5 ms·
You can't found Lubeck without Henry the Lion clearing away the raiders. The solution has to be at least partially military, and that raises a big problem with
by Dove 16y ago
You can't found Lubeck without Henry the Lion clearing away the raiders. The solution has to be at least partially military, and that raises a big problem with legitimacy. States are seen as the only legitimate owners of armies, and then only inasmuch as they don't attack each other unprovoked. I like the idea of a sponsor state--that's a good compromise on the legitimacy front. But the reaction he got in Madagascar underscores that it might not be good enough.
The problem is partly the lack of space in which to experiment. On the internet, you can simply create a new site--draft your own rules, draw up whatever security measures you like to enforce them--and ask the world to come if they find that appealing. You don't need anyone else's territory, you can just make something new and experimental. People naturally vote with their feet, and the result is pretty good.
In the real world, that's much harder to do. You cannot simply draft a constitution, enlist a private army and police force, break ground, and invite the world. The ground is already claimed. Nobody likes private armies.
That's too bad. As the article notes, reform and revolution are a lot harder than simply building something new. If nations could simply experiment the way web sites do, if people could easily vote with their feet, we might have gotten government better figured out by now.
- kiba 16y agoSea-steading might be the solution to the problem. Of course, it might be a pipe dream, but it's the only concrete effort that I am seeing around here.
- stretchwithme 16y agoits coming. I suspect nanotechnology will create new materials and technologies that will make whole new countries possible in oceans everywhere. It is a dream that will happen. And, yes, there will be pipes, but not sure what kind of concrete will be used :-)
- sailormoon 16y agoI suspect that the advent of nanotechnology is going to cause civilisation upheaval the likes of which we haven't seen since the industrial revolution, if ever. All this shit will happen, and much, much more. Hell, why limit ourselves to the surface of the sea? The materials nanotech promises to deliver will make it possible to live far above or below sea level with equal ease. Sky-steading, anyone?
- stretchwithme 16y agoand don't forget what modifying the human genome will do. It could give us the means to winnow out the very imperfection that has enabled us to survive. I refer to the inherent variability that creates so many different personalities and immunities that we've been able to survive in spite of everything else that has evolved on the planet. We must take care not to lose this quality. The minute we do, we become as vulnerable as the plants and animals we raise, most of which would quickly fail in the wild.
- stcredzero 16y agoSea-steading...it might be a pipe dream, but it's the only concrete effort that I am seeing around here. Is that a pun on seasteading.org's plans to use ferroconcrete?
- _delirium 16y agoWith somewhat freer immigration rules, it'd be easier for people to vote with their feet. As far as land goes, for example, the U.S. has a ton of space--- it's not like we're China-style densely populated and totally out of room for people to come and set up new towns, if they wanted to and we were willing to let them.
- stretchwithme 16y agovery true people are concerned with there being too many people. but it is cities, where there are the most people per square inch, that are often the most creative. Very small countries, like Singapore and Switzerland are often the most competitive. And countries with few natural resources, like Japan, can dominate. I think what all this shows is that the greatest natural resources are people. This resource needs to be free to function at its peak. And the freer the country, the easier it is to absorb and utilize this resource. Which is why we should really have no problem saying "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free". They are nothing to be afraid of.
- Dove 16y agoIn a way, the US already has this. Immigration is totally free between states, and people do immigrate to where they like the laws. The only problem is that the federal government is uniform--anything it does, the states can't decide to experiment with. Hence, I am in favor of moving as much responsibility as possible out of the federal government toward the states. But wouldn't it be cool if there were some broader international treaty among nations? Say, a group that agreed to totally free immigration and trade?
- tomjen3 16y agoSuch as the european union? Sorry, that experiment is going to drown in beaurocracy.
- graphene 16y agoCould well be true, but it's not due to the free trade and immigration policies we're discussing here. The bureaucracy can mainly be traced back to the political institutions of the EU.
- stretchwithme 16y agowhere people have been able to vote with their feet, they do flock to places with great rules. I think Hong Kong under the British proved that. I think millions left mainland China to live there. But I guess its all foreign armies and navies that people don't like, not just private ones. Maybe the answer is to offer a massive cash incentive and hold a competition between poor countries as to who will receive this opportunity first. Countries compete to get the Olympics and that often leaves them with significant debt.
- stcredzero 16y agoThe problem is partly the lack of space in which to experiment. On the internet, you can simply create a new site--draft your own rules, draw up whatever security measures you like to enforce them--and ask the world to come if they find that appealing. I think there may be potential in the Sahara and in deserts in the Middle East. They would be like Las Vegas cropping up in the desert, but based on solar thermal power. Oil companies already get fiefdoms in the desert from desert nations. This would be just one step further.