5 ms·

It really does sound like a bunch of wealthy folks (and I don't mean your-town's-surgeon wealthy, I mean billionaire-class-wealthy) want to further remove thems

It really does sound like a bunch of wealthy folks (and I don't mean your-town's-surgeon wealthy, I mean billionaire-class-wealthy) want to further remove themselves from laws that govern everybody else. Imagine this - a group of super wealthy bound by no laws of any nation but benefiting from them all. Terrifying.

GhettoMaestro 7y ago
> Imagine this - a group of super wealthy bound by no laws of any nation but benefiting from them all. Terrifying. Not really. There is this one interesting thing called the US Military. If necessary, anyone deemed enough of a threat can either be droned, or black-bagged by Seal Team 6.
wavefunction 7y ago
They'd only be enabled by others whether that be robots or mercenaries/servants. Monetary wealth is a human construct given form by belief. They're still subject to the physical laws of reality.
big_chungus 7y ago
Except, it doesn't have to work like this. If a nation is being exploited via loopholes of some sort, she has the freedom to close those loopholes. An increase in small personal nations would necessitate a change in policy (mostly around taxes), but would not be disastrous. Aside from taxes, most other laws exist to prevent one harming another. If someone goes to an island in the ocean, why ought we to care what he does there? To put it differently: many cities have regulations against shooting off fireworks due to safety concerns. Few rural counties do, because while people can still harm themselves, there aren't too many others nearby to injure.
- learc83 7y ago
  >many cities have regulations against shooting off fireworks due to safety concerns. Few rural counties do, because while people can still harm themselves, there aren't too many others nearby to injure. Many rural counties have them as well. In fact entire states have rules against fireworks. Outside of places where wildfires are likely, firework ordinances are often there to prevent the people who are shooting the fireworks from hurting themselves. >If someone goes to an island in the ocean, why ought we to care what he does there? In an extreme case lets say a billionaire starts his own island nation, convinces people to move there to work for him, and eventually enslaves his workers and their children. This isn't an unlikely scenario--look at guest workers from SE Asia in the Middle East. What starts off as voluntary can quickly become involuntary. We have enough powerful people in the world with no checks on their authority. We don't need to create more. From a more practical concern, what's the upside to existing countries? The new island nation will only admit productive people, and will likely try to ship unproductive people back to their country of origin.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - vjktyu 7y ago
    What stops Russia or China to send their troops there?
    - learc83 7y ago
      Nothing unless it's close to somewhere strategically important to the US. But I'm not sure I see your point.
      - vjktyu 7y ago
        They want independence from the US, but they won't survive in open waters without the US warships. Otherwise, if this island has any value at all, it'll attract Mexican cartels or Russian mafia or whatever else is floating in the international waters these days.
        learc83 7y ago
        A billionaire with no regulations could probably afford to hire enough protection to guard against anything but an attack by a state actor. In any case, that's yet another reason we shouldn't allow American citizens to set up their own private countries.
burfog 7y ago
It sounds something like Little Saint James, U.S. Virgin Islands, but worse. It probably isn't as awful as Jonestown, but the potential is there.
pathseeker 7y ago
That's not really possible. Once they start pissing off other countries they will lose their access to deal with them and "benefit from them".
- droopyEyelids 7y ago
  Why would they piss off the decision makers in our countries when they can buy their loyalty?
hanniabu 7y ago
Sounds like an Epstein dream
BurningFrog 7y ago
A city of all billionaires sounds like a very small city. Also, hiring for service jobs might be hard :)
- all_blue_chucks 7y ago
  Why hire? There's no law against kidnapping or slavery on a seastead.
  - HaloZero 7y ago
    Because the UN will get on you. While this isn't an issue for some random warlord in Africa if you're a tiny island who still wants to operate within the world you're still fucked.
    - X6S1x6Okd1st 7y ago
      The UN doesn't have an army
      - HenryKissinger 7y ago
        The US military is the de facto UN Army.
      - Alupis 7y ago
        No, but it's members do. And some of those members aren't afraid of using them, or their Navys, or Air Forces...
        edanm 7y ago
        You're not wrong, but consider that there are plenty of atrocities, including slavery, happening right now around the world.
        OldHand2018 7y ago

