A libertarian seasteading project

[ddstory]

Most of you have probably heard about this already. Peter Thiel, the founder of PayPal and one of the first investors in Facebook, has invested one and a quarter million dollars in the Seasteading Institute company, which funds a project by one Patri Friedman, a former engineer at Google. The project is to build the perfect libertarian utopia on

Comments

[sealwhiskers]

Well, I'm not going to speculate if this is going to be a failure or not, since it is important to remember that libertarianism is

[omnot]

Interesting perspective.

What if this Libertarian Utopia was not permitted to expel individuals who did not perform to the expected standard, but had to maintain and support them like any other nation? I bet that would play havoc with their attempts to prove "superiority".

[sealwhiskers]

While I would love to see that paragraph written in the rules somewhere, it really goes against all that libertarianism stands for.

Supposedly, according to libertarian thinking, the completely unregulated free market will make for such incredibly competitive prices that any old bum could afford it. And...for those incredibly malfunctioning individuals who still couldn't afford free market prices, all needs would be covered by lottery money or charity.

...and if charity and lottery money still couldn't cover the needs of malfunctioning individuals, city upkeep, disaster prevention and all those other numerous things which makes a society, well, I guess some unwanted factors would just have to disappear from pontoon heaven, right? I'm sure they just moved elsewhere of their own free will!

Anything except uttering the dirty word. psst ...taxes

[omnot]

I do note that the plans for such Libertarian Utopias inevitably require that the participants/citizens have rather a lot of money. I suspect that once their money or productivity is gone, they will be deported. So I expect it would become a machine for processing rich deluded people into poor disillusioned people.

[montecristo]

One way around this problem is to require that immigrants put up a bond as a condition for immigration. That way, if someone becomes indigent or insolvent, and they are unhappy with the voluntary charity or charities which might be provided in "Ancapistan," they can use this "insurance payout" to emmigrate to anyplace that they believe would improve their situation.

[sealwhiskers]

This means nothing when it comes to how to maintain a society. It merely stipulates that you invest in a ticket elsewhere beforehand, kinda like a deposit, in case something goes wrong - and it would in reality incite pontoontopia to invest even less into charities or whatever other half arsed funds they may or may not come to exist to help those that fare ill.

So instead of dealing with problems they would go away to be dealt with elsewhere.

[montecristo]

People are free to associate with whomever they believe to offer the most benefits for association. That's what voluntary society is all about.

[sealwhiskers]

Right, so if they can't afford chemo, they are free to move inland.

The "freedom" to move exists in all democracies.

[montecristo]

The freedom to travel (why the scare quotes?) is supported, to a greater or lesser extent, actually and in affirmation, by most human social organizations on the planet

[sealwhiskers]

'm pointing out that in Ancapistan, a citizen has more freedom to go wherever he perceives his interests are better served. You have a problem with this? If you seriously and truly believe that benevolence and compassion grows out of the barrel of a gun then why would you not want anyone in Ancapistan who came to agree with that philosophy to have the freedom to emigrate to such a better set of circumstances?

You are merely repeating yourself and ignoring what I have already said in other threads. Nope, not a bit of a problem with you "deposit" idea which would grant the freedom of travel. But again, how is that different from a mandatory insurance?
I already pointed out that your deposit idea still isn't in any way addressing how to actually maintain a society, and it is already stated that the capacity to move is fairly un-unique.

The more I read, the more I come to suspect that your issue with the system is that Ancapistan offers less opportunity to persons like yourself to define compassion for everyone and force that

[montecristo]

...how is that different from a mandatory insurance?

Ah, now we are getting somewhere! The answer is, it isn't any different, except in one single, crucial regard: everyone is given the opportunity to accept the requirement up front, or else reject it and go elsewhere, to somewhere charity may be presumed to be an entitlement. The difference is that the requirement is not imposed upon people who are unwilling. The difference is that in other governments of the world, when someone disagrees with the requirement of purchasing any kind of manditory insurance (disregarding the fact that socialized medicine is most certainly NOT real insurance anyway) they are punnished with fines and imprisonment. How is this a better situation, in your estimation? It isn't.

