Billionaire funding creation of artificial libertarian islands

[Evo]

I have ideas about people I personally would like to put on these islands.

Pay Pal founder and early Facebook investor Peter Thiel has given $1.25 million to an initiative to create floating libertarian countries in international waters, according to a profile of the billionaire in Details magazine.

Thiel has been a big backer of the Seasteading Institute, which seeks to build sovereign nations on oil rig-like platforms to occupy waters beyond the reach of law-of-the-sea treaties. The idea is for these countries to start from scratch--free from the laws, regulations, and moral codes of any existing place. Details says the experiment would be "a kind of floating petri dish for implementing policies that libertarians, stymied by indifference at the voting booths, have been unable to advance: no welfare, looser building codes, no minimum wage, and few restrictions on weapons."

My fear would be that these people will eventually leave these "islands" and come back to the real world unable to adapt or even understand how society operates. No laws and plenty of guns. Isn't this what we have worked so hard to prevent? The Wild West comes to mind.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout...artificial-libertarian-islands-140840896.html

Talk about ridiculous ways to waste money. A clock built to last longer than human civilization.

Created by Danny Hillis for the Long Now Foundation, the Clock is a mechanical timepiece that is intended to run for 10,000 years, and has been designed so that it can be serviced and maintained over that period even if civilization collapses and knowledge of its origin and purpose are lost.

http://boingboing.net/2011/06/17/jeff-bezos-co-to-bui.html

 

[CJames]

So...who would want to live on these islands? Other than billionaire libertarians who expect willing corporate slaves to move in, I mean. I guess maybe people who want to buy hookers, gay people wanting to get married, and people who want to smoke pot in public. But there's places to do those things stateside. Either way, I don't think people would want to stay long.

...Maybe the stoners.

 

[rhody]

Free eccentric thinkers, YES, do they have way way way too much free time and money on their hands, YES, YES, YES...

floating petri dish

What a choice of words...

Rhody... Liber(scare)rians...repeatedly bangs head on wall and facepalms in between head bangs...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The contrast between this, and the hippie commune movement of the sixties, is striking.

An entire country run by spoiled prima donnas? Good luck! I hope they plan to include a lot of lawyers in their community.

 

[rootX]

I think they would need thousands times more than "$1.25 million".

Talk about ridiculous ways to waste money. A clock built to last longer than human civilization.



http://boingboing.net/2011/06/17/jeff-bezos-co-to-bui.html

 

[moejoe15]

I think this is a great idea. They could be research havens for areas that are or will be forbidden (by religious nuts and the misguided). Like cloning, stem cells and life extension. Genetic research will eventually be restricted. I think the term is germ line changes for one thing. I see nothing wrong with these experiments but others do. When we get close to finding immortality there will be attempts to restrict that too. The religious in the USA will try to stop that. I expect routes to immortality (if it's possible) to be discovered this century.

Another advantage of these places is they could be essentially immune to tsunamis. If this idea gets popular look for countries to try and eliminate international waters.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I think this is a great idea. They could be research havens for areas that are or will be forbidden (by religious nuts and the misguided). Like cloning, stem cells and life extension. Genetic research will eventually be restricted. I think the term is germ line changes for one thing. I see nothing wrong with these experiments but others do. When we get close to finding immortality there will be attempts to restrict that too. The religious in the USA will try to stop that. I expect routes to immortality (if it's possible) to be discovered this century.

Another advantage of these places is they could be essentially immune to tsunamis. If this idea gets popular look for countries to try and eliminate international waters.

Great idea! Perhaps we can do away with those pesky bioethics and test on children and people. Think of how much we could learn about leukaemia if we could induce it into tens of thousands of babies in one go? The religious nuts may object but we may find the route to immortality!

Back to reality. Regulations are there for a reason, removing them completely is ridiculous and in the majority of developed countries there are little restrictions on good science. Educating people about the reality is far more practical and ethical than suggesting we get rid of all regulations on the basis of some mythical suppression.

 

[rhody]

Jurassic Liberscareians...
I like it, it has a nice ring to it...

Rhody...

P.S. Now where did I leave my Kool-Aid ?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'll just leave this here...

 

[Hurkyl]

Talk about ridiculous ways to waste money. A clock built to last longer than human civilization.

He's preparing for the fantasy setting where all technology has been lost, and a primitive mankind uncovers still-functional machines of the ancients and marvels at the technology and wondering what they were used for.

 

[Evo]

He's preparing for the fantasy setting where all technology has been lost, and a primitive mankind uncovers still-functional machines of the ancients and marvels at the technology and wondering what they were used for.

Sounds like someone with too much money, too much free time, and too much Planet of the Apes.

 

[rhody]

Sounds like someone with too much money, too much free time, and too much Planet of the... (Rhody's substitution: Velociraptors)

Thanks Evo,

An indirect humble complement. I will take them anyway I can get them, lol.

Rhody...

 

[jobyts]

I do not think looser building code in the waters is a good idea.

 

[Willowz]

My fear would be...

