4 ms·

all land on earth is claimed by a state in some fashion, its much easier to sea stead than to deal with the politics of claiming political independence.

jotm 15y ago
But that's exactly it - if you build a seastead, you will also have to abide by some country's laws. Otherwise you'll most likely find it very difficult to do business and acquire anything from anywhere, and if you do anything illegal in say, the United States or Spain, they'll send a vessel to take you into custody... so what's the point of spending a ton of money on a ship that is always in the same location?
- sausagefeet 15y ago
  Perhaps I'm ignorant, but the major problem with seasteading I find is when you have your first pirate attack or your first natural disaster. Defense/rescue are expensive and would increase the daily costs significantly. In my biased opinion, seasteading sounds neat until you let reality get in the way.
  - tryitnow 15y ago
    Please refer to the book linked to above, the seasteaders are pretty good at anticipating every possible critique and presenting the counterargument, which is often pretty well thought out. Off the top of my mind, I would say the pirate attacks wouldn't be a big deal. Advanced detection and defense systems could be put in place to warn of uninvited vessels approaching. Remember piracy is a big deal precisely in those places least likely to have seasteads (why would someone build a resort, hospital, or tech incubator off the shores of Somalia?). Natural disaster is of course and issue, but I don't know if the probability of natural disaster would be any higher on a seastead versus on land. Natural disasters frequently aren't natural at all, at least the consequences aren't. Just compare the consequences of the Haiti earthquake versus Fukushima. When there are incentives to protect property, it will be protected. The probability of a disaster is uncontrollable anywhere you live, the extent of devastation is controllable.
    - sausagefeet 15y ago
      I will look into the book linked above. > Natural disaster is of course and issue, but I don't know if the probability of natural disaster would be any higher on a seastead versus on land. It's not the probability of a natural disaster happening that is a problem, it's the impact. One of the main reasons for a seastead from what I've heard of seasteaders is to avoid paying taxes they don't believe in. But it costs money to rebuild these things and/or to have another nation-state evacuate them. My impression, admittedly not based on in-depth research, is that seasteaders are after all the benefits that nation-state can offer without paying the taxes for it. But I'll be happy to be proven wrong because I think the idea is really cool.
  - jerf 15y ago
    While with enough force you could pirate a sea-stead, bear in mind that it would be a lot harder than the piracy you hear about in the news. Part of the reason dirt-poor Somalians can have success pirating is that technology has made it possible to staff a massive sea-going structure with the outline of a skeleton crew, possibly under a dozen people, which can be overrun by six armed guys on a boat. Piracy against a sea-stead would be more like mounting an armed assault on a remote village at the very least, with an existing police force, one probably created with awareness of the possibility of piracy. You can't just grab a gun and clean out your local downtown without encountering some... issues. And if the floating sea-stead is a libertarian paradise, everybody's probably armed in which case your cost/benefit odds are pretty bad.... The real threat is less random piracy than sovereign invasion. The good news is that the list of countries with a credible ability to mount a military assault on a seasteading platform is short. The bad news is that it is also basically the exact list of countries that the seasteading effort is trying to get away from. To me, that's the biggest problem with the idea, it is intrinsically based on the sufferance of the very entities you are putatively trying to avoid, and that's basically true regardless of the politics of the platform.
    - leot 15y ago
      Presumably any pirates need only make a credible threat of doing costly damage to or destroying the seastead in order to extort payment. Damaging a seastead seems easier to do than damaging a city-state atop a hill.
      - learc83 15y ago
        Maybe, but presumably pirates could do that now to deepwater oil rigs or cruise ships, but I haven't heard of it.
        deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
        learc83 15y ago
  - ehthere 15y ago
    Cruise ships already face these issues successfully.
    - leot 15y ago
      No doubt in part because they benefit from the protection afforded by nation-states. Cruise ships tend to be filled with the citizens of powerful countries (or countries allied to powerful ones).
      - learc83 15y ago
        Mostly governments have done very little about piracy in Somalia. Also at the scale you're talking about, small fast boats, a well armed private militia would be just as effective, as a billion dollar destroyer. A few 3" guns will stop anything a pirate can throw at them.

