> 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:
-- 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.