2 ms·

Not if the larger states want to benefit from the research without legalizing it themselves. E.g. Guantanamo for research. Or Project Paperclip. The criticism

Not if the larger states want to benefit from the research without legalizing it themselves. E.g. Guantanamo for research. Or Project Paperclip. The criticism that smaller states will just get invaded makes no geopolitical sense. If that were the case, the entire world would be divided into 3 countries.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Not if the larger states want to benefit from the research without legalizing it themselves. If the larger states wants to benefit from research without legalizing it...they’ll just do it covertly, without legalizing it. The reason to not want to legalize it is to prevent other people from exploiting it, which is definitely going to extend to anti-authoritsrian seasteaders and their other potential customers. And if they did want to tolerate an external third-party for deniable benefit doing something the major state felt the need to keep illegal...well, historically (even when the minor partner has the resources of a traditional nation-state) that’s often a transitory relationship that ends poorly for the minor party. Ask Manuel Noriega—or Saddam Hussein—about it sometime. > Guantanamo for research. Or Project Paperclip. Yeah, Guatanamo-for-Anything and Operation Paperclip are the kinds of things states (even if they involve things the state wants to pretend to prohibit) really want to keep tight, direct control over.
- keiferski 5y ago
  You are labeling all SeaSteaders with the anti-authoritarian libertarian types. This is not what my comment stated. Right now, states use each other to circumvent domestic laws. It really doesn’t seem far fetched that a larger state would allow a smaller one to exist if it were geopolitically/economically/etc. in its (the larger state) interest. If anything, it’s more likely, because they can be more easily controlled. “Sure, we won’t invade your scientific seasteading research nation, as long as you share the results with us. “ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Not if the larger states want to benefit from the research without legalizing it themselves. If the larger states wants to benefit from research without legalizing it...they’ll just do it covertly, without legalizing it. The reason to not want to legalize it is to prevent other people from exploiting it, which is definitely going to extend to anti-authoritsrian seasteaders and their other potential customers. And if they did want to tolerate an external third-party for deniable benefit doing something the major state felt the need to keep illegal...well, historically (even when the minor partner has the resources of a traditional nation-state) that’s often a transitory relationship that ends poorly for the minor party. Ask Manuel Noriega—or Saddam Hussein—about it sometime. > Guantanamo for research. Or Project Paperclip. Yeah, Guatanamo-for-Anything and Operation Paperclip are the kinds of things states (even if they involve things the state wants to pretend to prohibit) really want to keep tight, direct control over.

keiferski 5y ago
You are labeling all SeaSteaders with the anti-authoritarian libertarian types. This is not what my comment stated. Right now, states use each other to circumvent domestic laws. It really doesn’t seem far fetched that a larger state would allow a smaller one to exist if it were geopolitically/economically/etc. in its (the larger state) interest. If anything, it’s more likely, because they can be more easily controlled. “Sure, we won’t invade your scientific seasteading research nation, as long as you share the results with us. “ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes