4 ms·

Does anyone else find it ironic that they have a big page about the failure of modern democracies to protect rights and how setting out to the sea can free us f

by nmrm2 11y ago

Does anyone else find it ironic that they have a big page about the failure of modern democracies to protect rights and how setting out to the sea can free us from tyrannical governments with run-away spending, followed by [1]: The Floating City Project combines principles of both seasteading and startup cities, by seeking to locate a floating city within the territorial waters of an existing nation. Historically, The Seasteading Institute has looked to international waters for the freedom... However, there are several reasons we are now seeking a host nation:... b) it will be easier for residents to travel to and from the seastead, as well as to acquire goods and services from existing supply chains; and c) a host nation will provide a place for a floating city within the existing international legal framework, with the associated protections and responsibilities. [1] http://www.seasteading.org/2015/04/podcast-is-seasteading-beyond-democracy-ask-frank-karsten-author/ http://www.seasteading.org/2015/04/podcast-is-seasteading-be...

jdreaver 11y ago
How is this ironic? They are piggybacking on the already-established international legal framework. It is indeed possible to criticize the welfare state, defense spending, and corrupt government while still using the legal system. It is a practical decision. Arguing against government services while still using them is not in any way hypocritical, precisely because you have already paid for those services with taxes. For example, I am not a fan of social security and how it is managed, but you can be damn sure I will use it once I reach the required age, because I have already paid for it. I will be trying to get the money that was taken from me back. I think socialized medicine is a huge, clunky band-aid on top of a broken healthcare system already made worse by government intervention, but I won't stop going into hospitals if the US adopted a fully socialized healthcare system.
- devinhelton 11y ago
  Ironic is the wrong word. But the whole point of building a city on a ship was to avoid any national law. If you want to partner with a real country, then might as well build the city on sparsely populated piece of land, and save on the expenses and inconveniences of ship based living. Charter cities and special economic zones seem like a promising idea to me, but seasteading always struck me as very silly.
  - jdreaver 11y ago
    Great point. I think they are trying to eventually become independent. I think of this as a kind of bootstrapping procedure, where they start off inside the waters of a nation, and eventually move into international waters once they are established. Indeed, staying inside a nation's waters indefinitely would be counter to their stated goals. If these ships are movable, then one advantage over a land-based city is they could even change nations when they felt like it.
    - nmrm2 11y ago
      > I think of this as a kind of bootstrapping procedure Sure, but a lot of the reasons they list are essential. E.g., calmer waters near large bodies of land and therefore in sovereign water. Proximity to supply chains that lead to/from large land-based populations. Etc. > If these ships are movable, then one advantage over a land-based city is they could even change nations when they felt like it. notahacker's sister post is spot on.
  - notahacker 11y ago
    As far as I can see, the only notional advantage gained from being based just offshore is that they can theoretically leave, though that does seem to be (i) vastly underestimating the complications involved in sailing to whichever other country will have them and (ii) vastly overestimating the difficulty of selling up and leaving under a more regular land-based arrangement.
    - cantankerous 11y ago
      They could theoretically leave, but if they have serious unresolved disputes with their host country, it could very well prevent them from leaving by using force. What then?
  - mlinksva 11y ago
    The ironic thing is that if the technology is successful, it'll be used by nation states to claim more territory. Spratly Islands made to order, on crack. Not that a very brief frontier period couldn't be interesting on its own account, but it'll be brief if it happens at all.
- nmrm2 11y ago
  > They are piggybacking on the already-established international legal framework. Well, no. Being out on the open sea would put them within the international legal framework. They're piggybacking on some national legal framework, and a big part of the ideology behind the project is getting away from said national legal framework. That is ironic. > precisely because you have already paid for those services with taxes I somehow highly doubt that they'll get the concessions they want from a government to whom they've paid taxes for years.
- return0 11y ago
  It is very ironic that they want the benefits of taking risks while avoiding risk. There are plenty of countries that are destroyed/impoverished yet still have signed international treaties, so perhaps it would serve better to do the experiment there.
patcon 11y ago
I think the idea with this is so that they will have the means to move once they have political, financial and ideological clout. They're aiming to incubate a proto-state within an existing state, so as not to rock the boat too much (cough) while building capacity.
88e282102ae2e5b 11y ago
It makes perfect sense, if you view the project as an escapist fantasy that will never actually be acted upon.
- zo1 11y ago
  Well, there is very little place for this supposed "fantasy" to take hold. Seeing as every single piece of land on this earth has been taken up by states that refuse to part with any of the precious land they've accumulated inside their borders.
  - meepmorp 11y ago
    All this really tells me is that market forces have determined that the state is the most efficient political structure. If it were otherwise, other political forms would've replaced them.
    - alphapapa 11y ago
      For what definition of efficiency? And what does a Hussein or a Castro care about efficiency?
      - meepmorp 11y ago
        If there were a system that was "better," in terms of the total way in which all of humanity measures "better," we'd be using that. That's the efficiency measure. The state arose judged against the harshest fitness measure known, the actual world.
        dropit_sphere 11y ago
        Maybe, but live by fitness, die by fitness. Conditions change constantly, changing the selection algorithm. If the state goes down tomorrow and chaos reigns, would it be reasonable to argue against trying to change the status quo because Mad Max had been selected? "They should not be denied nor forgotten, but neither should they be worshiped. The Earth is beautiful, and bright, and kindly, but that is not all. The Earth is also terrible, and dark, and cruel. The rabbit shrieks dying in the green meadows. The mountains clench their great hands full of hidden fire. There are sharks in the sea, and there is cruelty in men’s eyes. And where men worship these things and abase themselves before them, there evil breeds; there places are made in the world where darkness gathers, places given over wholly to the Ones whom we call Nameless, the ancient and holy Powers of the Earth before the Light, the powers of the dark, of ruin, of madness…"
pbreit 11y ago
Surely there must exist a host nation willing to offer up a few thousand acres to do the same type of thing?

