreement).

[ElectricMucus]

Anyone stupid enough to move there would be a case for the Darwin Award.

[J180]

The first seasteads will operate under the same maritime laws as existing ships... Although [cruise] companies have major operations within U.S. territorial waters, the U.S. does not interfere very much with their operations. This is due, in part, to the fact that cruise lines bring in jobs and revenue to the U.S. economy. If the U.S. were to try to interfere too much, the cruise lines would simply move their operations elsewhere. Similarly, seasteads will trade extensively with land-based businesses. The people who profit from those relationships will encourage their government not to interfere and drive away the seastead’s business.

LOL  That's classic.  Because the economic bolstering of doing business with a community of a couple thousand people (at most) definitely outweighs the advantage of simply blockading food from the community and then seizing all the assets.

There's a lot of assets to gain from invading Switzerland too, it doesn't stop small countries from existing. What if the couple of thousand people pay taxes for defense, making the cost of invasion outweigh the assets?

The question of whether these artificial islands will get invaded seems to me to depend on:
1. The economies of scale in defense. Which I'm unsure about.
2. The political cost of invasion. America could invade Canada pretty easily, and probably profit from seizing it's assets, but it wouldn't be politically popular. Perhaps there could be a similar relationship if people, including both the general population and rich billionaires, are supportive of these islands off the coast of the US.

The fact that there isn't an obvious answer makes the experiment all the more interesting.

[J180]

One society I'd love to see tried would be one based on The Machinery of Freedom, were the author goes through several thought experiments about how privatized law enforcement firms could replace government police and defense. The PDF is available online if you haven't heard of it.

I know most libertarians here would not take the free market that far. But it is still worth testing. Though a possible flaw is that what works for a few thousand people might not work for a society of millions.

[NghtRppr]

Anyone stupid enough to move there would be a case for the Darwin Award.

Sour grapes.

[AyeYo]

The first seasteads will operate under the same maritime laws as existing ships... Although [cruise] companies have major operations within U.S. territorial waters, the U.S. does not interfere very much with their operations. This is due, in part, to the fact that cruise lines bring in jobs and revenue to the U.S. economy. If the U.S. were to try to interfere too much, the cruise lines would simply move their operations elsewhere. Similarly, seasteads will trade extensively with land-based businesses. The people who profit from those relationships will encourage their government not to interfere and drive away the seastead’s business.

LOL  That's classic.  Because the economic bolstering of doing business with a community of a couple thousand people (at most) definitely outweighs the advantage of simply blockading food from the community and then seizing all the assets.

There's a lot of assets to gain from invading Switzerland too, it doesn't stop small countries from existing. What if the couple of thousand people pay taxes for defense, making the cost of invasion outweigh the assets?

Switzerland is a mountainous, land-locked country of almost 8 MILLION people that is plenty capable of defending itself and also capable of sustaining itself.

How you think you can compare that to an oil rig of maybe 1,000 people sitting in the middle of the ocean and relying on importation of... everything... is mind boggling.  These people would be, in quite a literal sense, sitting ducks.

[J180]

The first seasteads will operate under the same maritime laws as existing ships... Although [cruise] companies have major operations within U.S. territorial waters, the U.S. does not interfere very much with their operations. This is due, in part, to the fact that cruise lines bring in jobs and revenue to the U.S. economy. If the U.S. were to try to interfere too much, the cruise lines would simply move their operations elsewhere. Similarly, seasteads will trade extensively with land-based businesses. The people who profit from those relationships will encourage their government not to interfere and drive away the seastead’s business.

LOL  That's classic.  Because the economic bolstering of doing business with a community of a couple thousand people (at most) definitely outweighs the advantage of simply blockading food from the community and then seizing all the assets.

There's a lot of assets to gain from invading Switzerland too, it doesn't stop small countries from existing. What if the couple of thousand people pay taxes for defense, making the cost of invasion outweigh the assets?

Switzerland is a mountainous, land-locked country of almost 8 MILLION people that is plenty capable of defending itself and also capable of sustaining itself.

How you think you can compare that to an oil rig of maybe 1,000 people sitting in the middle of the ocean and relying on importation of... everything... is mind boggling.  These people would be, in quite a literal sense, sitting ducks.

It was off the top of my head, there's many smaller countries, have a look at this list: http://geography.about.com/cs/countries/a/smallcountries.htm

My argument is that a large power, whether the US, France, Germany, etc, all the have the military power to steal their assets. But that doesn't mean it's always politically feasible or worth the cost.

I don't have enough military expertise to argue for Switzerland specifically, so I'd rather do it for a small country where there's obviously not much chance of a successful defense. Consider one of the islands with roughly 10000 people on it.

