Charter the Seasteader I
seasteading.org
seasteading.org
-- John Rogers
Suppose we should add ships without laws to the list. The entire Sea Steading concept makes no sense.
1: International waters do have laws and you are subject to them and the flag you fly under.
2: If there were no laws you had to live under - why don't you think criminals would already be using these to have drug or arms sales? Oh yeah - it's because you are still subject to laws like everyone else.
3: Let's say you have a ship with no laws - what's to stop someone from killing you and taking your stuff? Who is going the enforce those rights? I government like entity? I thought we were libertarians here!
4: What happens in the case of an emergency? Do you rely on other governments to bail you out? Will you help the people on your boat - I mean what is the return on saving someone else's life? Who's responsible for the screw up? What about medical treatment? Do you not treat a guy who can't pay but has a festering open wound you could easily fix?
Libertarianism - just like this Steading initiative - is a fairy tale for nerds that does not work in reality. But hey - a fella' can dream can't he?
Successful business people are like children, give them too much freedom, and they'll pollute the heck out of you given half a chance.
Governments are like adults, wield too much power and you beat the innovation out of the kids with authoritarian regimes.
You need both and you need good relationships between them - neither is better or worse than the other - they're just people.
> 1: International waters do have laws and you are subject to them and the flag you fly under.
Then don't fly a flag. This will restrict what ports and territorial waters you can visit (if any?) and also mean you cannot expect any help if attacked by pirates, so you will need to provide your own security.
> 2 ... why don't you think criminals would already be using these to have drug or arms sales?
How exactly do you think criminals transport drugs and illegal weapons? By sea of course. They do not get harassed until they are within the territorial waters of a country where such activities are illegal. The exception in this case is ships breaking international law (violating embargoes, transporting illegal nuke material etc.) which are fair game.
But why would a criminal start a meth lab on a ship? Much easier and cheaper to get a trailer in the woods, or a factory in Mexico.
> 3: Let's say you have a ship with no laws ... government like entity
Yes. But it would be a government anyone can opt into and opt out of at any time.
> 4. What happens in the case of an emergency?
In an emergency: SHTF. Everyone who is onboard these ships will know the risks and decide if the reward is good enough.
You try that. If you don't fly the flag - you are not under the protection of any sovereign nation and are essentially subject to the powers of any other.
> territorial waters of a country where such activities are illegal.
No - they don't get harassed until they get detected - if we knew where they were - we'd take them out in international waters.
> anyone can opt into and opt out of at any time.
You can do that now - move to Somalia.
> risks and decide if the reward is good enough
So just ignore that part then - caveat emptor right?
[1] http://arstechnica.com/features/2008/06/seasteading-engineer...
[2] http://stevereads.com/papers_to_read/sealand_havenco_and_the...
Yet another trivial criticism voted up on hacker news from someone who is not familiar with the material.
Maybe the fantasy is impractical and nothing will come of it. On the other hand, maybe these plans will create something new in this world. The American content was populated (invaded, if you prefer) by people who wanted to create different social organizations and were willing to take enormous risks to do it - this impulse is deep in our psyche.
Alternatively, look at it this way: It's an opportunity for you to look smug and say "I told you so" in a couple decades. Encourage it.
I like these seasteading projects. I don't imagine they are going to become floating Utopia but they might be _different_ and that will be interesting. Like Disneyland, you don't have to live there to want to stay a while.
I also think people are overlooking the primary benefit of something like Blueseed: It creates an urban density of talent that makes Manhattan look like rural Texas. I would love to build a startup in that kind of environment.
I don't get the antagonism.
When someone says they want to be free of the rule of national law that might mean they want to violate a law that I generally support. Maybe they want to provide untracable anonymous phone numbers to robo-calling telemarketers, or tax avoidance services to shady billionaires, or subpoena-proof corporate records for companies running unsafe chemical plants.
That has the potential to be antagonizing - although the potential is not yet realized.
1. Yes, yes, and so what? Nobody is expecting the first wave of seasteads not to have laws. If you read the OP you'll note that "flagging" is one of the expected expenses.
2. Again, nobody is claiming the first round of seasteads will be in violation of international law. Nor is anybody claiming they will have no local rules.
3. Nobody has ever claimed the ship itself will have no laws. The hope is that it might evolve some better laws, given the chance to do so.
