13 ms·

You believe that the existence of government-free land is a "loophole in the law" ?

M2Ys4U 7y ago
There is always a government. It might be two guys with guns, or it might be a huge bureaucracy that runs on the rule of law or anywhere in between. But it's always there.
- buboard 7y ago
  That's just false.
  - billiam 7y ago
    Honest question: who are you people that never took civics class or never listened? I don’t want to believe this is just more trolling.
    - buboard 7y ago
      This is not a honest question, and i m not going to have a political discussion, especially not on HN. I ll just point out it is a subject with a very long history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
  - lostphilosopher 7y ago
    Disagree. As soon as one person's actions can affect another person a system arises for resolving their inevitable conflicts and facilitating cooperation if required. What do you call that system? Many would call that "government." That does seem appropriate if the definition of government is: > the political system by which a country or a community is administered and regulated. Of course, "government" as manifested in multi-million person nations is significantly evolved from it's abstract underpinnings both etymologically and philosophically. Same is true of the notions of political, community, administered, and regulated. But all that evolution (both its pros and cons) falls out logically from the foundational relationship of two beings with agency trying to figure out how and if to restrain that agency when it conflicts with the other's. EDIT: I see from a sibling you're referring to "Anarchism." That doesn't free anyone for the reality of government it just changes where the restraining lines get drawn. In practice, the lines predictably get drawn in favor of the powerful just as they do in more mainstream systems of government.
- dexterdog 7y ago
  > or it might be a huge bureaucracy that runs on the rule of law You forgot to mention that in that case it's just one guy with the only gun
  - unixbeard1337 7y ago
    The one guy better not sleep.
amalcon 7y ago
Well, yes. Maritime treaties exist to facilitate trade, so that you aren't subject to some absurd law just because that country decided your boat was in that jurisdiction. They obviously don't exist to give folks a place to commit murder without consequences. Likewise, while starting a country is plausibly a moral good, enabling that is not the purpose of maritime treaties. Countries refuse to recognize other terrestrial countries all the time, even if they have clear borders and obviously-powerful governments internally (e.g. PRC and ROC each refusing to recognize the other, most of the middle east not recognizing Israel). Putting your country on a boat doesn't somehow increase your legitimacy before the international community.
- buboard 7y ago
  > enabling that is not the purpose of maritime treaties. Neither is preventing it. So why is it a 'loophole'. (leaving aside the issue that it would be very hard to justify the legitimacy of such a law)
  - amalcon 7y ago
    It doesn't prevent it, but it also doesn't prevent any nearby country from folding you up if they feel like it. The premise of seasteading seems to be that they are somehow prevented from doing this by maritime treaties.
    - buboard 7y ago
      No, i think the premise is that, since governemnets have claimed sovereignity over any terrain on earth, including the moon and planets, the only places where it's possible to set up ship for a new country nonviolently is the middle of the oceans. Seasteaders understand that they'd have to build their own defenses, and don't rely on nearby countries for protection.
      - amalcon 7y ago
        Right, this is exactly the misapprehension. The agreement that nobody claims the middle of the ocean does not exist for the purpose of letting folks create their own countries, it exists for the purposes of allowing everyone's ships to pass through. Starting a country is unlikely to go better in the middle of the ocean than in e.g. the middle of the Mojave.

There is always a government. It might be two guys with guns, or it might be a huge bureaucracy that runs on the rule of law or anywhere in between. But it's always there.

buboard 7y ago
That's just false.
- billiam 7y ago
  Honest question: who are you people that never took civics class or never listened? I don’t want to believe this is just more trolling.
  - buboard 7y ago
    This is not a honest question, and i m not going to have a political discussion, especially not on HN. I ll just point out it is a subject with a very long history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
- lostphilosopher 7y ago
  Disagree. As soon as one person's actions can affect another person a system arises for resolving their inevitable conflicts and facilitating cooperation if required. What do you call that system? Many would call that "government." That does seem appropriate if the definition of government is: > the political system by which a country or a community is administered and regulated. Of course, "government" as manifested in multi-million person nations is significantly evolved from it's abstract underpinnings both etymologically and philosophically. Same is true of the notions of political, community, administered, and regulated. But all that evolution (both its pros and cons) falls out logically from the foundational relationship of two beings with agency trying to figure out how and if to restrain that agency when it conflicts with the other's. EDIT: I see from a sibling you're referring to "Anarchism." That doesn't free anyone for the reality of government it just changes where the restraining lines get drawn. In practice, the lines predictably get drawn in favor of the powerful just as they do in more mainstream systems of government.
dexterdog 7y ago
> or it might be a huge bureaucracy that runs on the rule of law You forgot to mention that in that case it's just one guy with the only gun
- unixbeard1337 7y ago
  The one guy better not sleep.

amalcon 7y ago

Well, yes. Maritime treaties exist to facilitate trade, so that you aren't subject to some absurd law just because that country decided your boat was in that jurisdiction. They obviously don't exist to give folks a place to commit murder without consequences. Likewise, while starting a country is plausibly a moral good, enabling that is not the purpose of maritime treaties. Countries refuse to recognize other terrestrial countries all the time, even if they have clear borders and obviously-powerful governments internally (e.g. PRC and ROC each refusing to recognize the other, most of the middle east not recognizing Israel). Putting your country on a boat doesn't somehow increase your legitimacy before the international community.

buboard 7y ago
> enabling that is not the purpose of maritime treaties. Neither is preventing it. So why is it a 'loophole'. (leaving aside the issue that it would be very hard to justify the legitimacy of such a law)
- amalcon 7y ago
  It doesn't prevent it, but it also doesn't prevent any nearby country from folding you up if they feel like it. The premise of seasteading seems to be that they are somehow prevented from doing this by maritime treaties.
  - buboard 7y ago
    No, i think the premise is that, since governemnets have claimed sovereignity over any terrain on earth, including the moon and planets, the only places where it's possible to set up ship for a new country nonviolently is the middle of the oceans. Seasteaders understand that they'd have to build their own defenses, and don't rely on nearby countries for protection.
    - amalcon 7y ago
      Right, this is exactly the misapprehension. The agreement that nobody claims the middle of the ocean does not exist for the purpose of letting folks create their own countries, it exists for the purposes of allowing everyone's ships to pass through. Starting a country is unlikely to go better in the middle of the ocean than in e.g. the middle of the Mojave.