talkpolitics | A libertarian seasteading project

Most of you have probably heard about this already. Peter Thiel, the founder of PayPal and one of the first investors in Facebook, has invested one and a quarter million dollars in the Seasteading Institute company, which funds a project by one Patri Friedman, a former engineer at Google. The project is to build the perfect libertarian utopia on artificial islands off the coast of California.

The islands are expected to be constructed on floating platforms powered by diesel engines. The weight of each platform should be 12 thousand tons and one of those things should host up to 270 people. The islands will float some 370 km away from San Francisco, which means in international waters. The project includes building a whole archipelago of these islands and eventually hosting millions of people by 2050.

The first floating office will be built sometime during this year, and in 2019 the first towns will appear in the Pacific, ready to be populated.

The purpose of all this is ideological. Peter Thiel is planning to create a sovereign country on those islands, which would eventually be recognized by the UN. The new country will consist of poleis, whose citizens will experiment with various ideas of government. The stated principles of this new society include nice things like the freedom of thought, of expression and action, freedom from moral and other dogma and norms, and from the now existing laws. The creators of the project are aiming to build a new type of society which they believe hasn't been tried before.

It's worth noting that the creators of this utopia don't reject money and capitalist relations, in fact they embrace them. Their statement, although still a bit vague, goes along the lines of "we'll avoid doing the same mistakes that our predecessors did". As for water, energy and food supply and other resources, the new state would get them exclusively through trade with other countries.

I think this is a consequence from the notion that true libertarianism hasn't been tried in the real world yet, at least not in its purest form as imagined by the hardcore libertarians. I invite our libertarian friends here to correct me on this if I'm getting it wrong. That said, I think this project can't be a bad idea, and people who are willing to pursue their own understanding of a better society, and who have the means to realize their dream, should act upon it, and join such a society. I'm not sure how this would work differently than all previous attempts at building similar utopias, but I can't help wishing good luck to all who'll join the project. The more diversity of ideas and experiments, the merrier. What say you? And the critics of libertarianism, do they think this project poses a threat that people might actually see a successful libertarian example and start embracing libertarianism in larger numbers?

Many analysts keep saying that the 21st century will be a time of a major shift of paradigm in both the social and political sense, with new ideas and systems being introduced and eventually re-shaping the status quo on a global scale. Is a project like this, and other such ideas, the precursor to these changes? Or is it just a bold but naive attempt to social escapism that is unsustainable in the long run? Gimme your opinions, please.

And finally, a hypothetical question. If you see such a project actually working just fine, and being a success, and if it matches your personal understanding of a better society, would you venture to join it? If yes - why? If no - why not?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

montecristo.livejournal.com

Not send the problems away...
I was asserting that they would not be trapped or caged, either by human intervention or by circumstance, if proper precautions were taken. People would be free to go wherever they thought their association would provide them maximum benefit. It is your presumption that only coercive systems "care" for people, that if people were free, it would only be the freedom to succumb to the lowest most malign human impulses, or cold indifference.

Instead, I suggest that in a voluntary society, people would be free to imagine and implement many superior forms of association and mutual aid to offset the slings and arrows that afflict the human condition. Just because we live in a coercive society which allows people to engage in charity and mutual aid does not imply that coercion and the initiation of force are required for there to be benevolence. Examine your premises.

If your society only caters to those who can afford it, then your society isn't a real society.

The presumption of no charity, or inferrior charity is your fallacious assertion, not a fact of human existence or a necessary component of voluntary society. It's seems to be a pretty dark stain on your worldview to presume that there is no human benevolence, that violence and coercion engaged in by some against others is the only way to provide "compassion."

From:

sealwhiskers.livejournal.com

Your idea of a deposit is a bailout in the context of us discussing how to maintain a society, you brought it up, not me. I don't mind a "deposit" of sorts for people to get out of a place, but tell me, how is this different from a mandatory "unfree" sort of insurance? And what is "free" in the first place if your pontoon country demands a minimum monetary account to accept citizenship? Already from the beginning there is segregation going on.

But as I said, the deposit is not any problem to me, just double standards.

The presumption of no charity, or inferrior charity is your fallacious assertion

Here's the thing: you and I have different opinions on the actual impact of charity. I am basing my opinion on how it can't make sufficient impact even on a tax driven society, and you are basing yours on theory. Neither assumption is fool proof and we will just have to see, BUT, there is great need to actually have a worst case scenario for emergencies in a society. And here is where you and I differ. You assume there will not be any need for emergency scenarios, while I would always plan for it, regardless of societal type.

It's seems to be a pretty dark stain on your worldview to presume that there is no human benevolence

Sure there is. I just don't think benevolence can carry a whole society. And I don't even want to know what exactly it is you call "violence and coercion" in your analogy, probably state health care or something. You are using such hyperbolic language here that you may as well use emoticons.

