![[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: 13/1/12 21:53 (UTC)Precisely.
Yes. I see you at least acknowledge this reality. Good.
Now who is making vague assertions which she is not supporting with either facts or logic?
You cannot predict the terms of a compromise before any such terms have been negotiated, nay, before even the disputes arise. Are you so fearful of human disagreement that you reach for a fuhrer to dictate unity?
Democracy and compromise are procedural mechanisms only; they are not ends in themselves and do not automatically guarantee respect for rights. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner does not a just system make, despite the holy rituals of "democracy" being observed to the letter.
That is not what I said. I said that nobody has the authority to violate another's rights. Nobody has a right to initate force against someone who has not themselves previously caused or threatened harm. What it is to which this boils down is that nobody is able to presume a forcible monopoly on the provision of any good or service, which includes security or dispute resolution. Since we seem to be attempting to get to the bottom of what I am espousing here, and obviously not getting the idea across to you (I am presuming that you are not being deliberately obtuse and purposely misrepresenting my claims) then perhaps you would be better enlightened on the concepts by reading the Wikipedia article on Non-aggression Principle. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle)
(no subject)
Date: 13/1/12 22:29 (UTC)No, what I *know* happens is usually a joint committee of publicly chosen representatives from various places who take such decisions through motions which are to full public display (in the form of records of various kinds). Several steps are set in motion so that it can be scrutinized and objected to if necessary.
Now who is making vague assertions which she is not supporting with either facts or logic?
If every time a disagreement happened in a society, the opposing sides would split the entity into different fractions to have it their own way, that society would be divided into regions where different laws would rule. There are absolutely rational grounds for suspecting this would create an unbearably cumbersome reality at best and a chaotic one at worst, and probably one of the main reasons for democracy being the system to strive for in most modern countries. As I said, to *you* this may sound like a success, at least beforehand, but many would deem this a failure, simply based on what they define with "society". And the result is to be seen. My theory is that your libertarian society will default into some form of democracy.
You cannot predict the terms of a compromise before any such terms have been negotiated, nay, before even the disputes arise. Are you so fearful of human disagreement that you reach for a fuhrer to dictate unity?
It is precisely such lack of planning for future law disagreement and how agreements should be drawn that leave societies at a standstill and where abuse happens. Normal people call it precaution and planning, you call it fear. Terms are never set in stone, there is always room for change and discussion, but a structure is *exactly* the effort to predict a structure for future needs.
Democracy and compromise are procedural mechanisms only; they are not ends in themselves and do not automatically guarantee respect for rights. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner does not a just system make, despite the holy rituals of "democracy" being observed to the letter.
Democracy is a necessary burden. Other things have been tried, even your type of society, and it didn't last. Luckily there are many shapes that democracy can take, and many focal points for change and movement within the system.
That is not what I said. I said that nobody has the authority to violate another's rights. Nobody has a right to initate force against someone who has not themselves previously caused or threatened harm. What it is to which this boils down is that nobody is able to presume a forcible monopoly on the provision of any good or service, which includes security or dispute resolution. Since we seem to be attempting to get to the bottom of what I am espousing here, and obviously not getting the idea across to you (I am presuming that you are not being deliberately obtuse and purposely misrepresenting my claims) then perhaps you would be better enlightened on the concepts by reading the Wikipedia article on Non-aggression Principle.
oh please, I am neither being obtuse nor deliberately so, you have been yapping on about no force having the right to regulate another (as long as no one gets hurt) in every answer, and not understood that what I and other critics are saying that we believe is that somebody *will* get hurt, and then your lack of plans and "flexible" system will not be able to deal with it, within your golden rule.
I am well aware that *you* don't believe this, and that you are likely to write me walls of text about you not believing it and how it is not so, but quit insulting anyone's intelligence, what you are preaching is hardly rocket science.