[AyeYo]

The first seasteads will operate under the same maritime laws as existing ships... Although [cruise] companies have major operations within U.S. territorial waters, the U.S. does not interfere very much with their operations. This is due, in part, to the fact that cruise lines bring in jobs and revenue to the U.S. economy. If the U.S. were to try to interfere too much, the cruise lines would simply move their operations elsewhere. Similarly, seasteads will trade extensively with land-based businesses. The people who profit from those relationships will encourage their government not to interfere and drive away the seastead’s business.

LOL  That's classic.  Because the economic bolstering of doing business with a community of a couple thousand people (at most) definitely outweighs the advantage of simply blockading food from the community and then seizing all the assets.

There's a lot of assets to gain from invading Switzerland too, it doesn't stop small countries from existing. What if the couple of thousand people pay taxes for defense, making the cost of invasion outweigh the assets?

Switzerland is a mountainous, land-locked country of almost 8 MILLION people that is plenty capable of defending itself and also capable of sustaining itself.

How you think you can compare that to an oil rig of maybe 1,000 people sitting in the middle of the ocean and relying on importation of... everything... is mind boggling.  These people would be, in quite a literal sense, sitting ducks.

It was off the top of my head, there's many smaller countries, have a look at this list: http://geography.about.com/cs/countries/a/smallcountries.htm

My argument is that a large power, whether the US, France, Germany, etc, all the have the miliatary power to steal their assets. But that doesn't mean it's always politically feasible or worth the cost.

I don't have enough military expertise to argue for Switzerland specifically, so I'd rather do it for a small country where there's obviously not much chance of a successful defense. Consider one of the islands with roughly 10000 people on it.

I don't think you understand the irony of this situation.  These people on this totally dependent platform want to be independent.  This is a group of "rugged individuals" trying to get away from some evil system and social contracts, by starting a massively interdependent society that's going to have to run like clockwork for everyone to stay alive - it'll be FAR less free than any current society.  Then to top it all off, they want to be free from all international laws and such... but international law is still the only thing preventing them from getting blown out of the water or having their platform taken over, because the attacking force would see international prosecution/blow-back.

It's the ultimate fail and ultimate irony.  Individuals that want isolation banding together to form the most interdependent society created since the last biodome experiment, and the most externally dependent society ever to exist.


Do you know what these platforms really are?  They're tax free zones for the very wealthy, nothing more.

[RandyFolds]

A civilization based on only rich elites won't be that fruitful. Somebody has to clean the toilets.

In summary, you're wrong about our philosophy. You're wrong about our motives.

Monaco...



Seriously though, you have never been to any island communities, have you? Go spend some time in Bocas del Toro or Tahiti or the Cooks or any other archipelago and tell me an island of super-rich 'elites' is not fruitful. It's called contract labor...They drive into the hills from the ghettos in the flats.

YOUR philosophy is not OUR philosophy is not libertarian philosophy. Learn where you stand in the world, homie.

As far as defending and protecting a sovereign sea-state, again, contract labor. Believe it or not, most of the United States is not protected by public fire services. Most small municipalities contract with larger communities to sponge off their infrastructure. The same goes for police. Hell, I live in Los Angeles and there are parts of this city that are protected by private fire and police companies.

See this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand

If you have a sovereign sea-bound nation, you will need to have yourself some mercenaries when they storm your castle and hold your son hostage. Sealand if fucking awesome.

[J180]

The first seasteads will operate under the same maritime laws as existing ships... Although [cruise] companies have major operations within U.S. territorial waters, the U.S. does not interfere very much with their operations. This is due, in part, to the fact that cruise lines bring in jobs and revenue to the U.S. economy. If the U.S. were to try to interfere too much, the cruise lines would simply move their operations elsewhere. Similarly, seasteads will trade extensively with land-based businesses. The people who profit from those relationships will encourage their government not to interfere and drive away the seastead’s business.

LOL  That's classic.  Because the economic bolstering of doing business with a community of a couple thousand people (at most) definitely outweighs the advantage of simply blockading food from the community and then seizing all the assets.

There's a lot of assets to gain from invading Switzerland too, it doesn't stop small countries from existing. What if the couple of thousand people pay taxes for defense, making the cost of invasion outweigh the assets?

Switzerland is a mountainous, land-locked country of almost 8 MILLION people that is plenty capable of defending itself and also capable of sustaining itself.

How you think you can compare that to an oil rig of maybe 1,000 people sitting in the middle of the ocean and relying on importation of... everything... is mind boggling.  These people would be, in quite a literal sense, sitting ducks.

