> There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
-- John Rogers
Suppose we should add ships without laws to the list. The entire Sea Steading concept makes no sense.
1: International waters do have laws and you are subject to them and the flag you fly under.
2: If there were no laws you had to live under - why don't you think criminals would already be using these to have drug or arms sales? Oh yeah - it's because you are still subject to laws like everyone else.
3: Let's say you have a ship with no laws - what's to stop someone from killing you and taking your stuff? Who is going the enforce those rights? I government like entity? I thought we were libertarians here!
4: What happens in the case of an emergency? Do you rely on other governments to bail you out? Will you help the people on your boat - I mean what is the return on saving someone else's life? Who's responsible for the screw up? What about medical treatment? Do you not treat a guy who can't pay but has a festering open wound you could easily fix?
Libertarianism - just like this Steading initiative - is a fairy tale for nerds that does not work in reality. But hey - a fella' can dream can't he?
Successful business people are like children, give them too much freedom, and they'll pollute the heck out of you given half a chance.
Governments are like adults, wield too much power and you beat the innovation out of the kids with authoritarian regimes.
You need both and you need good relationships between them - neither is better or worse than the other - they're just people.
The individuals involved with seasteading.org are quite familiar with these issues (and are generally anti-objectivist personally though I don't believe the organization has any stance on that). There's a book as well as information on the website that will inform your mistaken criticisms.
Yet another trivial criticism voted up on hacker news from someone who is not familiar with the material.
"People outside libertarianism sometimes identify Objectivism and libertarianism as being almost the same, but my experimental, polycentric, consequentalist approach to libertarianism is pretty much the opposite of Objectivism. I do think Ayn Rand's glorification of self interest and people realizing their potential is awesome, and I understand how teenagers get swept up by her ideas. That's fine, as long as they grow out of them later :)."
That section continues with some summary points on flaws in objectivist thought.
The burden of the critic is to familiarize themselves with the material and persons they are making critical claims of.
It's not an appeal to authority. You made a claim about the thinking of members of the organization, I provided direct refutation from the publishing of the organization's chairman.
People go overseas to legally participate in activities illegal in their home country all the time.
> 1: International waters do have laws and you are subject to them and the flag you fly under.
Then don't fly a flag. This will restrict what ports and territorial waters you can visit (if any?) and also mean you cannot expect any help if attacked by pirates, so you will need to provide your own security.
> 2 ... why don't you think criminals would already be using these to have drug or arms sales?
How exactly do you think criminals transport drugs and illegal weapons? By sea of course. They do not get harassed until they are within the territorial waters of a country where such activities are illegal. The exception in this case is ships breaking international law (violating embargoes, transporting illegal nuke material etc.) which are fair game.
But why would a criminal start a meth lab on a ship? Much easier and cheaper to get a trailer in the woods, or a factory in Mexico.
> 3: Let's say you have a ship with no laws ... government like entity
Yes. But it would be a government anyone can opt into and opt out of at any time.
> 4. What happens in the case of an emergency?
In an emergency: SHTF. Everyone who is onboard these ships will know the risks and decide if the reward is good enough.
You try that. If you don't fly the flag - you are not under the protection of any sovereign nation and are essentially subject to the powers of any other.
> territorial waters of a country where such activities are illegal.
No - they don't get harassed until they get detected - if we knew where they were - we'd take them out in international waters.
> anyone can opt into and opt out of at any time.
You can do that now - move to Somalia.
> risks and decide if the reward is good enough
So just ignore that part then - caveat emptor right?
Most seasteaders would prefer to define their own sovereignty. And of course this has its issues with respect to being attacked by various folks, pirates, navies of various countries, etc. A fairly good writeup appeared in Ars Technica [1]. James Grimmalman, a professor of Law at New York Law School, did a legal analysis which was fairly widely cited as well.
It seems to me like it is an assumption that if you weren't sailing under any flag that no one would come to your aid in an emergency. They may not be obligated to, but unless you were doing something that a country really, really didn't like, and it was generally known you were doing it, I think that most vessels that pick up your distress call would likely respond. I could be wrong. Are there any recent historical events that might help predict future outcomes?
Maybe the fantasy is impractical and nothing will come of it. On the other hand, maybe these plans will create something new in this world. The American content was populated (invaded, if you prefer) by people who wanted to create different social organizations and were willing to take enormous risks to do it - this impulse is deep in our psyche.
Alternatively, look at it this way: It's an opportunity for you to look smug and say "I told you so" in a couple decades. Encourage it.
I like these seasteading projects. I don't imagine they are going to become floating Utopia but they might be _different_ and that will be interesting. Like Disneyland, you don't have to live there to want to stay a while.
I also think people are overlooking the primary benefit of something like Blueseed: It creates an urban density of talent that makes Manhattan look like rural Texas. I would love to build a startup in that kind of environment.
Well, in a democratic society with the rule of law most laws are, at least in theory, supported and agreed on by most of the population.