jotm 15y ago

But that's exactly it - if you build a seastead, you will also have to abide by some country's laws. Otherwise you'll most likely find it very difficult to do business and acquire anything from anywhere, and if you do anything illegal in say, the United States or Spain, they'll send a vessel to take you into custody... so what's the point of spending a ton of money on a ship that is always in the same location?

sausagefeet 15y ago
Perhaps I'm ignorant, but the major problem with seasteading I find is when you have your first pirate attack or your first natural disaster. Defense/rescue are expensive and would increase the daily costs significantly. In my biased opinion, seasteading sounds neat until you let reality get in the way.
- tryitnow 15y ago
  Please refer to the book linked to above, the seasteaders are pretty good at anticipating every possible critique and presenting the counterargument, which is often pretty well thought out. Off the top of my mind, I would say the pirate attacks wouldn't be a big deal. Advanced detection and defense systems could be put in place to warn of uninvited vessels approaching. Remember piracy is a big deal precisely in those places least likely to have seasteads (why would someone build a resort, hospital, or tech incubator off the shores of Somalia?). Natural disaster is of course and issue, but I don't know if the probability of natural disaster would be any higher on a seastead versus on land. Natural disasters frequently aren't natural at all, at least the consequences aren't. Just compare the consequences of the Haiti earthquake versus Fukushima. When there are incentives to protect property, it will be protected. The probability of a disaster is uncontrollable anywhere you live, the extent of devastation is controllable.
  - sausagefeet 15y ago
    I will look into the book linked above. > Natural disaster is of course and issue, but I don't know if the probability of natural disaster would be any higher on a seastead versus on land. It's not the probability of a natural disaster happening that is a problem, it's the impact. One of the main reasons for a seastead from what I've heard of seasteaders is to avoid paying taxes they don't believe in. But it costs money to rebuild these things and/or to have another nation-state evacuate them. My impression, admittedly not based on in-depth research, is that seasteaders are after all the benefits that nation-state can offer without paying the taxes for it. But I'll be happy to be proven wrong because I think the idea is really cool.
- jerf 15y ago
  While with enough force you could pirate a sea-stead, bear in mind that it would be a lot harder than the piracy you hear about in the news. Part of the reason dirt-poor Somalians can have success pirating is that technology has made it possible to staff a massive sea-going structure with the outline of a skeleton crew, possibly under a dozen people, which can be overrun by six armed guys on a boat. Piracy against a sea-stead would be more like mounting an armed assault on a remote village at the very least, with an existing police force, one probably created with awareness of the possibility of piracy. You can't just grab a gun and clean out your local downtown without encountering some... issues. And if the floating sea-stead is a libertarian paradise, everybody's probably armed in which case your cost/benefit odds are pretty bad.... The real threat is less random piracy than sovereign invasion. The good news is that the list of countries with a credible ability to mount a military assault on a seasteading platform is short. The bad news is that it is also basically the exact list of countries that the seasteading effort is trying to get away from. To me, that's the biggest problem with the idea, it is intrinsically based on the sufferance of the very entities you are putatively trying to avoid, and that's basically true regardless of the politics of the platform.
  - leot 15y ago
    Presumably any pirates need only make a credible threat of doing costly damage to or destroying the seastead in order to extort payment. Damaging a seastead seems easier to do than damaging a city-state atop a hill.
    - learc83 15y ago
      Maybe, but presumably pirates could do that now to deepwater oil rigs or cruise ships, but I haven't heard of it.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
        learc83 15y ago
- ehthere 15y ago
  Cruise ships already face these issues successfully.
  - leot 15y ago
    No doubt in part because they benefit from the protection afforded by nation-states. Cruise ships tend to be filled with the citizens of powerful countries (or countries allied to powerful ones).
    - learc83 15y ago
      Mostly governments have done very little about piracy in Somalia. Also at the scale you're talking about, small fast boats, a well armed private militia would be just as effective, as a billion dollar destroyer. A few 3" guns will stop anything a pirate can throw at them.