3 ms·

and other locations all over the world that could be sold to a new country My understanding is that relatively few if any countries will sell federal land.

and other locations all over the world that could be sold to a new country My understanding is that relatively few if any countries will sell federal land. The interesting thing about international waters is that by definition they don't belong to any country. You can't just ignore idiots and insane leaders. You have to fight them and you have to win. But it would arguably have been better for everyone (American and especially Iraqi) in terms of net deaths if we had ignored Saddam Hussein in 2003. I'm not sold on the idea that need to fight with every country that has an idiot or insane leader. If they attack us, sure, but that's now a much smaller set. But you're assuming that you would end up in the country that Does The Right Thing I guess the idea would be more that you would move from the country if it wasn't doing the right thing, in the same way you leave a neighborhood or a job or a little league group if you have evidence that things are really going in the wrong direction. Tongue in cheek: this does presume less of a role for patriotism in one's decisions, but if immigration is unpatriotic then most patriotic Americans are descended from unpatriotic people :) and that the other countries will leave you alone. What about the country... I may not understand why these issues relate to seasteading. Are you arguing that new countries are particularly likely to do such things, more so than old ones? For what it's worth, the way in which new countries have been created over the last few centuries has heavily enriched for founders who started and/or won wars. This would seem to be at least one argument in favor of the concept that seasteading founders would be less militant. it's just running away and hoping the blast radius on the explosion you leave behind isn't large enough to hit you Most of our ancestors left their home countries to come to the US. I think you may be overstating the impact of their emigration on their home countries. Poland did not go supernova because millions of Poles emigrated to the US in search of a better life. The UK didn't burn down when the Puritans left for the US. No?

AnthonyMouse 14y ago
>My understanding is that relatively few if any countries will sell federal land. The interesting thing about international waters is that by definition they don't belong to any country. That still doesn't really help you get recognized as a sovereign nation rather than a bunch of pirates with a funny looking pirate ship. Moreover, everyone has their price, even governments. Federal land is "not for sale" only because no one willing to pay what it would cost has showed themselves. It's worth more than the value of the underlying real estate. But go to a nation with a small economy and a large land mass and offer a sizable chunk of their GDP for a piece of land the size of Rhode Island and you're liable to get an affirmative response. >But it would arguably have been better for everyone (American and especially Iraqi) in terms of net deaths if we had ignored Saddam Hussein in 2003. I'm not sold on the idea that need to fight with every country that has an idiot or insane leader. If they attack us, sure, but that's now a much smaller set. I don't mean fight in a strictly military sense. Soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Ammo is last for a reason, and it goes the same for international relations. The first step is diplomacy. The problem in Iraq was that we didn't give diplomacy a chance, we just started dropping bombs in response to Saddam's empty saber rattling. >I guess the idea would be more that you would move from the country if it wasn't doing the right thing, in the same way you leave a neighborhood or a job or a little league group if you have evidence that things are really going in the wrong direction. There is a difference between a country and a little league group. When a little league group goes bad, enough people leave that the group is no longer sustainable and it shuts down, in almost every case with no bloodshed. When a country goes bad, not everyone can leave, so if anyone with the resources to leave does so then you're left with a country in decay and its people starving and dying. Even if you don't care about that, you might start to care after they've started a few wars and generally set fire to the world. Re: the comparisons to immigration for a better life, I would make a distinction between leaving for a relative improvement in opportunity vs. leaving because where you are now is considered a lost cause. There is no real "opportunity" in seasteading other than the opportunity to be rid of a failed government. A sea platform doesn't have new job opportunities or natural resources not available at home. It doesn't even have the things we now take for granted, like arable land or a reliable power grid. The only reason to do it is if the existing government is considered too damaged to repair. But if it's really that bad then we have an obligation to fix it, because unchecked pathological governments inevitably commit atrocities. And if it's not really that bad then what's the point of moving to a sea platform in the middle of the ocean?

AnthonyMouse 14y ago

>My understanding is that relatively few if any countries will sell federal land. The interesting thing about international waters is that by definition they don't belong to any country. That still doesn't really help you get recognized as a sovereign nation rather than a bunch of pirates with a funny looking pirate ship. Moreover, everyone has their price, even governments. Federal land is "not for sale" only because no one willing to pay what it would cost has showed themselves. It's worth more than the value of the underlying real estate. But go to a nation with a small economy and a large land mass and offer a sizable chunk of their GDP for a piece of land the size of Rhode Island and you're liable to get an affirmative response. >But it would arguably have been better for everyone (American and especially Iraqi) in terms of net deaths if we had ignored Saddam Hussein in 2003. I'm not sold on the idea that need to fight with every country that has an idiot or insane leader. If they attack us, sure, but that's now a much smaller set. I don't mean fight in a strictly military sense. Soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Ammo is last for a reason, and it goes the same for international relations. The first step is diplomacy. The problem in Iraq was that we didn't give diplomacy a chance, we just started dropping bombs in response to Saddam's empty saber rattling. >I guess the idea would be more that you would move from the country if it wasn't doing the right thing, in the same way you leave a neighborhood or a job or a little league group if you have evidence that things are really going in the wrong direction. There is a difference between a country and a little league group. When a little league group goes bad, enough people leave that the group is no longer sustainable and it shuts down, in almost every case with no bloodshed. When a country goes bad, not everyone can leave, so if anyone with the resources to leave does so then you're left with a country in decay and its people starving and dying. Even if you don't care about that, you might start to care after they've started a few wars and generally set fire to the world. Re: the comparisons to immigration for a better life, I would make a distinction between leaving for a relative improvement in opportunity vs. leaving because where you are now is considered a lost cause. There is no real "opportunity" in seasteading other than the opportunity to be rid of a failed government. A sea platform doesn't have new job opportunities or natural resources not available at home. It doesn't even have the things we now take for granted, like arable land or a reliable power grid. The only reason to do it is if the existing government is considered too damaged to repair. But if it's really that bad then we have an obligation to fix it, because unchecked pathological governments inevitably commit atrocities. And if it's not really that bad then what's the point of moving to a sea platform in the middle of the ocean?