[identity profile] ddstory.livejournal.com posting in [community profile] talkpolitics
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?

(no subject)

Date: 12/1/12 04:13 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com
I'm going to tell you a secret: humans don't act on economics alone. Thus speaks the great prophet and diviner of the Beast Man.

(no subject)

Date: 12/1/12 06:04 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] anfalicious.livejournal.com
Trying to judge human activity by economics, and vice versa, is a fools errand.

(no subject)

Date: 12/1/12 07:06 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] montecristo.livejournal.com
It depends upon what you mean by the word "judge." Economics and praxeology are eminently suited to evaluating the efficacy of means applied to particular ends.

(no subject)

Date: 12/1/12 12:34 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] anfalicious.livejournal.com
But it seems that your definition of efficiency only takes into account economic factors. Of course you can measure economic efficiency via economics, but that misses a whole range of factors that make up the human condition.

(no subject)

Date: 14/1/12 00:51 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] montecristo.livejournal.com
The context of the exchange in question here begins with a discussion of pirates attempting to obtain loot. When I subjected this activity to economic analysis [livejournal.com profile] underlankers implied an objection with the comment:

I'm going to tell you a secret: humans don't act on economics alone.

I would point out that pirates attempting to obtain loot from victims is quintessentially economic activity, eminently suited to economic analysis, and more generally, praxeological analysis.

(no subject)

Date: 12/1/12 20:08 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] peristaltor.livejournal.com
Only in the neo-classical sense. Thorsten Veblen, a University of Chicago economist, coined the term "neo-classical" over a hundred years ago to define an economist who mostly followed Adam Smith, but added a touch of lassaiz-faire. He hated them, noting how wrong their theories proved when actually, you know, applied to real life. Veblen noted what happens when neo-classicism is not examined critically in his book, The Rise of The Leisure Class (IIRC). Looks like he was right.

For a look at a better theory of economics that actually relates to people, try Debt: The First 5,000 Years by David Graebber.

(no subject)

Date: 12/1/12 19:05 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com
But don't say that to the ideologues, they'll never hear it or listen to it.

(no subject)

Date: 12/1/12 07:04 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] montecristo.livejournal.com
True enough. The problem with your argument is though that you ARE talking about human action in the pursuit of material aims. Praxeology more than applies to your hypothetical pirates' attempt to improve their material well being at the unwilling expense of others. They are attempting to apply scarce means to the problem of improving their material situation, not divining how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or attempting to determine if true love at first sight is a real phenomeon. Your pirates, and their opponents, are not immune to the laws of economics.

(no subject)

Date: 12/1/12 19:06 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com
On the contrary, there'd be a great deal of rich guys all in one place, who may know which end of a gun to shoot with but would have relatively little ability to sustain any kind of serious gun battle involving *them* killing other people, and who are great for money and PR? Presto, instant attack, just add money.

(no subject)

Date: 14/1/12 00:54 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] montecristo.livejournal.com
You opened your statement with "on the contrary" but continued with a scenario that was, after a fashion, essentially economic analysis. When you decide which point you are trying to make, let me know.

(no subject)

Date: 14/1/12 01:12 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com
There's nothing strictly economic in such an attack, there's the motivation at the crudest of earning lines in the newspapers and bits in visual media. But I don't expect such real-world analysis to mean anything to an Austrian economist.

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods


MONTHLY TOPIC:

Failed States

DAILY QUOTE:
"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)
"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)
"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

June 2025

M T W T F S S
       1
2 34 5 678
910 1112 131415
1617 1819 202122
23242526272829
30