Why don't gazzilionaires start their own countries?
All of thee guys don't have to work anymore.. Bill, Steve, Larry, Sergey and Mark.
They have the funds and contacts to do it..
So why has no-one tried to start a small country?
1) Starting their own country wouldn't offer them much they don't already have.
2) There's no unclaimed land. That means you either need to build your own land (which is really expensive) or take it off someone else, which probably makes you a criminal around the world and might ruin your life already.
3) Once you've got the land, you've got to defend it, and mercs[1] + military hardware gets expensive really fast.
4) Even then, the nasty things you'd have to do to establish a country and get it recognized around the world will probably cripple your commercial activities.
5) They don't necessarily have much ability for governing/retaining power.
[1] No-one is going to die for Gatestan out of patriotism.
Don't you think that would be a magnet to just about every terrorist organization in the world? Not to mention if it is anywhere near East Africa I would image a few boat loads of real pirates turning up pretty quickly - even in a lot of what would look like safer neighborhoods I would expect you would start getting a lot of attention from organized crime and other very scary people.
I'm sure at least one of these guys might enjoy the challenge of making it hospitable :)
It's still not clear why you'd want to, though. I doubt you could avoid much in taxes, and it's really unpleasantly cold down there. On the upside you'd probably be safe from pirates.
edit: A nice yacht is probably cheaper per square foot than an Antarctic base, and tends to have much better weather.
You'll still get taxed on your income generated in other countries.
If they ever do start acknowledging claims, Russia or China or the USA will claim whatever you squat on, and what will you do to prevent them from that? If they wanted to build a giant monument their awesomeness, how would you stop them from building?
Pseudo-kingdoms need soldiers, or at the very least, advanced automated weaponry.
http://articles.privateislandsonline.com/island-industry/rep...
Didn't turn out too well.
1) The seasteading.org folks aren't rich, though they can get resources from rich people who like their program.
2) They have a well thought-out program for making their own land.
3) The land they have is very small, and it's perched on top of tall towers, therefore easy to defend. Private security and agreements with local governments should suffice for their needs.
4) The seasteading folks plan to use flags of convenience, or plan to just not be noticed. The platforms will most likely be mobile, so if they don't like their neighbors, they'll just move.
5) Since each unit is relatively small, they can use the same legal framework that captains aboard oceangoing vessels use.
[1] The seasteading folks seem to be about Libertarian ideals of freedom. I understand that there are indeed some folks willing to die for those ideals. I am not saying if this this is a good idea or not.
Disclosure: I am not a member of seasteading.org. I just think they have neat engineering ideas.
Reason: There will never be new country on the ocean in a world full of nation states.
The reason there are lawless international waters 13 miles offshore is because there is no threat to incumbent nations there.
The moment Seasteads start floating around, the UN will abolish the concept of international waters thus rendering the entire project worthless.
Putting a Seastead in someone's 200 mile EEZ, with that country's blessing, to run a private marine park, offshore free trade zone, etc. seems quite viable. By being physically separate and potentially mobile, a host country would have a lot less ability or desire to regulate beyond basic things. There are also some inherent advantages to an offshore platform in a marine environment (there are some concrete platforms floating in the Great Barrier Reef of Australia to support scuba diving operations already).
TSI does a decent job of splitting the technical (difficult, but reasonably feasible, and predictable) from the political, compared to most free-state projects in the past.
They are sitting ducks, one well armed rogue pirate ship could finish them.
North Korea has shown that the easiest way to defend against invasion by the US is to have a number of nukes. This seems to be Iran's strategy too. Until they have nukes, they are vulnerable. After they have nukes, they are much less likely to be attacked themselves.
If North Korea, Pakistan, and (soon) Iran have managed to get nukes, I don't see why small groups of rich, smart, western businessmen won't be able to.
A floating settlement armed with robotic drones and nuclear missiles would be pretty secure I think.
Why would an armed rogue ship want to do that? Seastead platforms would only have value as a floating platform. It's not as if you could easily fence the thing.
The platforms could also be hosting things of value, like a casino. A casino would probably be able to afford really good security, and its owners might well have enough political pull to get the assistance of land-nation's militaries. It would have to be a really organized and well equipped rogue pirate ship. I'm not sure these exist. The closest analogues are small open boats of armed Somalis and actual military ships.
Most likely, the platforms would be of little value to a pirate. The few that are going to be worth hitting will probably be too hard to hit.
The only well-armed ships are navies. Yes, a navy or an ICBM could easily destroy a seastead. They could also easily destroy Monaco, Vanuatu, Dominica, or any other small country. The world is full of sitting ducks, yet we don't see them "finished" very often, because there is little profit in it for a government and it is politically unpopular.
2,060 km2 (795 sq mi) of unclaimed land next to Egypt.
Once you're already wealthy, there is a lot less reason to care about taxes on income.
If you keep travelling, it's even easier. As I understand it, if you're a non-dom in Britain (ie. not a British citizen, but residenced there), they don't care about income earned outside the country (your investment holding company in the Bahamas) and any money you spend outside of Britain.
Billionaires farm people.
Why would an active farmer, want to move away from his farm?
