![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
ddstory.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsMost 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?
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 06:17 (UTC)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.
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.
(no subject)
Date: 12/1/12 06:49 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 12/1/12 07:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/1/12 07:46 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 13/1/12 21:27 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 13/1/12 22:38 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 14/1/12 00:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/1/12 00:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/1/12 01:18 (UTC)