It was off the top of my head, there's many smaller countries, have a look at this list: http://geography.about.com/cs/countries/a/smallcountries.htm

My argument is that a large power, whether the US, France, Germany, etc, all the have the miliatary power to steal their assets. But that doesn't mean it's always politically feasible or worth the cost.

I don't have enough military expertise to argue for Switzerland specifically, so I'd rather do it for a small country where there's obviously not much chance of a successful defense. Consider one of the islands with roughly 10000 people on it.

I don't think you understand the irony of this situation.  These people on this totally dependent platform want to be independent.  This is a group of "rugged individuals" trying to get away from some evil system and social contracts, by starting a massively interdependent society that's going to have to run like clockwork for everyone to stay alive - it'll be FAR less free than any current society.  Then to top it all off, they want to be free from all international laws and such... but international law is still the only thing preventing them from getting blown out of the water or having their platform taken over, because the attacking force would see international prosecution/blow-back.

It's the ultimate fail and ultimate irony.  Individuals that want isolation banding together to form the most interdependent society created since the last biodome experiment, and the most externally dependent society ever to exist.


Do you know what these platforms really are?  They're tax free zones for the very wealthy, nothing more.

It's a social experiment. Whether it's less free or not is a subjective judgement. Are property rights freedom or less freedom? Is removing welfare really freedom if someone starves because of it? I am not asking for a reply to that question, I'm pointing out how the difficulty of defining 'freedom' is a debate which had gone on for at least a century, and which is continuing over the internet as I write this. It's not something you can state as an fact. Plenty of people will see them as 'free' even if you don't. And some people will support them irrespective of whether their free or not, because it's also possible to be a libertarian in a purely utilitarian or materialistic sense.

I have not heard of the creators wanting to be free of international law. The article doesn't mention it. International law is a way of resolving defense and contracts, something that is quite important. But international law does not have a tax authority. It doesn't forbid the use of drugs or have a minimum wage, i.e. the things they want to avoid.

In fact the purpose of these islands seems to be a method to test new types of societies, libertarian ones in particular. It is not an attempt for people to exclude themselves from humanity, which you seem to imply.

[RandyFolds]

The first seasteads will operate under the same maritime laws as existing ships... Although [cruise] companies have major operations within U.S. territorial waters, the U.S. does not interfere very much with their operations. This is due, in part, to the fact that cruise lines bring in jobs and revenue to the U.S. economy. If the U.S. were to try to interfere too much, the cruise lines would simply move their operations elsewhere. Similarly, seasteads will trade extensively with land-based businesses. The people who profit from those relationships will encourage their government not to interfere and drive away the seastead’s business.

LOL  That's classic.  Because the economic bolstering of doing business with a community of a couple thousand people (at most) definitely outweighs the advantage of simply blockading food from the community and then seizing all the assets.

There's a lot of assets to gain from invading Switzerland too, it doesn't stop small countries from existing. What if the couple of thousand people pay taxes for defense, making the cost of invasion outweigh the assets?

Switzerland is a mountainous, land-locked country of almost 8 MILLION people that is plenty capable of defending itself and also capable of sustaining itself.

How you think you can compare that to an oil rig of maybe 1,000 people sitting in the middle of the ocean and relying on importation of... everything... is mind boggling.  These people would be, in quite a literal sense, sitting ducks.

It was off the top of my head, there's many smaller countries, have a look at this list: http://geography.about.com/cs/countries/a/smallcountries.htm

My argument is that a large power, whether the US, France, Germany, etc, all the have the miliatary power to steal their assets. But that doesn't mean it's always politically feasible or worth the cost.

I don't have enough military expertise to argue for Switzerland specifically, so I'd rather do it for a small country where there's obviously not much chance of a successful defense. Consider one of the islands with roughly 10000 people on it.

I don't think you understand the irony of this situation.  These people on this totally dependent platform want to be independent.  This is a group of "rugged individuals" trying to get away from some evil system and social contracts, by starting a massively interdependent society that's going to have to run like clockwork for everyone to stay alive - it'll be FAR less free than any current society.  Then to top it all off, they want to be free from all international laws and such... but international law is still the only thing preventing them from getting blown out of the water or having their platform taken over, because the attacking force would see international prosecution/blow-back.

It's the ultimate fail and ultimate irony.  Individuals that want isolation banding together to form the most interdependent society created since the last biodome experiment, and the most externally dependent society ever to exist.


Do you know what these platforms really are?  They're tax free zones for the very wealthy, nothing more.