When someone says they want to be free of the rule of national law that might mean they want to violate a law that I generally support. Maybe they want to provide untracable anonymous phone numbers to robo-calling telemarketers, or tax avoidance services to shady billionaires, or subpoena-proof corporate records for companies running unsafe chemical plants.
That has the potential to be antagonizing - although the potential is not yet realized.
What makes you think the ships would have no laws? Maybe "The entire Sea Steading concept makes no sense" because most of what you know about it is what you guessed based on third-hand info. To answer your points:
1. Yes, yes, and so what? Nobody is expecting the first wave of seasteads not to have laws. If you read the OP you'll note that "flagging" is one of the expected expenses.
2. Again, nobody is claiming the first round of seasteads will be in violation of international law. Nor is anybody claiming they will have no local rules.
3. Nobody has ever claimed the ship itself will have no laws. The hope is that it might evolve some better laws, given the chance to do so.
4. In case of emergency, you can rely on yourselves (including the ship's doctor), other nearby ships, and land-based facilities. Basically, you're in much the same situation as if you were on a long cruise. If the main boat is moored somewhere there are smaller boats going to and fro, or if you can't wait for one of those there may be helicopter access to the mainland. Once again, nobody is proposing doing away with all vestiges of civilization. People on this boat will still have their own citizenship and will be able to pay for emergency expenses with something called "insurance" or another thing called "savings" or another thing called a "deposit" or a "bond". For instance, if you go live on a ship they are likely to require you to put down as part of your deposit enough money to pay for return transport if and when you need it.
Anyway, please stop guessing at what Seasteading is about. Your guesses aren't merely wrong, they are misinforming others as well.
I also suggest reading my earlier post about the benefits of jurisdictional arbitrage - picking the right flag country for whatever it is you want to do and benefiting from that choice:
seasteading communities — floating cities — which will allow the next generation of pioneers to peacefully test new ideas for government
there's a lot of marketing mumbo jumbo on the site, but I really support their premise (and frankly I would pull off something similar if I had the funds). from what I understand, they are trying to offer a research center in international waters, free from any national restrictions.
I believe it's very unfortunate that we live in a time where basic democratic processes and the deliberations of a bunch of (mostly) law students decide which kind of research is permissible and which is not. this shouldn't be in the hand of a bunch of politicians but rather a dedicated and separate ethic commission. if governments don't adapt we'll (hopefully) see more such projects.
The thing is, I don't see how this gets around government restrictions. From what I understand, a ship has to sail under the flag of some existing country, otherwise it is a pirate ship and subject to coercion by any country's navy. So the laws of whatever flag it is operating under will apply to that ship.
The main benefit is jurisdictional arbitrage - you get to pick whatever flag imposes the least restrictions on whatever use is most important to you. Unlike on land, on a ship if your assigned "country" becomes too oppressive you are free to change it without changing where you live/work. Since flagging countries get paid a small amount (and gain a small amount of status) by virtue of their flagged vessels and have no physical territorial claim over them, flagging countries have more incentive to be generally agreeable than do territorial governments.
So simply "sailing under a flag" gets you quite a lot of the potential benefit of seasteading. Sailing without a flag is something to think about in the far distant future but not really worth worrying about for now.
There are oodles of business models that could make use of this today. Right now, the only one that's really been tried is "day gambling cruise" - sail out of a port where gambling is illegal, gamble once outside the relevant imaginary lines, sail back into port. But there's lots of other business-space to explore, like medical cruises.
Currently many Americans fly to Germany to get medical operations that aren't yet approved here or fly to India to get medical care that is far less expensive than here. Those who live near a port city might save money and time accomplishing the same end - cheaper, more flexible care - by shuttling out to an offshore floating hospital.
interesting - honestly I'm not familiar with maritime laws in the different countries. however enforcement by the navy seems much more unlikely than by local police forces (depending on the flag you're sailing under).
Are you thinking of any types of research in particular?
If you're thinking of human embryonic stem cell research, I'd have thought a research facility in Britain or Australia would be simpler than a research facility on a boat in international waters.
Isn't there another way to find some place on earth (preferably an island) that will be outside international conventions? Wouldn't that be more viable and cheaper than seasteading? I wonder if there have been attempts to do something like that in collaboration with some government.
Regardless, this could be a profound experiment. If something good comes out of it, people will demand changes in world governance. (We ran out of governance ideas after the last french revolution)
It's important for the institute to be completely transparent about what is being conducted there (legal or not), or else people are going to turn against it.
A modest proposal for the establishment of an libertarian state:
Well there is Antarctica or Somalia. Unless there is a radical new technology that allows us to control the weather, Antarctica is out. Somalia is a possibility though, for some libertarians to set up shop there. I don't think there is much industry in Somalia though, maybe a couple alliances with local war-lords? Then you would just have to cordon off an area by the coast, hire some child laborers to mine the area you wanted, put up some barriers and razor wire, and BAM we have a Randian paradise.