Way to start a discussion!
[...]
Technocrats should populate that island. Or something of that sort. That would be marvellous.

Or if this would be a social experiment then implement Plato's ideas, see what would be the outcome.

 

[Proton Soup]

i thought we already had one of these?

http://www.sealandgov.org/

 

[SamRoss]

I'm a firm believer in democracy. Not less government, not more government. Democracy. When you look at surveys, you realize that most people are actually very reasonable. If there were more direct voting on issues and less power held by special interests this country could truly be a beacon of light rather than just a rich and powerful state.

Check out americanselect.org. I saw it on the Colbert Report. People directly nominating presidential candidates rather than parties doing it. This is the kind of thing that excites me (well this and physics).

 

[Willowz]

I'm a firm believer in democracy. Not less government, not more government. Democracy.

I agree. But, it gets a bit unnerving when actors and businessmen are elected to power.

 

[Evo]

Let's stay on topic please.

 

[OmCheeto]

I have ideas about people I personally would like to put on these islands.

My fear would be that these people will eventually leave these "islands" and come back to the real world unable to adapt or even understand how society operates. No laws and plenty of guns. Isn't this what we have worked so hard to prevent? The Wild West comes to mind.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout...artificial-libertarian-islands-140840896.html

Talk about ridiculous ways to waste money. A clock built to last longer than human civilization.



http://boingboing.net/2011/06/17/jeff-bezos-co-to-bui.html

(someone let me know if you've heard this story b4)

I wrote a pair of single paragraph stories some years back, to vent my stress over the start of the 2nd gulf war. I never intended that anyone else ever read it, but somehow, a libertarian bartender of mine got a hold of the copy(hic!).

He hand wrote an extensive negative response to the whole thing. His response was 100 times better than my story. But it was mean, and nasty, and still, IMHO, totally wrong. But anyways, here's the exchange that prompted my above googly eyes:

And this barely scratches the surface of the world the "Greens" would build.

It starts with a small island set aside just for you.

 

[OmCheeto]

Let's stay on topic please.

I can't get any more on topic!

Though there is a natural island I think we should send them to, that will not cost anyone anything. And I hear it's its own continent! They would be most impressed with themselves having an entire continent to themselves.

 

[Evo]

I can't get any more on topic!

Though there is a natural island I think we should send them to, that will not cost anyone anything. And I hear it's its own continent! They would be most impressed with themselves having an entire continent to themselves.

And it's...ROOMY! No one there to tell them what to do, they can do without morals, laws, and building codes. I think we should start signing people up!

 

[Chi Meson]

Ooh! I want to move to a libertarian society to be a laborer and work in a factory where there are no building codes. Maybe I can get a cheap apartment too.

By the way, the Triangle Shirtwaist fire was 100 years ago last March.

 

[turbo]

It would be interesting to see what kind of self-defenses that the fat-cat islands could mount against attackers. Also interesting to see how much they would be prepared to spend to persuade the US or others to come to their aid when they are attacked.

Also, who is going to sell the developers the nuclear (I expect they anticipate) self-contained generating capacity? Such "libertarian" islands would be problematic from the get-go, and hardly "independent". Can you say "embargo"? Sure, I knew you could.

 

[Proton Soup]

if you want truly libertarian, there are still tribes in the amazon that have not been contacted by modern society. in fact, it is brazilian policy to not make first contact with newly discovered tribes. papua new guinea apparently also has lots of people off doing their own thing.

as for building islands, it's being done already, and billionaires seem willing to live under law as strict as places like dubai. but if you want to be outside the domain of an existing government, you apparently need to move out more than 200 miles from shore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_island#Modern_projects

 

[Loren Booda]

My fear would be that these people will eventually [leave these "islands" and] come back to the real world unable to adapt or even understand how society operates.

Were they ever able to?

 

[Tosh5457]

My fear would be that these people will eventually leave these "islands" and come back to the real world unable to adapt or even understand how society operates. No laws and plenty of guns. Isn't this what we have worked so hard to prevent? The Wild West comes to mind.

It doesn't say it wouldn't have law, it just said it'd be free from the law from other countries. So for example laws about fiscal paradises wouldn't exist. And that island would have to be subject to international law.

And if this guy eventually doesn't want laws, he can't claim himself as a libertarian. Libertarians know the law is very important.

 

[OmCheeto]

And it's...ROOMY! No one there to tell them what to do, they can do without morals, laws, and building codes. I think we should start signing people up!

I was trying to understand libertarians a while back and ran across the following:

The most successful libertarian society to date has a population of 1. Steve lives under the I-90 over pass. His society [has] no legal restrictions. In fact most [of] the time Steve doesn't even wear clotheshttp://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/9ybcx/dear_reddit_are_there_any_examples_of_a/"

I would add: The other homeless people won't go near Steve's libertarian universe, as there is Steve poop just about everywhere.

My apologies, as I believe this is the third poopy post I've made in a week, not to mention the really mean and nasty ones. I must be in some kind of mood I guess.

