A libertarian seasteading project

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

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?

Comments

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

You may want to consider your writings in the light of what they reveal of your philosophy. The root of libertarian philosophy is the Non Agression Principle or Zero Aggression Principle. To the extent that a society is comprised of people who agree to live by that principle, it is more free and libertarian. To the extent that it is not is the extent to which people resort to coercion and the organized initiation of force to deal with one another. It is, to that extent, less free. Is it your presumption that more voluntarism and freedom mean less compassion? It seems to be.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

Oh I know what you mean by "free", "unfree" and "higher quality", I am just asserting that you understand that these are simply words and you lean on pretty sounding theories. It still doesn't provide practical methods to run a society.

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

So, when you use a word, it means excactly what you intend it to mean, no more and now less, but when I use a word... Right?

Let's take what you've written here at face value. By what criteria of yours is "my pretty sounding theory" lacking practicality? By what criteria do you propose that society be "run" that is different from mine?

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

So, when you use a word, it means excactly what you intend it to mean, no more and now less, but when I use a word... Right?

No, I actually said exactly what that meant in some of my very first comments. These types of words are in political theory and discussion between different ideologies highly subjective in such sense that they carry different meaning. What one would call "success" or "freedom" others call other things. I thought that was obvious. Throwing around such expressions is rather meaningless in this context, until you provide concrete practical explanations for what you are addressing.

If we cut to the chase here, you'd need to explain why charity in your society would be superior for instance.

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

1. The presence of charity in human society is evidence that people desire it.


2. As economics teaches, desires can be infinite even though means are scarce.


3. Charity is accomplished using scarce means.


4. The most economical use of scarce means will result in the greatest production of the desired goods or services, in this case, charity.


5. Any means of coercion for the production of a good or service will be hampered by the need to devote some of the scarce means to the process of coercing the unwilling.


6. Voluntar systems do not need to devote resources to the task of coercion, therefore a voluntary system incurs less overhead, at the very least, and is therefore more economical.


7. As the more economical system, the voluntary approach will ultimately produce more of the goods and services in question.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

Points 1-4 apply to other societies as well, and yet charities there are not enough.

Any means of coercion for the production of a good or service will be hampered by the need to devote some of the scarce means to the process of coercing the unwilling.

Since a libertarian utopia doesn't have any other means than those of charity and thus can't "save" any funds, and since other societies separate charity and state fund distribution this cross breeding attempt for fund analogy is wrong. You are probably implying that people will give just as much as they would pay in taxes and then save on "bureaucracy" but this simplistic idea would imply that in a big society no administration would be needed for private charity. I feel a need to write "lol" here.

This is what I was waiting for, thank you. That people will, in a libertarian society give as much voluntarily as taxes bring in, if not more, and that there would be no need for any costs in administration to operate this type of charity.

This all really speaks for itself.

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

You lol'ed too soon. You're going to fall off of your loller-skates and hurt yourself.

You are probably implying that people will give just as much as they would pay in taxes and then save on "bureaucracy" but this simplistic idea would imply that in a big society no administration would be needed for private charity.

Wrong. I never claimed that private, voluntary charity needs no administration. I claim that coercive systems require TWO administrations or sets of bureaucracy: one to accomplish the charitable ends and one to accomplish the coercion of competing and dissenting systems. It is the voluntary system which does not need the additional/second bureaucracy. A coercive system uses coercion to maintain a monopoly position in the supply of the good or service it provides. This coercive process is referred to as rent-seeking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking).

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

Oh, don't worry about me, I don't hurt myself from loling, and I don't skate!

I claim that coercive systems require TWO administrations or sets of bureaucracy: one to accomplish the charitable ends and one to accomplish the coercion of competing and dissenting systems

I think you vastly overestimate what a generic effective tax system costs, in comparison to what is accumulates, if that is what you are comparing your charity money to. Admittedly your general usage of such inconcrete terms such as "coercive system" doesn't give much to go on, when it comes to actual methods.
Again, you are assuming that the simple bureaucratic step to implement a law, and the benefits from this, will be vastly overrun by the riches of free will charity, and this, as I have said from the very beginning is where we differ. It's not the only point, but it is a point where no empirical proof can be given by you, and only partly by me. So waiting and seeing is what we have to do. But you have said nothing to make me have more faith, or to surprise me from what I already know of libertarianism. At least there are some half way interesting ideas on some free market tanks where a tentative discussion about "voluntary" taxes of sorts exist, where those that pay, get certain perks in emergencies etc. These discussions have arisen from the very notion that bureaucratic structures of regulations are cost effective. As for rent-seeking, I implore you to stop the terminology strawmen. It is common knowledge that the term is used when one rule/legislation/structure/system is prayed upon by another unnecessary one, the mere act of implementing a system does not apply to the expression.

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

A system which both accomplishes some end AND maintains its position of being the sole means to this end by force, must logically require and consume more resources than one which accomplishes the same end voluntarilly. To assert the contrary presumes that conflict neither consumes resources nor impedes production.

...the mere act of implementing a system does not apply to the expression.

"Implementing a system" in such a way that the "system" maintains, by force, a monopoly on the provision of goods and services is, by definition rent seeking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking). The "implemented system" here is explicitly (follow along on the web page with me, please) "...attempt[ing] to obtain economic rent by manipulating the social or political environment in which economic activities occur, rather than by creating new wealth." If McDonalds announces that it is the sole provider of burgers in the world, and presumes to injure or rob anyone else who attempts to also enter the burger market for the purpose of enjoying monopoly profits, it is engaging in rent-seeking. Similarly, when governments presume themselves to be monopoly providers of security or dispute resolution services and confiscate resources from everyone to secure and maintain this monopoly, they are engaging in rent seeking. The only difference between any other corporate entity in this regard, and the corporate entity called "government" is that the government is the corporate entity presumed to enjoy such a monopoly automatically, and to be able to bestow monopoly priviledges on other corporate entities.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

A system which both accomplishes some end AND maintains its position of being the sole means to this end by force

Democratic voting is not force.

must logically require and consume more resources than one which accomplishes the same end voluntarilly

The key word(s) here is(are) surprisingly enough not "voluntarily" but "the same end". You can preach as much as you like, but there is no proof of the same results being made by private action, just claims, and I claim the opposite.

"Implementing a system" in such a way that the "system" maintains, by force, a monopoly on the provision of goods and services is, by definition rent seeking.

A mixed system is not a system that caters to monopoly or rent seeking, no matter how many textbooks you cut and paste from.

The only difference between any other corporate entity in this regard, and the corporate entity called "government" is that the government is the corporate entity presumed to enjoy such a monopoly automatically

No, the difference is that a democratic government can be challenged on subjects and individuals as well as procedures can be voted away. No similar thing from the outside can in the same way challenge a huge multinational company with monopoly tendencies.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And then someone realizes that if just one sufficiently well-armed person shows up in a society where everyone else abides by that principle that the Non-Aggression Principle is a great big sign saying "Free suckers, come and rule over them". Society does not produce people who agree to only abide by its rules, all societies produce minorities and deviants. And in a society where the Non-Aggression Principle is a basic one, the most obvious deviancy is to build a paramilitary and slaughter one's way to power and rule the brutalized survivors in a Pol Potian fasihon.