Now we need hookers, industrially-produced Meth/Heroin/PCP/MDMA/Ganja along with every other drug available at the local quickimart. Mabey make a deal with a couple Chinese companies to build a deep-water port complex for their railroad out of central Africa to terminate at. Hire Blackwater/Xe/Academi/? trained fighters to defend the place. Who knows after a couple years you could develop it to look like Southern California and maybe attract some Arab princes to come down on from the Gulf on Holiday.
Oh wait, this is totally crazy and is something drunken Randian college kids talk about. There is a damn good reason that SF and NYC are as successful as they are even with the high taxes and corruption: they have kick-ass universities, established business networks, and are major population centers.
> Isn't there another way to find some place on earth (preferably an island) that will be outside international conventions? Wouldn't that be more viable and cheaper than seasteading? I wonder if there have been attempts to do something like that in collaboration with some government.
there are a few pieces of unclaimed (or disputed) land left: the largest patch by far is: Marie Byrd Land ( a part of west Antarctica). because of the hostile conditions there you might be better off with with "seastanding".
we work to enable seasteading communities — floating cities — which will allow the next generation of pioneers to peacefully test new ideas for government.
It's an interesting idea. I don't see why a small oceangoing socialist or libertarian or whatever community wouldn't be viable.
The key would be the fact that they're made up of a small self selecting group. It's much easier for a group of like minded people to get along than for a much larger and diverse nation to do so.
I've been a supporter of the institute for a while now, and one of the things I really appreciate about their approach is incrementalism. Build in small individually viable steps that let you evaluate both the underlying assumptions and the optimal direction to take from there. This steady approach makes me much more confident in them than previous similar ventures.
I participated in their forums for a few months several years ago, but I quit bothering because they are not particularly incremental. As one of their references, Jon Fisher's The Last Frontiers on Earth, points out, one of the things pioneers have always had to deal with is leaving behind some of the comforts of home. They seem to think they are going to start out with all the comforts of a city, or at least an "edge city" suburb; it's not going to happen, they'll just keep on daydreaming.
I honestly don't know how representative the forums are, I've mostly helped out a bit with the conferences and interact with current and former board members in person fairly frequently. My sense is that the desire to have as many comforts as possible is to attract a varied initial core. From the very beginning the aims were to get the people who are super into, and then build-up. But if you don't have sufficient social infrastructure you're going to end up only with the hardcore who don't serve as a useful seed for a growing system.
I think they're trying to skip the true frontiersmen, those folks are already living aboard their boats. They're trying to enable the homesteaders that come after them, and from whom settlements grow and expand.
There was once a proposal for an offshore incubator/co-working facility that would help individuals get around visa difficulties.
EDIT: Whoever flagged the question of the comment below went a bit too far. What in the world is wrong with someone asking, "How would that work, exactly?" (Aside from the imagined tone of voice, which can be interpreted in both a positive and negative light.)
There was an idea that people would work in international waters, but within close reach of meetings ashore. (Which they could attend on tourist visas.)
That is indeed one of the ideas has been promoted by the Seasteading Institute. The spinoff company now pushing that plan is called Blueseed; they expect to have a ship in 2013-2014, but the ship they use will probably be bigger and more residential-ish than this one. Here's their site:
(That comment wasn't flagged: that entire user account seems to be hellbanned as of over a week ago, so every post that the user makes is automatically deleted; flagging a comment does not simply cause it to be immediately deleted.)
I am not really aligned with their world view, but they definitely get big credit for trying, and also trying in a way that's sort of an "MVP". I wish them luck.
You have to love libertarians and their utopian fantasies. It is often a surprise that any of them have become (or remain) wealthy without government support, regulations or laws. Oh wait.
Seriously though, someone must see the irony in libertarians starting an ocean commune.
-- John Rogers
Suppose we should add ships without laws to the list. The entire Sea Steading concept makes no sense.
1: International waters do have laws and you are subject to them and the flag you fly under.
2: If there were no laws you had to live under - why don't you think criminals would already be using these to have drug or arms sales? Oh yeah - it's because you are still subject to laws like everyone else.
3: Let's say you have a ship with no laws - what's to stop someone from killing you and taking your stuff? Who is going the enforce those rights? I government like entity? I thought we were libertarians here!
4: What happens in the case of an emergency? Do you rely on other governments to bail you out? Will you help the people on your boat - I mean what is the return on saving someone else's life? Who's responsible for the screw up? What about medical treatment? Do you not treat a guy who can't pay but has a festering open wound you could easily fix?
Libertarianism - just like this Steading initiative - is a fairy tale for nerds that does not work in reality. But hey - a fella' can dream can't he?
Successful business people are like children, give them too much freedom, and they'll pollute the heck out of you given half a chance.
Governments are like adults, wield too much power and you beat the innovation out of the kids with authoritarian regimes.
You need both and you need good relationships between them - neither is better or worse than the other - they're just people.