4. In case of emergency, you can rely on yourselves (including the ship's doctor), other nearby ships, and land-based facilities. Basically, you're in much the same situation as if you were on a long cruise. If the main boat is moored somewhere there are smaller boats going to and fro, or if you can't wait for one of those there may be helicopter access to the mainland. Once again, nobody is proposing doing away with all vestiges of civilization. People on this boat will still have their own citizenship and will be able to pay for emergency expenses with something called "insurance" or another thing called "savings" or another thing called a "deposit" or a "bond". For instance, if you go live on a ship they are likely to require you to put down as part of your deposit enough money to pay for return transport if and when you need it.
Anyway, please stop guessing at what Seasteading is about. Your guesses aren't merely wrong, they are misinforming others as well.
You might want to start with this FAQ:
http://www.seasteading.org/about/faq/
I also suggest reading my earlier post about the benefits of jurisdictional arbitrage - picking the right flag country for whatever it is you want to do and benefiting from that choice:
seasteading communities — floating cities — which will allow the next generation of pioneers to peacefully test new ideas for government
I believe it's very unfortunate that we live in a time where basic democratic processes and the deliberations of a bunch of (mostly) law students decide which kind of research is permissible and which is not. this shouldn't be in the hand of a bunch of politicians but rather a dedicated and separate ethic commission. if governments don't adapt we'll (hopefully) see more such projects.
If you're thinking of human embryonic stem cell research, I'd have thought a research facility in Britain or Australia would be simpler than a research facility on a boat in international waters.
So simply "sailing under a flag" gets you quite a lot of the potential benefit of seasteading. Sailing without a flag is something to think about in the far distant future but not really worth worrying about for now.
There are oodles of business models that could make use of this today. Right now, the only one that's really been tried is "day gambling cruise" - sail out of a port where gambling is illegal, gamble once outside the relevant imaginary lines, sail back into port. But there's lots of other business-space to explore, like medical cruises.
Currently many Americans fly to Germany to get medical operations that aren't yet approved here or fly to India to get medical care that is far less expensive than here. Those who live near a port city might save money and time accomplishing the same end - cheaper, more flexible care - by shuttling out to an offshore floating hospital.
Regardless, this could be a profound experiment. If something good comes out of it, people will demand changes in world governance. (We ran out of governance ideas after the last french revolution)
It's important for the institute to be completely transparent about what is being conducted there (legal or not), or else people are going to turn against it.
It has been tried.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Minerva
Tonga forced them off the newly created island with a couple soldiers, and now they and Fiji are disputing which one of them owns it.
Well there is Antarctica or Somalia. Unless there is a radical new technology that allows us to control the weather, Antarctica is out. Somalia is a possibility though, for some libertarians to set up shop there. I don't think there is much industry in Somalia though, maybe a couple alliances with local war-lords? Then you would just have to cordon off an area by the coast, hire some child laborers to mine the area you wanted, put up some barriers and razor wire, and BAM we have a Randian paradise.
Now we need hookers, industrially-produced Meth/Heroin/PCP/MDMA/Ganja along with every other drug available at the local quickimart. Mabey make a deal with a couple Chinese companies to build a deep-water port complex for their railroad out of central Africa to terminate at. Hire Blackwater/Xe/Academi/? trained fighters to defend the place. Who knows after a couple years you could develop it to look like Southern California and maybe attract some Arab princes to come down on from the Gulf on Holiday.
Oh wait, this is totally crazy and is something drunken Randian college kids talk about. There is a damn good reason that SF and NYC are as successful as they are even with the high taxes and corruption: they have kick-ass universities, established business networks, and are major population centers.
It's an interesting idea. I don't see why a small oceangoing socialist or libertarian or whatever community wouldn't be viable.
The key would be the fact that they're made up of a small self selecting group. It's much easier for a group of like minded people to get along than for a much larger and diverse nation to do so.
I think they're trying to skip the true frontiersmen, those folks are already living aboard their boats. They're trying to enable the homesteaders that come after them, and from whom settlements grow and expand.
EDIT: Whoever flagged the question of the comment below went a bit too far. What in the world is wrong with someone asking, "How would that work, exactly?" (Aside from the imagined tone of voice, which can be interpreted in both a positive and negative light.)
There was an idea that people would work in international waters, but within close reach of meetings ashore. (Which they could attend on tourist visas.)
Also, even if the institute/project is filled with a lot of people commonly thought of as nutjobs, I wouldn't bet against Peter Thiel in many areas.
Seriously though, someone must see the irony in libertarians starting an ocean commune.