That's quite a load of assumptions about someone who simply doesn't believe in your freedom society.No, it is what is necessarilly logically implied in your argument. You are not complaining that the poor are being denied assistance; you are complaining that some people may be free

[sealwhiskers]

Ah, now we are getting somewhere! The answer is, it isn't any different, except in one single, crucial regard: everyone is given the opportunity to accept the requirement up front, or else reject it and go elsewhere

Exactly! Which makes your "society" not a real society but a place where you have to have enough money to enter or go elsewhere. That was my exact point.

You are not complaining that the poor are being denied assistance

Sure I am! I am actually highly pondering the risk of that, and no matter how many times you say I am thinking of something else, doesn't make it true. :)

you are complaining that some people may be free to disagree with you on what it is of which charity is to consist and how it is to be effected

Absolutely not, disagreement and complaints are part of a democracy, that's why we have elections and laws and voting. I love that kind of stuff. And no matter how many times you say it's not so, doesn't make it true! :)

You're not arguing for ways in which you or anyone else could voluntarilly help; you're

[montecristo]

Which makes your "society" not a real society but a place where you have to have enough money to enter or go elsewhere.

No, it is a place where you either produce more than you consume and pay your own way, or else you accept the voluntary charity given to you by others. There is no authority, either individually or collectively to take from others by force. There is no entitlement to what you did not earn, either through trade or by being given a voluntarilly offered gift.

Sure I am! I am actually highly pondering the risk of that [the poor being denied assistance]...

Fair enough. How, and why, is a voluntary society at higher risk of "denying the poor assistance"?

I have NOT been against your pontoontopa's existence, merely highly skeptical to its success.

Also fair enough. What then is the basis for the skepticism?

I don't think it has to be my particular ideas about "charity" as you put it, but I think there has to be an idea and a structure. I will venture that you haven't the faintest clue of what my particular idea would

[sealwhiskers]

No, it is a place where you either produce more than you consume and pay your own way, or else you accept the voluntary charity given to you by others. There is no authority, either individually or collectively to take from others by force. There is no entitlement to what you did not earn, either through trade or by being given a voluntarilly offered gift.

This doesn't address the mere fact that you have to have a certain amount of capital to be a resident in the first hand. And it doesn't address your "deposit" idea either.

why, is a voluntary society at higher risk of "denying the poor assistance"?

Because the only structure or method for any form of emergencies, be it the poor or anything else in this society, which you have provided is charity, and you are yet to explain why this charity would be so vastly superior to other charities, as to uphold the entire society.

What then is the basis for the skepticism?

See above.

As for the details, it is not essential that I know the details of your particular ideas;No, I think it is

[montecristo]

The only essential distinction between a libertarian society and other means of organizing socity is that the libertarian society presumes no entity in society posesses the authority to initiate force against people who themselves have not violated anyone's rights or otherwise caused harm. To be skeptical of the efficacy of charity in a libertarian society on the basis of the society being libertarian, per se, implies that charity is less efficient or non-existent because of the lack of authority to initiate force.

This merely shows that you didn't understand what I was saying at all. Your libertarian society can invoke the golden rule from here to Nova Scotia, which won't make any difference when structure will need to be implemented and people differ on the details of how.Structure can be implemented through voluntary action. When there is difference on the details then compromise can be negotiated or parallel, independent structures can be implemented. The Salvation Army and the St. Vincent dePaul Society do not have to agree on

[sealwhiskers]

To be skeptical of the efficacy of charity in a libertarian society on the basis of the society being libertarian, per se, implies that charity is less efficient or non-existent because of the lack of authority to initiate force.

I am not skeptical of its efficiency because it is libertarian, I am skeptical because that is the *only* shadow of a plan that is even hinted at.

Neither security nor dispute resolution need to be accomplished by an agency arbitrarilly authorized to maintain a monopoly upon such services through the use of initiatory force.You are suggesting that when difference in opinion on implementing rules occur, compromises are negotiated or another parallel entity is formed so that two sets of rules can be used