It's a social experiment. Whether it's less free or not is a subjective judgement. Are property rights freedom or less freedom? Is removing welfare really freedom if someone starves because of it? I am not asking for a reply to that question, I'm pointing out how the difficulty of defining 'freedom' is a debate which had gone on for at least a century, and which is continuing over the internet as I write this. It's not something you can state as an fact. Plenty of people will see them as 'free' even if you don't. And some people will support them irrespective of whether their free or not, It's possible to be a libertarian in a purely utilitarian or materialistic sense.

I have not heard of the creators wanting to be free of international law. The article doesn't mention it. International law is a way of resolving defense and contracts, something that is quite important. But international law does not have a tax authority. It doesn't forbid the use of drugs or have a minimum wage, i.e. the things they want to avoid.

In fact the purpose of these islands seems to be a method to test new types of societies, libertarian ones in particular. It is not an attempt for people to exclude themselves from humanity, which your last sentence seems to imply.

When did 'international law' come to exist? What is it? Who wrote it?

[J180]

The first seasteads will operate under the same maritime laws as existing ships... Although [cruise] companies have major operations within U.S. territorial waters, the U.S. does not interfere very much with their operations. This is due, in part, to the fact that cruise lines bring in jobs and revenue to the U.S. economy. If the U.S. were to try to interfere too much, the cruise lines would simply move their operations elsewhere. Similarly, seasteads will trade extensively with land-based businesses. The people who profit from those relationships will encourage their government not to interfere and drive away the seastead’s business.

LOL  That's classic.  Because the economic bolstering of doing business with a community of a couple thousand people (at most) definitely outweighs the advantage of simply blockading food from the community and then seizing all the assets.

There's a lot of assets to gain from invading Switzerland too, it doesn't stop small countries from existing. What if the couple of thousand people pay taxes for defense, making the cost of invasion outweigh the assets?

Switzerland is a mountainous, land-locked country of almost 8 MILLION people that is plenty capable of defending itself and also capable of sustaining itself.

How you think you can compare that to an oil rig of maybe 1,000 people sitting in the middle of the ocean and relying on importation of... everything... is mind boggling.  These people would be, in quite a literal sense, sitting ducks.

It was off the top of my head, there's many smaller countries, have a look at this list: http://geography.about.com/cs/countries/a/smallcountries.htm

My argument is that a large power, whether the US, France, Germany, etc, all the have the miliatary power to steal their assets. But that doesn't mean it's always politically feasible or worth the cost.

I don't have enough military expertise to argue for Switzerland specifically, so I'd rather do it for a small country where there's obviously not much chance of a successful defense. Consider one of the islands with roughly 10000 people on it.

I don't think you understand the irony of this situation.  These people on this totally dependent platform want to be independent.  This is a group of "rugged individuals" trying to get away from some evil system and social contracts, by starting a massively interdependent society that's going to have to run like clockwork for everyone to stay alive - it'll be FAR less free than any current society.  Then to top it all off, they want to be free from all international laws and such... but international law is still the only thing preventing them from getting blown out of the water or having their platform taken over, because the attacking force would see international prosecution/blow-back.

It's the ultimate fail and ultimate irony.  Individuals that want isolation banding together to form the most interdependent society created since the last biodome experiment, and the most externally dependent society ever to exist.


Do you know what these platforms really are?  They're tax free zones for the very wealthy, nothing more.

It's a social experiment. Whether it's less free or not is a subjective judgement. Are property rights freedom or less freedom? Is removing welfare really freedom if someone starves because of it? I am not asking for a reply to that question, I'm pointing out how the difficulty of defining 'freedom' is a debate which had gone on for at least a century, and which is continuing over the internet as I write this. It's not something you can state as an fact. Plenty of people will see them as 'free' even if you don't. And some people will support them irrespective of whether their free or not, It's possible to be a libertarian in a purely utilitarian or materialistic sense.

I have not heard of the creators wanting to be free of international law. The article doesn't mention it. International law is a way of resolving defense and contracts, something that is quite important. But international law does not have a tax authority. It doesn't forbid the use of drugs or have a minimum wage, i.e. the things they want to avoid.

In fact the purpose of these islands seems to be a method to test new types of societies, libertarian ones in particular. It is not an attempt for people to exclude themselves from humanity, which your last sentence seems to imply.

When did 'international law' come to exist? What is it? Who wrote it?

Various voluntary agreements. I'm including things like private arbitration. My understanding is that (other then a few recent developments) most international trade contracts are not enforced by government courts, but work on a reputation system through private agencies.

[Tasty Champa]

This is kind of cool on paper, but they are going to need a real army if they are outside of american waters.
Pirates are no joke, and I can only imagine new types of pirates mobbin on this type of "investment".
that means they will no doubt have to be authoritarian in some manner.
so it will more than likely just be a military installation controlled by the US military.