4 ms·

> "The interesting issues are social and legal," says Mikolaj Habryn, a site reliability engineer at Google. "You'll get slavery. You'll get drug dealing. Maybe

by rw 18y ago

> "The interesting issues are social and legal," says Mikolaj Habryn, a site reliability engineer at Google. "You'll get slavery. You'll get drug dealing. Maybe there'll be polygamous Mormons. The first people involved will inevitably be those who want to do things they can't do on land, and we have to deal with that." Is total laissez-faire at all desirable?

pietro 18y ago
Seasteading is one way to find out.
- davidw 18y ago
  I am not a libertarian, and think there are serious flaws with their reasoning. However, I think it's great that they're willing to go try and build something of their own. That solves a lot of problems of trying to convince everyone else to do things their way, so I really hope it goes well for them.
  - gaius 18y ago
    I am sick of people tarring Libertarianism with the Anarcho-Capitalist brush. There will not be slaves under a Libertarian government because the #1 responsibility of a Libertarian government and the duty of every good Libertarian citizen is to act to prevent coercion. With decisive physical force if necessary. Maximization of societal freedom, not individual wealth, is the Libertarian goal. There might be indentured labour of course, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.
    - davidw 18y ago
      Err.. ok, but you could have attached that to a different comment. I wasn't talking about slavery or anything, just that I'm not a libertarian, and think it has issues. Slavery probably isn't one of them.
    - cturner 18y ago
      Hmm. But what about bankruptsy? Is it compatible with strong libertarianism? If you outlaw slavery in itself, would effective slavery emerge?
  - Prrometheus 18y ago
    To belabor a common libertarian point: one virtue of the marketplace is choice. Different individuals can make different choices. This has advantages over the political system, where one choice is made for everybody. Maybe you think Social Security is a poor investment for 14% of your income, maybe you think your local school should offer more courses in area X. Too bad. If you don't have a 51% majority, a person willing to run as a political candidate that agrees with you, two years to campaign, and millions to billions of dollars, you won't get your choice. However, in the market for retirement products you just call up your broker. In the market for schools, you just pick the one you like best (admittedly choice is a little lacking in the school market, due to a government near-monopoly and heavy regulation).
    - davidw 18y ago
      > made for everybody. For, and by everyone (or nearly everyone), which does confer on it some amount of legitimacy. Still though, I agree that if people are able to go off and try new things, that's a good thing.
      - Prrometheus 18y ago
        My sister can tell you how little a democratic voice matters from 18 years of getting outvoted by my brother and I. The Tamils in Sri Lanka, the Chinese in Malaysia, and the Sunnis in Iraq might also disagree with you about the legitimacy of mob-rules democracy. I really don't see why people think they have some "input" in democratic decisions, other than decades of conditioning in schools run by a democratic government. Try submitting a story and getting it to the front page of Digg. You have approximately zero chance. Your influence over public policy is much, much smaller. Once you realize that there are more than two choices for any given policy decision, in fact there are almost as many choices as there are people, then you realize how incredibly farcical your "democratic voice" is.
shiny 18y ago
I don't see how there would be slavery. The only people living on a seastead would be those who wanted to. I don't know how they would get slaves to come with them. And yeah, if you don't like laissez-faire, you don't have to join a seastead that practices it. That's the whole point -- choosing your system of government.
- gravitycop 18y ago
  I don't see how there would be slavery. The only people living on a seastead would be those who wanted to. I don't know how they would get slaves to come with them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Trafficking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Trafficking
- dichro 18y ago
  (My kibo alert has failed me, and it's far too late to comment here, but I will anyway) Lots of situations can be interpreted as slavery, and a lot of the creative interpretations are likely to revolve around children. The quoted comment shorn of conversational context wasn't all that illuminating, so I expanded on it here: http://syncretin.livejournal.com/73427.html http://syncretin.livejournal.com/73427.html
streety 18y ago
With the exception of slavery that quote seems to be on the tame side of what's being suggested. The result of one of their brain storming sessions: http://www.flickr.com/photos/9742300@N06/2946735005/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/9742300@N06/2946735005/
DanielBMarkham 18y ago
Well, let's see. Experimenting with various forms of government is what got you to where you are today. Should we continue? Or is the system of government we have (wherever we are) the most perfect we could ever hope for? There's no reason to think mankind must always get worse. From time to time he'll get better. "laissez-faire", in this context, is non-sensical, ie, there is no government to allow anything. The concept is beyond that. Personally, I think some form of representative republic with three branches of government with checks and balances is the right way to go. But even in the U.S., we have virtually a permanent legislative branch by gerrymandering, an executive that is split between only two political parties for over 140 years, and a court system that seems to misunderstand its own role. Is there a reboot button? A way to start over, with perhaps time-limits on laws, a constitutional balanced-budget amendment, (insert own ideas here) New ideas, even ones which are scary dangerous, are not to be feared. No new ideas? That's what to be afraid of.
anamax 18y ago
> Is total laissez-faire at all desirable? Why do you care if someone else picks that option? > You'll get drug dealing. Maybe there'll be polygamous Mormons. So what? Even if you choose to live in one of those societies, you don't have to deal (or use) drugs or "marry different". If your choices are actually superior, you'll prevail over those who made different ones. Why isn't that enough? And, if your choices are not actually better, why are you unwilling to let them prevail....

