3 ms·

Why would a seasteading nation be inherently more vulnerable than a preexisting tiny nation? Couldn't the same bilateral relationships with large states be dev

Why would a seasteading nation be inherently more vulnerable than a preexisting tiny nation? Couldn't the same bilateral relationships with large states be developed by the former that afford the same level of protection that's currently enjoyed by the latter? And if you think not, how is that not merely a failure of imagination? These will not be anarchist communes, that's not what right-libertarians want. There will be a minimal government, funds for self defense, and so on.

tablespoon 5y ago
> Why would a seasteading nation be inherently more vulnerable than a preexisting tiny nation? Like I said, you can sink a ship with one or two missiles, but you can't sink even a small island with any number. > Couldn't the same bilateral relationships with large states be developed by the former that afford the same level of protection that's currently enjoyed by the latter? And if you think not, how is that not merely a failure of imagination? Because the whole point of seasteading is to not follow those nations' rules. Why would they offer military protection to a seastead that's trying to undermine them? The need for such protection also reveals the fundamentally contradictory and parasitic and nature of seasteading.
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  "you can sink a ship" What if it was a large artificial island? "Because the whole point of seasteading is to not follow those nations' rules." There are many small tax havens out there with no self defence forces that don't get invaded. Why would a seastead necessarily not be able to enter into the same category as these? Just with a little bit of imagination - the seastead island could be build next to a small/medium sized poorer country with some existing naval presence and come to some agreement with them to be a special economic zone of sorts, but with its own autonomous government. The agreement could be set up so as to be economically enticing to that country, while satisfying the seastead's need for self defence, and therefore be a win-win situation that goes ahead. The seastead could pay some tax money to this country for that purpose (right-libertarians usually believe in publicly funded defense). This is not a perfect situation for the seastead. They're at the whims of that single country and whomever rises to power next. But it working out seems entirely plausible to me if the agreement is legitimately win-win. Especially in the context of having five distinct islands set up and allowing them to compete for citizens - even if one collapses, the ones that had better agreements with their neighbors will survive and grow. It's not guaranteed to work, there are a number of failure modes I can think of (along with possible ways to remedy those) - such as the US pressuring the small country that's helping the seastead, but it's not as doomed to fail as others are making out, in my view.
- BelenusMordred 5y ago
  > but you can't sink even a small island with any number. Most countries on Earth could murder everyone on small inhabited islands perfectly fine with their current armaments while having zero casualties themselves. It's frankly quite disturbing how many people dream of seasteaders being slaughtered without consequence while the world cheers it on, people simply trying to opt out of modern societies don't deserve this level of vitriol.
yongjik 5y ago
Pre-existing tiny nations are grandfathered into the international legal system thanks to, well, their pre-existence. Also, almost all of them are either (1) already bowing to the will of their bigger neighbors (e.g., all Caribbean micro-nations and the US, Georgia and Russia), or (2) in the middle of nowhere that nobody cares about (e.g., Nauru), or maybe both. If any "seastead" gains traction and it becomes enough of a problem to, say, the US, nobody would even need any missiles. The US will simply declare it being illegal (for everyone) to do any business with these people. I hope the seasteaders have experience in subsistence fishing - they will need it.

tablespoon 5y ago

> Why would a seasteading nation be inherently more vulnerable than a preexisting tiny nation? Like I said, you can sink a ship with one or two missiles, but you can't sink even a small island with any number. > Couldn't the same bilateral relationships with large states be developed by the former that afford the same level of protection that's currently enjoyed by the latter? And if you think not, how is that not merely a failure of imagination? Because the whole point of seasteading is to not follow those nations' rules. Why would they offer military protection to a seastead that's trying to undermine them? The need for such protection also reveals the fundamentally contradictory and parasitic and nature of seasteading.

fighterpilot 5y ago
"you can sink a ship" What if it was a large artificial island? "Because the whole point of seasteading is to not follow those nations' rules." There are many small tax havens out there with no self defence forces that don't get invaded. Why would a seastead necessarily not be able to enter into the same category as these? Just with a little bit of imagination - the seastead island could be build next to a small/medium sized poorer country with some existing naval presence and come to some agreement with them to be a special economic zone of sorts, but with its own autonomous government. The agreement could be set up so as to be economically enticing to that country, while satisfying the seastead's need for self defence, and therefore be a win-win situation that goes ahead. The seastead could pay some tax money to this country for that purpose (right-libertarians usually believe in publicly funded defense). This is not a perfect situation for the seastead. They're at the whims of that single country and whomever rises to power next. But it working out seems entirely plausible to me if the agreement is legitimately win-win. Especially in the context of having five distinct islands set up and allowing them to compete for citizens - even if one collapses, the ones that had better agreements with their neighbors will survive and grow. It's not guaranteed to work, there are a number of failure modes I can think of (along with possible ways to remedy those) - such as the US pressuring the small country that's helping the seastead, but it's not as doomed to fail as others are making out, in my view.
BelenusMordred 5y ago
> but you can't sink even a small island with any number. Most countries on Earth could murder everyone on small inhabited islands perfectly fine with their current armaments while having zero casualties themselves. It's frankly quite disturbing how many people dream of seasteaders being slaughtered without consequence while the world cheers it on, people simply trying to opt out of modern societies don't deserve this level of vitriol.

yongjik 5y ago

Pre-existing tiny nations are grandfathered into the international legal system thanks to, well, their pre-existence. Also, almost all of them are either (1) already bowing to the will of their bigger neighbors (e.g., all Caribbean micro-nations and the US, Georgia and Russia), or (2) in the middle of nowhere that nobody cares about (e.g., Nauru), or maybe both. If any "seastead" gains traction and it becomes enough of a problem to, say, the US, nobody would even need any missiles. The US will simply declare it being illegal (for everyone) to do any business with these people. I hope the seasteaders have experience in subsistence fishing - they will need it.