GhettoMaestro 7y ago

> Imagine this - a group of super wealthy bound by no laws of any nation but benefiting from them all. Terrifying. Not really. There is this one interesting thing called the US Military. If necessary, anyone deemed enough of a threat can either be droned, or black-bagged by Seal Team 6.

wavefunction 7y ago

They'd only be enabled by others whether that be robots or mercenaries/servants. Monetary wealth is a human construct given form by belief. They're still subject to the physical laws of reality.

big_chungus 7y ago

Except, it doesn't have to work like this. If a nation is being exploited via loopholes of some sort, she has the freedom to close those loopholes. An increase in small personal nations would necessitate a change in policy (mostly around taxes), but would not be disastrous. Aside from taxes, most other laws exist to prevent one harming another. If someone goes to an island in the ocean, why ought we to care what he does there? To put it differently: many cities have regulations against shooting off fireworks due to safety concerns. Few rural counties do, because while people can still harm themselves, there aren't too many others nearby to injure.

learc83 7y ago
>many cities have regulations against shooting off fireworks due to safety concerns. Few rural counties do, because while people can still harm themselves, there aren't too many others nearby to injure. Many rural counties have them as well. In fact entire states have rules against fireworks. Outside of places where wildfires are likely, firework ordinances are often there to prevent the people who are shooting the fireworks from hurting themselves. >If someone goes to an island in the ocean, why ought we to care what he does there? In an extreme case lets say a billionaire starts his own island nation, convinces people to move there to work for him, and eventually enslaves his workers and their children. This isn't an unlikely scenario--look at guest workers from SE Asia in the Middle East. What starts off as voluntary can quickly become involuntary. We have enough powerful people in the world with no checks on their authority. We don't need to create more. From a more practical concern, what's the upside to existing countries? The new island nation will only admit productive people, and will likely try to ship unproductive people back to their country of origin.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- vjktyu 7y ago
  What stops Russia or China to send their troops there?
  - learc83 7y ago
    Nothing unless it's close to somewhere strategically important to the US. But I'm not sure I see your point.
    - vjktyu 7y ago
      They want independence from the US, but they won't survive in open waters without the US warships. Otherwise, if this island has any value at all, it'll attract Mexican cartels or Russian mafia or whatever else is floating in the international waters these days.
      - learc83 7y ago
        A billionaire with no regulations could probably afford to hire enough protection to guard against anything but an attack by a state actor. In any case, that's yet another reason we shouldn't allow American citizens to set up their own private countries.

burfog 7y ago

It sounds something like Little Saint James, U.S. Virgin Islands, but worse. It probably isn't as awful as Jonestown, but the potential is there.

pathseeker 7y ago

That's not really possible. Once they start pissing off other countries they will lose their access to deal with them and "benefit from them".

droopyEyelids 7y ago
Why would they piss off the decision makers in our countries when they can buy their loyalty?

hanniabu 7y ago

Sounds like an Epstein dream

BurningFrog 7y ago

A city of all billionaires sounds like a very small city. Also, hiring for service jobs might be hard :)

all_blue_chucks 7y ago
Why hire? There's no law against kidnapping or slavery on a seastead.
- HaloZero 7y ago
  Because the UN will get on you. While this isn't an issue for some random warlord in Africa if you're a tiny island who still wants to operate within the world you're still fucked.
  - X6S1x6Okd1st 7y ago
    The UN doesn't have an army
    - HenryKissinger 7y ago
      The US military is the de facto UN Army.
    - Alupis 7y ago
      No, but it's members do. And some of those members aren't afraid of using them, or their Navys, or Air Forces...
      - edanm 7y ago
        You're not wrong, but consider that there are plenty of atrocities, including slavery, happening right now around the world.
        OldHand2018 7y ago