by rw 18y ago

pietro 18y ago

Seasteading is one way to find out.

davidw 18y ago
I am not a libertarian, and think there are serious flaws with their reasoning. However, I think it's great that they're willing to go try and build something of their own. That solves a lot of problems of trying to convince everyone else to do things their way, so I really hope it goes well for them.
- gaius 18y ago
  I am sick of people tarring Libertarianism with the Anarcho-Capitalist brush. There will not be slaves under a Libertarian government because the #1 responsibility of a Libertarian government and the duty of every good Libertarian citizen is to act to prevent coercion. With decisive physical force if necessary. Maximization of societal freedom, not individual wealth, is the Libertarian goal. There might be indentured labour of course, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.
  - davidw 18y ago
    Err.. ok, but you could have attached that to a different comment. I wasn't talking about slavery or anything, just that I'm not a libertarian, and think it has issues. Slavery probably isn't one of them.
  - cturner 18y ago
    Hmm. But what about bankruptsy? Is it compatible with strong libertarianism? If you outlaw slavery in itself, would effective slavery emerge?
- Prrometheus 18y ago
  To belabor a common libertarian point: one virtue of the marketplace is choice. Different individuals can make different choices. This has advantages over the political system, where one choice is made for everybody. Maybe you think Social Security is a poor investment for 14% of your income, maybe you think your local school should offer more courses in area X. Too bad. If you don't have a 51% majority, a person willing to run as a political candidate that agrees with you, two years to campaign, and millions to billions of dollars, you won't get your choice. However, in the market for retirement products you just call up your broker. In the market for schools, you just pick the one you like best (admittedly choice is a little lacking in the school market, due to a government near-monopoly and heavy regulation).
  - davidw 18y ago
    > made for everybody. For, and by everyone (or nearly everyone), which does confer on it some amount of legitimacy. Still though, I agree that if people are able to go off and try new things, that's a good thing.
    - Prrometheus 18y ago
      My sister can tell you how little a democratic voice matters from 18 years of getting outvoted by my brother and I. The Tamils in Sri Lanka, the Chinese in Malaysia, and the Sunnis in Iraq might also disagree with you about the legitimacy of mob-rules democracy. I really don't see why people think they have some "input" in democratic decisions, other than decades of conditioning in schools run by a democratic government. Try submitting a story and getting it to the front page of Digg. You have approximately zero chance. Your influence over public policy is much, much smaller. Once you realize that there are more than two choices for any given policy decision, in fact there are almost as many choices as there are people, then you realize how incredibly farcical your "democratic voice" is.

shiny 18y ago

I don't see how there would be slavery. The only people living on a seastead would be those who wanted to. I don't know how they would get slaves to come with them. And yeah, if you don't like laissez-faire, you don't have to join a seastead that practices it. That's the whole point -- choosing your system of government.

gravitycop 18y ago
I don't see how there would be slavery. The only people living on a seastead would be those who wanted to. I don't know how they would get slaves to come with them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Trafficking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Trafficking
dichro 18y ago
(My kibo alert has failed me, and it's far too late to comment here, but I will anyway) Lots of situations can be interpreted as slavery, and a lot of the creative interpretations are likely to revolve around children. The quoted comment shorn of conversational context wasn't all that illuminating, so I expanded on it here: http://syncretin.livejournal.com/73427.html http://syncretin.livejournal.com/73427.html

streety 18y ago

With the exception of slavery that quote seems to be on the tame side of what's being suggested. The result of one of their brain storming sessions: http://www.flickr.com/photos/9742300@N06/2946735005/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/9742300@N06/2946735005/

DanielBMarkham 18y ago

Well, let's see. Experimenting with various forms of government is what got you to where you are today. Should we continue? Or is the system of government we have (wherever we are) the most perfect we could ever hope for? There's no reason to think mankind must always get worse. From time to time he'll get better. "laissez-faire", in this context, is non-sensical, ie, there is no government to allow anything. The concept is beyond that. Personally, I think some form of representative republic with three branches of government with checks and balances is the right way to go. But even in the U.S., we have virtually a permanent legislative branch by gerrymandering, an executive that is split between only two political parties for over 140 years, and a court system that seems to misunderstand its own role. Is there a reboot button? A way to start over, with perhaps time-limits on laws, a constitutional balanced-budget amendment, (insert own ideas here) New ideas, even ones which are scary dangerous, are not to be feared. No new ideas? That's what to be afraid of.

anamax 18y ago

> Is total laissez-faire at all desirable? Why do you care if someone else picks that option? > You'll get drug dealing. Maybe there'll be polygamous Mormons. So what? Even if you choose to live in one of those societies, you don't have to deal (or use) drugs or "marry different". If your choices are actually superior, you'll prevail over those who made different ones. Why isn't that enough? And, if your choices are not actually better, why are you unwilling to let them prevail....