4 ms·

I see then as hackers of society and laws. That they will probably end up with a replica is not the point. We hack to hack, to grok the systems. Let's not stop

I see then as hackers of society and laws. That they will probably end up with a replica is not the point. We hack to hack, to grok the systems. Let's not stop hackers hacking because we know better.

joe_the_user 7y ago
Hacking a computer is great in that you probably cannot damage the internal components of that machine. Hacking society has issues given that random internal change of a society can have serious consequences for the members of that society. Modern democratic society has various safety nets that to various extents cushion members from random fluctuations that happen even without hacking. Sure, it seems fine when a group of individuals start-up a system "knowing what they're getting into". But it's generally no really possible for 19 year old joining the latest new trend to really know what they're getting into. We saw a whole flock of cults and unfortunate effects coming out of the hippy communes in the 1960s. But when a commune went bad, it was somewhat minor because the people could just leave. I shudder to what happens if things go bad in a platform in the middle of the ocean (and recall problems have already appeared).
- vinceguidry 7y ago
  It wasn't always the case where hacking computers could be done without consequence. In the beginning a great war was conducted by the original MIT hackers against university officials who were trying to pry control of the system away from them. Similarly, it's the dream of every hacker to find a sandbox world where they can experiment to their heart's content. These government and society hackers as much as anyone. There have been examples throughout history of 'partial sovereignty', the one closest to mind is that of the Native American nations in the US. They're sovereign in most of the ways that matter while still retaining the ability to bring in the grownups when things get serious. The other example I can think of is the British concept of political devolution, whereby four independent countries with their own governments fit neatly into the collective United Kingdom, whereby the countries can demand ever greater self-rule through democratic process. This is how Ireland became both the Republic of Ireland and the UK country of Northern Ireland arose. What's now the Republic of Ireland wanted a complete break, while Northern Ireland still wants to be a part of the UK. This is different from the federal system that most countries use, where provinces are forever subordinate to the larger collective. There is no political process available for secession in the US or most anywhere else except the UK, so demands for self-governance usually result in nothing or in civil war. We should greatly encourage people to experiment with new political structures, and we can look to the Brits for inspiration on how to make that work. They tolerated Sealand until the whole project collapsed under its own weight. Which is pretty much how you want it to happen. War is the usual instrument by which new sovereignties are created. A peaceful way to blow away political cruft has great potential to eventually improve a lot of lives. It's been shown that the primary thing that keeps many people in perpetual poverty is rules, it's the founding principle behind the concept of charter cities. There's room for experimentation here.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - joe_the_user 7y ago
    Similarly, it's the dream of every hacker to find a sandbox world where they can experiment to their heart's content. These government and society hackers as much as anyone. Technically, "sandbox" an area of safe experiment cordorned from the rest of the system. Seasteading would have real, permanent consequences considering the agenda involves recruiting a large number of people. It's been shown that the primary thing that keeps many people in perpetual poverty is rules, it's the founding principle behind the concept of charter cities. This claim is dubious in the extreme. In the areas of the world with little poverty, you generally find well developed rule system. Similarly, areas with great, squalid levels of poverty often have few-to-no rules.
    - vinceguidry 7y ago
      > Seasteading would have real, permanent consequences considering the agenda involves recruiting a large number of people. Sure, that's kind of the whole point. Try things out. You can always move back to your home country if it doesn't work out. Exactly what consequences are you trying to claim would happen? The point of these kinds of things are that everybody can have a say in how things are run, a bit like an HOA where everybody isn't just creating an intentional living community, they're creating a whole new concept for organizing a society. The United States alone has many examples of this, from communes all the way up to the Mormon church. Lots of failures, a few phenomenal successes. > In the areas of the world with little poverty, you generally find well developed rule system. Similarly, areas with great, squalid levels of poverty often have few-to-no rules. That's the charter city argument. No rules means that people with power get to decide who gets to do what. By making a new city with new, commerce-friendly rules, the hope is to replicate the success of Hong Kong.
Nursie 7y ago
But let's stop them (or at least criticise them heavily) when they're doing it just to avoid any responsibility to others, when they're doing it out of an idea of "I've got mine, screw you". If they were genuine attempts to recast society in a new light, they would be interesting. Most of them are simply childish attempts to evade tax. And many, many people trying to opt out of things like social safety nets will end up needing them. Are we to leave them to die, as their choice would seem to dictate?
- freedomben 7y ago
  > But let's stop them (or at least criticise them heavily) when they're doing it just to avoid any responsibility to others, when they're doing it out of an idea of "I've got mine, screw you". From where do you get the right to "stop them" (which implies initiating or (at least escalating if you believe they have aggressed against you, which I'd love to here your rationale for that) aggression against them)? Do you believe you have a right to other people's stuff? Where do you believe rights come from?
  - Nursie 7y ago
    "Or at least criticise them heavily"

