3 ms·

How is that any different from someone deciding to opt out from society and move to... I dunno, the mountains? There's still a lot of places on Earth that are s

• keiferski 6y ago
  Still under the authority of a state. Escaping to Patagonia doesn’t really let you avoid governmental surveillance, just makes you less of a target. Besides that, one shouldn’t have to be a hermit in order to avoid oppression.
  • AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    But how is it different if you're a space hermit?
    • gpm 6y ago
      I suppose because the cost to reach you is greatly increased, meaning the cost to exercise authority is greatly increased, so actual authority is greatly deceased. Right now the cost for the government to send their agents to "the mountains" is trivial, the most remote you could possibly get is "a few hours commute and a helicopter ride". The government is more than willing to pay that price in important cases. I think they imagine that space travel can increase that price to "months or years" and "expensive vehicles that support people during that time". Rather like how much it would have cost to send government agents to remote places hundreds of years ago. (Personally I'm not particularly convinced, the number of habitable rocks in the solar system is small. Living not on a rock means you need to import resources. Maybe if we get interstellar travel).
• hertzrat 6y ago
  Living in the mountains, where I live, is about $2k per month just for rent