Hacker News Reader

Comment by nmrm2 | Hacker News Reader

Does anyone else find it ironic that they have a big page about the failure of modern democracies to protect rights and how setting out to the sea can free us from tyrannical governments with run-away spending, followed by [1]:

The Floating City Project combines principles of both seasteading and startup cities, by seeking to locate a floating city within the territorial waters of an existing nation. Historically, The Seasteading Institute has looked to international waters for the freedom... However, there are several reasons we are now seeking a host nation:... b) it will be easier for residents to travel to and from the seastead, as well as to acquire goods and services from existing supply chains; and c) a host nation will provide a place for a floating city within the existing international legal framework, with the associated protections and responsibilities.

[1] http://www.seasteading.org/2015/04/podcast-is-seasteading-be...

View on HN

How is this ironic? They are piggybacking on the already-established international legal framework. It is indeed possible to criticize the welfare state, defense spending, and corrupt government while still using the legal system. It is a practical decision.

Arguing against government services while still using them is not in any way hypocritical, precisely because you have already paid for those services with taxes. For example, I am not a fan of social security and how it is managed, but you can be damn sure I will use it once I reach the required age, because I have already paid for it. I will be trying to get the money that was taken from me back.

I think socialized medicine is a huge, clunky band-aid on top of a broken healthcare system already made worse by government intervention, but I won't stop going into hospitals if the US adopted a fully socialized healthcare system.

Ironic is the wrong word.

But the whole point of building a city on a ship was to avoid any national law. If you want to partner with a real country, then might as well build the city on sparsely populated piece of land, and save on the expenses and inconveniences of ship based living. Charter cities and special economic zones seem like a promising idea to me, but seasteading always struck me as very silly.

Great point.

I think they are trying to eventually become independent. I think of this as a kind of bootstrapping procedure, where they start off inside the waters of a nation, and eventually move into international waters once they are established. Indeed, staying inside a nation's waters indefinitely would be counter to their stated goals.

If these ships are movable, then one advantage over a land-based city is they could even change nations when they felt like it.

> I think of this as a kind of bootstrapping procedure

Sure, but a lot of the reasons they list are essential. E.g., calmer waters near large bodies of land and therefore in sovereign water. Proximity to supply chains that lead to/from large land-based populations. Etc.

> If these ships are movable, then one advantage over a land-based city is they could even change nations when they felt like it.

notahacker's sister post is spot on.

As far as I can see, the only notional advantage gained from being based just offshore is that they can theoretically leave, though that does seem to be (i) vastly underestimating the complications involved in sailing to whichever other country will have them and (ii) vastly overestimating the difficulty of selling up and leaving under a more regular land-based arrangement.

They could theoretically leave, but if they have serious unresolved disputes with their host country, it could very well prevent them from leaving by using force. What then?

The ironic thing is that if the technology is successful, it'll be used by nation states to claim more territory. Spratly Islands made to order, on crack. Not that a very brief frontier period couldn't be interesting on its own account, but it'll be brief if it happens at all.

> They are piggybacking on the already-established international legal framework.

Well, no. Being out on the open sea would put them within the international legal framework. They're piggybacking on some national legal framework, and a big part of the ideology behind the project is getting away from said national legal framework. That is ironic.

> precisely because you have already paid for those services with taxes

I somehow highly doubt that they'll get the concessions they want from a government to whom they've paid taxes for years.

It is very ironic that they want the benefits of taking risks while avoiding risk. There are plenty of countries that are destroyed/impoverished yet still have signed international treaties, so perhaps it would serve better to do the experiment there.

I think the idea with this is so that they will have the means to move once they have political, financial and ideological clout. They're aiming to incubate a proto-state within an existing state, so as not to rock the boat too much (cough) while building capacity.

It makes perfect sense, if you view the project as an escapist fantasy that will never actually be acted upon.

Well, there is very little place for this supposed "fantasy" to take hold. Seeing as every single piece of land on this earth has been taken up by states that refuse to part with any of the precious land they've accumulated inside their borders.

All this really tells me is that market forces have determined that the state is the most efficient political structure. If it were otherwise, other political forms would've replaced them.

For what definition of efficiency?

And what does a Hussein or a Castro care about efficiency?

If there were a system that was "better," in terms of the total way in which all of humanity measures "better," we'd be using that. That's the efficiency measure.

The state arose judged against the harshest fitness measure known, the actual world.

Maybe, but live by fitness, die by fitness. Conditions change constantly, changing the selection algorithm. If the state goes down tomorrow and chaos reigns, would it be reasonable to argue against trying to change the status quo because Mad Max had been selected?

"They should not be denied nor forgotten, but neither should they be worshiped. The Earth is beautiful, and bright, and kindly, but that is not all. The Earth is also terrible, and dark, and cruel. The rabbit shrieks dying in the green meadows. The mountains clench their great hands full of hidden fire. There are sharks in the sea, and there is cruelty in men’s eyes. And where men worship these things and abase themselves before them, there evil breeds; there places are made in the world where darkness gathers, places given over wholly to the Ones whom we call Nameless, the ancient and holy Powers of the Earth before the Light, the powers of the dark, of ruin, of madness…"

> Maybe, but live by fitness, die by fitness. Conditions change constantly, changing the selection algorithm.

If you look at human history over the long term, the role of the state has only expanded over that time. I'm not saying it's the only possibility, merely that it's the most successful we've ever come up with to date.

> If the state goes down tomorrow and chaos reigns, would it be reasonable to argue against trying to change the status quo because Mad Max had been selected?

Maybe. Ask me again when all states disappear entirely and fail to re-arise.

>merely that it's the most successful we've ever come up with to date.

That is a very good reason to be cautious about throwing something out wholesale. But it is also a good reason to not fear experimentation, because the official story is that it will show the incumbent to he superior.

> Maybe. Ask me again when all states disappear entirely and fail to re-arise.

Rather than ask a question, I'll make a statement:impersonal emergent forces of the kind we are talking about use a very greedy algorithm, and are very prone to local optima. There is a place for human assistance in finding where they "ought" to be.

You know, I'd generally agree with the caveat that it is "currently" the most efficient. However, you also have to understand the behemoth that is the state. Fighting it is inherently very difficult by virtue of it not allowing competition. It's simply illegal to compete with them on their own turf (of which they have taken all).

And to top it all off, it is deeply ingrained into our culture at this point. So much so that children, from a young age, are told the rules and made sure to spread them to theirs. Simple logic get's thrown out the window by usually smart/intelligent people when you discuss the ethics of the state with them.

That's bandwagon fallacy.

Besides that, you can't say for certain that the environment is selecting for efficiency rather than some other factor for which nation-states have a competitive advantage over non-state societies.

Nation-states are undoubtedly best at force projection. So long as people were generally accepting of their state razing foreign cities to the ground, salting their earth, slaughtering their men, and enslaving the rest, no other political structure could compete with a nation-state, fielding a professional army funded by taxes and pillage, and secured by fortifications constructed by taxes and forced labor.

If the fundamental operating principle of the world is that "might makes right" or "political power flows from the barrel of a gun", the nation-state is dominant. If the fundamental operating principle somehow shifts to "that which is hateful to you, do not do to others" or to "money makes the world go 'round", other political forms may realize an advantage over states.

For now, though, states rule the whole world. The laws of the high sea are for their convenience, as TSI will discover the instant they get big enough to make their own waves.

Surely there must exist a host nation willing to offer up a few thousand acres to do the same type of thing?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com