I see then as hackers of society and laws. That they will probably end up with a replica is not the point. We hack to hack, to grok the systems. Let's not stop hackers hacking because we know better.

joe_the_user 7y ago

Hacking a computer is great in that you probably cannot damage the internal components of that machine. Hacking society has issues given that random internal change of a society can have serious consequences for the members of that society. Modern democratic society has various safety nets that to various extents cushion members from random fluctuations that happen even without hacking. Sure, it seems fine when a group of individuals start-up a system "knowing what they're getting into". But it's generally no really possible for 19 year old joining the latest new trend to really know what they're getting into. We saw a whole flock of cults and unfortunate effects coming out of the hippy communes in the 1960s. But when a commune went bad, it was somewhat minor because the people could just leave. I shudder to what happens if things go bad in a platform in the middle of the ocean (and recall problems have already appeared).

vinceguidry 7y ago
It wasn't always the case where hacking computers could be done without consequence. In the beginning a great war was conducted by the original MIT hackers against university officials who were trying to pry control of the system away from them. Similarly, it's the dream of every hacker to find a sandbox world where they can experiment to their heart's content. These government and society hackers as much as anyone. There have been examples throughout history of 'partial sovereignty', the one closest to mind is that of the Native American nations in the US. They're sovereign in most of the ways that matter while still retaining the ability to bring in the grownups when things get serious. The other example I can think of is the British concept of political devolution, whereby four independent countries with their own governments fit neatly into the collective United Kingdom, whereby the countries can demand ever greater self-rule through democratic process. This is how Ireland became both the Republic of Ireland and the UK country of Northern Ireland arose. What's now the Republic of Ireland wanted a complete break, while Northern Ireland still wants to be a part of the UK. This is different from the federal system that most countries use, where provinces are forever subordinate to the larger collective. There is no political process available for secession in the US or most anywhere else except the UK, so demands for self-governance usually result in nothing or in civil war. We should greatly encourage people to experiment with new political structures, and we can look to the Brits for inspiration on how to make that work. They tolerated Sealand until the whole project collapsed under its own weight. Which is pretty much how you want it to happen. War is the usual instrument by which new sovereignties are created. A peaceful way to blow away political cruft has great potential to eventually improve a lot of lives. It's been shown that the primary thing that keeps many people in perpetual poverty is rules, it's the founding principle behind the concept of charter cities. There's room for experimentation here.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- joe_the_user 7y ago
  Similarly, it's the dream of every hacker to find a sandbox world where they can experiment to their heart's content. These government and society hackers as much as anyone. Technically, "sandbox" an area of safe experiment cordorned from the rest of the system. Seasteading would have real, permanent consequences considering the agenda involves recruiting a large number of people. It's been shown that the primary thing that keeps many people in perpetual poverty is rules, it's the founding principle behind the concept of charter cities. This claim is dubious in the extreme. In the areas of the world with little poverty, you generally find well developed rule system. Similarly, areas with great, squalid levels of poverty often have few-to-no rules.
  - vinceguidry 7y ago
    > Seasteading would have real, permanent consequences considering the agenda involves recruiting a large number of people. Sure, that's kind of the whole point. Try things out. You can always move back to your home country if it doesn't work out. Exactly what consequences are you trying to claim would happen? The point of these kinds of things are that everybody can have a say in how things are run, a bit like an HOA where everybody isn't just creating an intentional living community, they're creating a whole new concept for organizing a society. The United States alone has many examples of this, from communes all the way up to the Mormon church. Lots of failures, a few phenomenal successes. > In the areas of the world with little poverty, you generally find well developed rule system. Similarly, areas with great, squalid levels of poverty often have few-to-no rules. That's the charter city argument. No rules means that people with power get to decide who gets to do what. By making a new city with new, commerce-friendly rules, the hope is to replicate the success of Hong Kong.

Nursie 7y ago

But let's stop them (or at least criticise them heavily) when they're doing it just to avoid any responsibility to others, when they're doing it out of an idea of "I've got mine, screw you". If they were genuine attempts to recast society in a new light, they would be interesting. Most of them are simply childish attempts to evade tax. And many, many people trying to opt out of things like social safety nets will end up needing them. Are we to leave them to die, as their choice would seem to dictate?

freedomben 7y ago
> But let's stop them (or at least criticise them heavily) when they're doing it just to avoid any responsibility to others, when they're doing it out of an idea of "I've got mine, screw you". From where do you get the right to "stop them" (which implies initiating or (at least escalating if you believe they have aggressed against you, which I'd love to here your rationale for that) aggression against them)? Do you believe you have a right to other people's stuff? Where do you believe rights come from?
- Nursie 7y ago
  "Or at least criticise them heavily"