People read comments and keep scrolling, they're all just comments. Sometimes you have to stop and reflect when actual wisdom is conveyed.
Large customer bases, people. Build them. Zuckerberg, Chad Hurley, Sergey Brin & Larry Page, these people all have customers bases that number in the hundreds of millions or billions. You get to be a billionaire by marketing to billions of people.
If anyone wants to start a new country and has budget - let me know. In the beginning we can make money by selling domain names, if ICAAN approves us. So we need to pick a good name for our country to get a decent domain name and make shitloads of money.
I want 1% of proceedings deposited in the Cayman Islands.
Then make it a bankers paradise and you will be self sustaining in no time.
But I think that nobody runs their own country because it just sucks. And they all have already had far greater power and leverage via their companies than what they could imagine getting via own country.
But it's still strange that the gazillionares do not use their money on larger projects. Well, Google does all kind of interesting stuff. One thing I have thought would be cool would be building a completely new internet infrastructure to US, bringing 100Mbps speeds to every house and taking a huge step towards IPv6.
Interestingly, it was more recently used as inspiration for another attempted takeover, and Margaret Thatcher's son ended up being involved on some level. _The Wonga Coup_ was a fascinating account of this. Apparently they're making a movie of that, to come full circle.
Full circle completed?
More like a spiral: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0876570/
The movie I was talking about is apparently not yet released, though on the same subject. Hm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand
It's not a very good idea.
I don't know if I can say "I was on the cover of Wired" correctly, since it was an aerial shot of Sealand out of proportion on a globe, with 7 of us standing on the helideck; I'm probably about 4 pixels.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html
(scroll to the end for an infographic)
Good TED talk on it: http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_romer.html
So say you do really want to do it - even with say $100 billion will that really buy you enough land, infrastructure and pay everyone you need to have a fully functioning independent country until it becomes self supporting? I don't think you could set up a self supporting first world equivalent country for $100 billion even if you did have some decent land available (and there is none spare at the moment).
What about the government and legal system - is it going to be a full democracy? If not then expect to be pretty unpopular in the international community and if it is then why bother - who says the public will support your policies in your new country? If it isn't then expect some expensive, not particularly loyal and fairly heavy handed security forces who will probably instigate a coup d'etat within six months of the country being founded.
All the billionaires you mention have got there by being very smart - setting up their own country would be about the stupidest thing you could do.
Pay for yourself to be the first man on Mars? People will know your name thousands of years from now.
Might as well ignite a library.
"Worden said he has discussed the potential price tag for one-way trips to Mars with Google co-founder Larry Page, telling him such a mission could be done for $10 billion."
He said said: ‘His response was, Can you get it down to $1 [billion] or $2billion? So now we're starting to get a little argument over the price.’"
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1324192/Hundr...
http://www.spc.int/aquaculture/images/stories/dfatpacific%20...
Most of these countries are also very poor (Africa levels) and heavy recipients of foreign aid. So politically, they are corrupt and inaccessible.
So the best bet is to build an oil-rig styled structure or a large ocean-going ship. However, both options go into the hundreds of millions to the billions; a super-rich individual is naturally mobile, so he doesn't need a fixed patch of land that he politically rules.
That said, you may be interested in this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasteading
The world is becoming more interconnected and subject to shocks.
Reputation systems will thus have to become increasingly efficient.
A statist legal system is a monopolistic claim on managing reputation, but its inadequacy will become too costly to maintain.
Competitive solutions for reputation management will arise - the semantic web.
Law by force will be gradually replaced by law by reputations.
If the tacit acceptance of the legal system fades away, so does the power of the state.
In general though, the state will fade from relevance as you say -- but not to the point of 'obsolescence'.
I don't think military is required, if you can afford the land your contacts probably put you in a better situation than many poor nations.
Is military really necessary??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland
"The armed forces consist of 134,886 people on active duty"
The Swiss have a centuries long reputation for being pretty tough - (that's why the Pope chose to have Swiss Guards). Military service is mandatory.
"Switzerland has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world."
They are probably the only country in the world that has blast and fallout shelters for rather more than 100% of its population.
And have you actually seen the landscape of Switzerland - it's the European version of Afghanistan.
Today, every able male has an an assault rifle and is required to maintain their marksmanship - which is a national past-time with +200m ranges in most towns.
There are hidden underground airfields, people trained/armed to blow up tunnels at a moments notice.
Add to that crazy terrain, weather, a homogeneous/close-knit population, a distributes governance structure, etc. - you get the one of the most defendable country's EVER!
The G-class is a great light patrol vehicle; better than the UK's Land Rover or the HMMWV for many tasks.
They have F-18s, Leopard main battle tanks, lots of fixed fortifications, etc.
Take a look at the terrain you'll be fighting in. Then notice that the "army" is "everybody". Then look at how easy it is to go around the whole country instead.
There's a reason why everybody who's tried to take over Europe has decided to go around the spiky little neutral country in the middle. It's just good sense.
Basically you can go on without an army if you accept that you are "defended" by the closest country with one and accept to never step on their toes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed...
We have learned a lot. Today, people die from obesity instead of sword wounds.
They have a society, people and places in which they have been successful. Why leave that?