Edited Date: 12/1/12 02:35 (UTC)

From:

montecristo.livejournal.com

I'm not denying that I brought it up. I did. I'm pointing out that anyone with a modicum of literacy can see that it is the perception of what that system entails which is the problem here. It is you who persist in insisting that the immigration bond must mean expulsion and not the freedom to emmigrate. Indigent people in Ancapistan would be free to accept the (probably superior) charity available there or they would be free to emigrate, using their own returned money, to someplace where they believed they would be "treated better." What is your problem with that? Your argument has nothing to do with compassion or concern for those beset by ill circumstances; it consists of the desire to punish, or at least conscript, by force, the resources of those who do not agree with your views on what charity consists. You are taking the position of the North Wind in Aesop's fable. You'd rather fight with others over the ability to impose your definition of charity on the unwilling than you would expend your own personal resources helping "those in need" or persuading others to join you in doing so voluntarilly.

There is charity and benevolence in this world not because some mystical abstraction called society wants it but because people want it. Assistance, help, charity, whatever you want to call it, can be provided by those who think that cooperation and voluntary association are the best ways to solve social problems or those who believe that coercion and force are the only ways to accomplish socially desireable ends. That is the sole distinction between what a free society's charity entails and a coercive society's "charity" entails. Both societies are ultimately composed of people, some benevolently motivated and others, not so much. Having a government does not change the nature of human beings. You have a fear of human freedom. It's irrational. If people were, for the most part, evil and rapacious, no orgainization, like a government, claiming a monopoly on force and coercion would be any less rapacious and malevolent than the people who constituted it. It is the height of magical thinking and superstition to presume that societies are anything other or "more" than the people composing them. The presumption that maximum "benevolent" ends can only be attained through the use of some level of violent or coercive means is what it is for which you are arguing. That is the only distinction between a libertarian society and one organized according to the principle that it is "sometimes" okay to violate the Golden Rule in the pursuit of "desirable" some ends. The difference between the two is that the free association civilization does not waste resources, especially human energy, in the attempt to coerce people into involuntary associations on the pretext of promoting benevolent ends.

From:

sealwhiskers.livejournal.com

Really? you need to repeat what you think I think over and over in every answer? What is this, the terrier method of debate?

My criticism of your deposit idea is twofold: it hasn't anything to do with helping the ill fortunate in your society, which is the context it was brought up in, in the first place, so even if you didn't mean it that way, your response to an emergency plan actually was for people to go elsewhere. Since then you have added many many many paragraphs re-hashing that the charity would be superior and they'd be welcome to stay, BUT, that came later, and since you are repeating yourself, well, I'll just repeat the reason for your repetition then.

The second criticism lies in the fact that you are proposing that only citizens who have a certain amount of money can be citizens. Other than that I have *nothing* against that kind of "insurance" per se. As I've said over and over. I do not insist that the deposit *must* mean expulsion, I am simply stating that: a) in lieu of a better plan than charity, I take my liberty to think it will and b) that the freedom to go elsewhere for better fortune is already existing in all democracies.

Your argument has nothing to do with compassion or concern for those beset by ill circumstances; it consists of the desire to punish, or at least conscript, by force, the resources of those who do not agree with your views on what charity consists. You are taking the position of the North Wind in Aesop's fable. You'd rather fight with others over the ability to impose your definition of charity on the unwilling than you would expend your own personal resources helping "those in need" or persuading others to join you in doing so voluntarilly.

Really, my evilness is now likened to a fairy tale nemesis? :) It is almost as if you should have been a poet. 200 years ago that is.

There is charity and benevolence in this world not because some mystical abstraction called society wants it but because people want it. Assistance, help, charity, whatever you want to call it, can be provided by those who think that cooperation and voluntary association are the best ways to solve social problems

You have not provided any details as to why the charity in pontoonland would be so fantastic to the point that it could provide for not only relief to social problems, but also to all those other millions of necessities that constitute a functioning society.
*If* the charity is so radiant, so superior and fantastic that it truly would be able to do that, then you are in the right. I simply don't believe it could cover all this, and before you throw insults at me again, I need to add that I am *well aware* that there are many humanitarians in the world who are willing to help, my disbelief in the effectiveness of charity upholding a whole society doesn't mean I don't believe in human goodness.

You have a fear of human freedom. It's irrational

If I did have a fear of human freedom, it would indeed be irrational. But alas, disagreeing with a system doesn't constitute fear of it. And this is where you deeply insult most people you debate with. Stop that right now.

that maximum "benevolent" ends can only be attained through the use of some level of violent or coercive means is what it is for which you are arguing.

You should also quit stating what other people are arguing. As I've said, I fully believe that other methods than mine may work, but you have given no methods, just cliches and poetic expressions.

