The Real Pirates Of Silicon Valley?
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
There is no need for physical proximity, at least not in the slave kind as is offered here, the only reason I want to physically move to the US is the ability to get off my computer at any time and meet cool people for coffee or whatever.
Being stuck on a ship solves that problem no better than being on a different continent.
This would be my fear, one only needs to look to the middle east in which Asian labor is imported and then is basically indentured once they get there, even the US bases take advantage of the captive "contractors". The fact that ages are probably a big factor with these endeavor the propensity for these to truly become slave ships beyond the reach of most laws is concerning to say the least.
Being from the UK you get 90 days in the US, then you need to do a visa run out of the country and can then come back. I think as long as you are being paid by an non US business immigration don't mind.
Perhaps instead of a trip to Mexico or Canada a night on the boat would suffice?
Imagine you're stuck in close quarters, day-in and day-out on a ship with 1,000 other entrepreneurial types. Why would you want to go to the mainland to network in coffee shops?
I understand you might want to get off the ship to hang out with non-tech folks, but you can do that right now in any country. Blueseed looks to me like a perpetual tech conference. The sheer physical density of creative talent is far beyond anything you could ever get on land.
If it really were 1/2 hour trip it would be one thing, but there's no guarantees on that at all.
See http://blueseed.co/faq.html#visa for more details.
That's a bit of a stretch. Sealand never really was any sort of internationally recognised country that seriously printed its own money or anything that serious.
They'll need security staff to protect the ship then ?
That's why basically all piracy in the world happens around Somalia and around the Philippines. Cargo ships pass with lots of valuable cargo which is insured, and crews that that aren't going to lay down their lives to protect containers. Only very recently has piracy gotten bad enough that shipping companies have begun placing any sort of defense or deterrents on their ships. In Somalia the pirates returned to a mostly lawless state, and in south-east asia the hundreds of islands serve as good hiding places.
There aren't any pirates off the western coast of the United States, and none of the factors describe above are in place. Even if seasteads starting containing stuff that's actually very valuable, as you mention, resident would be more motivated to protect it, nor will pirates have anywhere convenient to run to.
So, are physical attacks a threat that should be considered and protected against? Yes. Is a seastead in that location with that purpose at risk of an attack by anyone but someone with some sort of ideological point? Not for a while.
What's stopping them from just stealing all your startup secrets? Forming rape squads? Ransoming you for your all of your family's worth?
How are disputes settled? Do they just throw people overboard?
Sure there are workable systems which would lead to some predictability in a culture/situation like this, but that doesn't and probably can't guarantee equitability and/or fairness. Sure the US government doesn't provide either equitability or fairness, but they do try their hardest to provide stability. You can count on the stupid shit that is going to go wrong to go wrong, and there is often recourse when someone does you wrong.
I don't see how you could guarantee things won't go tits up in these bizarre libertarian "paradises" a la bioshock (well, okay, minus the splicers).
Under The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, they would be in a US Exclusive Economic Zone - between 12 and 200 nautical miles of the coast, so no fishing or mining without US permission. As it's not Territorial waters (up to 12 nautical miles), US law will not apply, but there are international laws against Piracy in the High Seas which do. Of course, that only protects you from people who come from another boat.
As for what happens on the boat, it's governed by the laws of the country that they choose to be registered under. Let's say Panama. But they still have to follow some legal system. Panama law is based on Spanish traditions, and is probably acceptable.
In which case, how do they get to the seastead? It seems that they would need a ferry, but does that ferry port have passport facilities and act as an international port? And if you're on the seastead for a long period of time and US access required a visa, how do you now renew that visa seeing that you couldn't land in the US without it and there is no US Embassy on the seastead?
Or more plainly... what problem is this solving for whom? It doesn't seem to solve the problem for anyone who is unable to get into the USA without a visa.
Yet getting a work visa was still hard enough that we gave up trying.
No. Getting an immigrant visa for purposes of employment (E) is different than getting a temporary visa for purposes of a business visit (B-1), training (H-3), transit (C), or tourism (B-2). This is the same with most countries.
It's very easy to imagine a self-employed foreign entrepreneur who denied a visa to live in the US, but can easily make regular business trips to visit potential clients.
By comparison, the US granted 3.8 million business visas in 2010, vs. only 117,000 H-1Bs. (Note that H-1B visas don't let you work for your own startup.)
"one can imagine how similar ships could provide low cost healthcare all around the world by operating out in the open waters free from the various laws that restrict the ability for inexpensive medical treatments through competitive pricing"
So, if I read correctly, this is asserting that medicine is so over-regulated an industry, in developed countries 'all around the world', and so anti-competitive, that the introduction of unregulated competitive for-profit hospital ships would lower prices (for market-rate users)? Despite the obviously higher costs of running a hospital on a ship, vs running it on land, from a strictly logistical standpoint?
I guess it's conceivable. I admit I do hear these rumours about U.S. medicine and malpractice insurance, and also that the U.S. spends more on healthcare than civilized nations while still getting lower quality of care (all rumours for which I have no citations). But the weird part there is that, according to those rumours, the countries that outperform the U.S. all have more regulation, not less, so that doesn't fit. Also, medical tourism is a real thing, so maybe the same market forces could be exploited on a hospital ship. But then again maybe not, because I'd guess that some of those market forces include doctors and lab techs who (relative to the U.S.) have really cheap living expenses.
Anyway. On the one hand, on the face of it, I find the idea that hospital ships could lower prices laughable. On the other hand, maybe I should keep an open mind.
http://www.seasteading.org/about-seasteading/frequently-aske...