by nmrm2 11y ago

jdreaver 11y ago

How is this ironic? They are piggybacking on the already-established international legal framework. It is indeed possible to criticize the welfare state, defense spending, and corrupt government while still using the legal system. It is a practical decision. Arguing against government services while still using them is not in any way hypocritical, precisely because you have already paid for those services with taxes. For example, I am not a fan of social security and how it is managed, but you can be damn sure I will use it once I reach the required age, because I have already paid for it. I will be trying to get the money that was taken from me back. I think socialized medicine is a huge, clunky band-aid on top of a broken healthcare system already made worse by government intervention, but I won't stop going into hospitals if the US adopted a fully socialized healthcare system.

devinhelton 11y ago
Ironic is the wrong word. But the whole point of building a city on a ship was to avoid any national law. If you want to partner with a real country, then might as well build the city on sparsely populated piece of land, and save on the expenses and inconveniences of ship based living. Charter cities and special economic zones seem like a promising idea to me, but seasteading always struck me as very silly.
- jdreaver 11y ago
  Great point. I think they are trying to eventually become independent. I think of this as a kind of bootstrapping procedure, where they start off inside the waters of a nation, and eventually move into international waters once they are established. Indeed, staying inside a nation's waters indefinitely would be counter to their stated goals. If these ships are movable, then one advantage over a land-based city is they could even change nations when they felt like it.
  - nmrm2 11y ago
    > I think of this as a kind of bootstrapping procedure Sure, but a lot of the reasons they list are essential. E.g., calmer waters near large bodies of land and therefore in sovereign water. Proximity to supply chains that lead to/from large land-based populations. Etc. > If these ships are movable, then one advantage over a land-based city is they could even change nations when they felt like it. notahacker's sister post is spot on.
- notahacker 11y ago
  As far as I can see, the only notional advantage gained from being based just offshore is that they can theoretically leave, though that does seem to be (i) vastly underestimating the complications involved in sailing to whichever other country will have them and (ii) vastly overestimating the difficulty of selling up and leaving under a more regular land-based arrangement.
  - cantankerous 11y ago
    They could theoretically leave, but if they have serious unresolved disputes with their host country, it could very well prevent them from leaving by using force. What then?
- mlinksva 11y ago
  The ironic thing is that if the technology is successful, it'll be used by nation states to claim more territory. Spratly Islands made to order, on crack. Not that a very brief frontier period couldn't be interesting on its own account, but it'll be brief if it happens at all.
nmrm2 11y ago
> They are piggybacking on the already-established international legal framework. Well, no. Being out on the open sea would put them within the international legal framework. They're piggybacking on some national legal framework, and a big part of the ideology behind the project is getting away from said national legal framework. That is ironic. > precisely because you have already paid for those services with taxes I somehow highly doubt that they'll get the concessions they want from a government to whom they've paid taxes for years.
return0 11y ago
It is very ironic that they want the benefits of taking risks while avoiding risk. There are plenty of countries that are destroyed/impoverished yet still have signed international treaties, so perhaps it would serve better to do the experiment there.

patcon 11y ago

I think the idea with this is so that they will have the means to move once they have political, financial and ideological clout. They're aiming to incubate a proto-state within an existing state, so as not to rock the boat too much (cough) while building capacity.

88e282102ae2e5b 11y ago

It makes perfect sense, if you view the project as an escapist fantasy that will never actually be acted upon.

zo1 11y ago
Well, there is very little place for this supposed "fantasy" to take hold. Seeing as every single piece of land on this earth has been taken up by states that refuse to part with any of the precious land they've accumulated inside their borders.
- meepmorp 11y ago
  All this really tells me is that market forces have determined that the state is the most efficient political structure. If it were otherwise, other political forms would've replaced them.
  - alphapapa 11y ago
    For what definition of efficiency? And what does a Hussein or a Castro care about efficiency?
    - meepmorp 11y ago
      If there were a system that was "better," in terms of the total way in which all of humanity measures "better," we'd be using that. That's the efficiency measure. The state arose judged against the harshest fitness measure known, the actual world.
      - dropit_sphere 11y ago
        Maybe, but live by fitness, die by fitness. Conditions change constantly, changing the selection algorithm. If the state goes down tomorrow and chaos reigns, would it be reasonable to argue against trying to change the status quo because Mad Max had been selected? "They should not be denied nor forgotten, but neither should they be worshiped. The Earth is beautiful, and bright, and kindly, but that is not all. The Earth is also terrible, and dark, and cruel. The rabbit shrieks dying in the green meadows. The mountains clench their great hands full of hidden fire. There are sharks in the sea, and there is cruelty in men’s eyes. And where men worship these things and abase themselves before them, there evil breeds; there places are made in the world where darkness gathers, places given over wholly to the Ones whom we call Nameless, the ancient and holy Powers of the Earth before the Light, the powers of the dark, of ruin, of madness…"

pbreit 11y ago

Surely there must exist a host nation willing to offer up a few thousand acres to do the same type of thing?