Edited Date: 12/1/12 04:51 (UTC)

From:

montecristo.livejournal.com

You have not provided any details as to why the charity in pontoonland would be so fantastic to the point that it could provide for not only relief to social problems, but also to all those other millions of necessities that constitute a functioning society.

Fair enough. I merely am pointing out that any coercive system, which involves initiating force must, of necessity, be less efficient (and less just) than a system which relies on voluntary cooperation, if for no other reason than the fact that voluntary systems do not waste resources in coercing people first. A coercive system not only produces more conflict, it incurrs overhead in the means it uses to address social problems.

my disbelief in the effectiveness of charity upholding a whole society doesn't mean I don't believe in human goodness.

Ah, now here we are, at last, getting down to the business of essentials. If not the benevolence of people then what does "uphold a whole society?" This is the card up your sleeve which you are either unwilling or unable to identify. Give it a shot, again, please.

Edited Date: 12/1/12 06:18 (UTC)

From:

sealwhiskers.livejournal.com

any coercive system, which involves initiating force must, of necessity, be less efficient (and less just) than a system which relies on voluntary cooperation, if for no other reason than the fact that voluntary systems do not waste resources in coercing people first. A coercive system not only produces more conflict, it incurrs overhead in the means it uses to address social problems.

This all depends on many factors which you are either unwilling to address or simply are repeatedly overlooking. Efficiency depends on a structure, and structure takes planning and rules. If we have rules, then people will, because people always do, have different opinions, whereupon either the rule of majority or some form of other ruling is implemented, and suddenly you have something which you would call a "coercive system". Your broad definitions of anything that isn't completely free from structure and variety in opinion in a society, as "coercive" is the downfall of your theory. The simplistic idea that a society can be without structure and that the people that in a practical sense develop this structure will always agree on exactly the same methods, even within an ideology is a big weakness in your argumentation.

Goodness this is tiring. It's like civics 101 with you, if you pardon me saying so.

Ah, now here we are, at last, getting down to the business of essentials. If not the benevolence of people then what does "uphold a whole society?" This is the card up your sleeve which you are either unwilling or unable to identify. Give it a shot, again, please.

Dude, are you really implying that one word would cover all that upholds a society. It must be really easy being a libertarian.

If I simplify it I would say, long term structures and a flexible attitude to these where changing them when needed is one essential part of what upholds a society. In that structure then, people try to utilize such sentiments as kindness, profit, practicality and much more. But those things are just words without a structure.

Edited Date: 12/1/12 06:51 (UTC)

From:

montecristo.livejournal.com

You are using the concept of "structure" in a manner which implies that a voluntary system is one that implicity has no structure or rules. This is a nonsequitur. Voluntary does not imply lacking in structure, rules, or even planning. The Salvation Army and the St. Vincent dePaul Society are two voluntary charity systems grounded in rules, planning and structure. If that is the argument that you actually mean to make then you need to support the idea that only a system rooted in the initiation of force can have structure.

From:

sealwhiskers.livejournal.com

No, I am implying pretty blatantly that your society *will* have to implement structure and rules, and with that comes different opinions - even within the same ideology, and then you have democracy, or other types of ruling, and your "everybody agrees upon entering" idea flies out the window and some form of "coercive" action (your wording, not mine) will take place, if only by voting and majority rule.

And the Salvation Army and St. Vincent aren't societies, but fine, if you must, I feel compelled to tell you that they too have boards and voting.

From:

montecristo.livejournal.com

From:

sealwhiskers.livejournal.com

Nowhere have I claimed that there would be no rules or no structure. What I have claimed is that those providing services like security and dispute resolution should never be presumed to have the authority to initate force against people who have not themselves infringed anyone else's rights.

And who decides what is right? A contract between two parties is always prone to dispute, particularly if there is no legislation around an area, or if the legislation is weak and prone to interpretation. Any lawyer will tell you this, and any lawyer will also tell you what copious amounts of time and money that it takes to resolve such contract disputes, and in the mean time, cervices will come to a standstill.

My point about the charitable organizations is that where there is disagreement about the mission or how objectives are to be achieved there is the possibility of negotiation for common ground OR people agree to disagree and cooperate in separate structures which can coexist in parallel. There is no need for a one-size-fits all "solution" to social problems to be imposed upon people by governments.

Eh, I have worked for a charity organization and this is simply false. They have boards and voting and majority decisions just like any other entity. If you mean that new kind of charity you claim will evolve from this new pontoon society, then that will have to be your assumption, but I assure you, that in today's existing charities, your method of negotiation for common ground is used on smaller scale, your other option of atom splitting is avoided if humanely possible and democratic methods are used frequently.

Edited Date: 13/1/12 22:38 (UTC)