 

[wuliheron]

Does this mean the platforms will be built by the lowest bidder from the countries with the fewest building regulations?

 

[Evo]

Does this mean the platforms will be built by the lowest bidder from the countries with the fewest building regulations?

 

[rhody]

Just a thought, after reading Evo's article it suggests to me although not obvious, is that a deeper motivator for the establishment of these man made islands would be a safe haven to insulate the chosen few from what could be chaos developing in the civilized world.

Rhody...

BTW, Mel Gibson's "Road Warrior" movies were on cable last weekend, did they have something to do with this ? Naa...

 

[FlexGunship]

Just a thought, after reading Evo's article it suggests to me although not obvious, is that a deeper motivator for the establishment of these man made islands would be a safe haven to insulate the chosen few from what could be chaos developing in the civilized world.

Agreed. Minus "the chosen few."

Libertarians aren't stupid; I self-identify as one. It won't be a floating island of fat cats, and corporate big wigs. Who would clean the toilets? If the idea is successful (unlikely) then it will be a microcosm of the U.S. in the early 1900s with significantly higher technology and more effective medicine; for better or for worse.

Let's not lose scope here, libertarians are simply individuals who think issues of social and financial preference are best left to individuals to decide on, not their government. It's not going to be a lawless oil rig given over to the rogue with the most money or weapons. just imagine the United States where no one pays taxes, and instead pay for the services they use:

Drive on a road? Pay for it.
Call the police? Pay for it (unless a suspect is apprehended and found guilty).
Have a fire in your home and call the fire department? Pay for it.
Get ill and need medical services? Pay for it.
Need food because you don't have any? Pay for it.
Want to donate money to a charity to help the less fortunate? Pay for it.​

It's not some Utopian dream; it's just a different mechanism for organizing social services in a society.

 

[Evo]

Agreed. Minus "the chosen few."

Libertarians aren't stupid; I self-identify as one. It won't be a floating island of fat cats, and corporate big wigs. Who would clean the toilets? If the idea is successful (unlikely) then it will be a microcosm of the U.S. in the early 1900s with significantly higher technology and more effective medicine; for better or for worse.

Let's not lose scope here, libertarians are simply individuals who think issues of social and financial preference are best left to individuals to decide on, not their government. It's not going to be a lawless oil rig given over to the rogue with the most money or weapons. just imagine the United States where no one pays taxes, and instead pay for the services they use:

Drive on a road? Pay for it.
Call the police? Pay for it (unless a suspect is apprehended and found guilty).
Have a fire in your home and call the fire department? Pay for it.
Get ill and need medical services? Pay for it.
Need food because you don't have any? Pay for it.
Want to donate money to a charity to help the less fortunate? Pay for it.​

It's not some Utopian dream; it's just a different mechanism for organizing social services in a society.

What happens if you become disabled and can no longer pay for these services?

Is this society only for those with money? What do you do with members that get sick, are hurt or get old and all of their money is gone from paying for all of these uncapped services (I'm assuming there are no government subsidies?) Not everyone is going to be highly paid, right? You get paid according to your job? Do these people become fish food?

 

[rhody]

What happens if you become disabled and can no longer pay for these services?

Is this society only for those with money? What do you do with members that get sick, are hurt or get old and all of their money is gone from paying for all of these uncapped services (I'm assuming there are no government subsidies?) Not everyone is going to be highly paid, right? You get paid according to your job? Do these people become fish food?

Social Darwinism, survival of the fittest may work for some, elite, rich, highly educated, the entitled.

Thankfully, humans have mirror neurons (for empathy) in our brains, some more active than in others to keep things in check. Without these, Flex's hypothetical world could be possible. A more important question, could you witness suffering, depression and slow death, standing by doing nothing about it. I don't think I would like to be part of such a world, would you ?

Rhody...

 

[FlexGunship]

What happens if you become disabled and can no longer pay for these services?

Is this society only for those with money? What do you do with members that get sick, are hurt or get old and all of their money is gone from paying for all of these uncapped services (I'm assuming there are no government subsidies?) Not everyone is going to be highly paid, right? You get paid according to your job? Do these people become fish food?

Charities have always been around. And, in general, charities seem to be more efficient at distribution collected money than government bureaucracies on local levels (very different on federal levels like disaster relief). There's nothing shameful about receiving help from a charity when you need it. In that type of society (with highly-paid elites) could you imagine charities NOT flourishing? With such a thriving private sector individual contributions to charity would be astronomical. Could you sit by and watch people simply perish? What makes you think that if you made more money you would be MORE likely to watch people suffer?

Furthermore, there are many members of society that are considered disabled that are fully capable of working, and that may, in fact, desire to work but are discouraged from it so that they may receive their full compensation (my uncle was once like this).

Evo, I'm not saying it's perfect, and I'm not saying my rebuttal covers all cases. But there ARE alternatives.

 

[Evo]

Charities have always been around. And, in general, charities seem to be more efficient at distribution collected money than government bureaucracies on local levels (very different on federal levels like disaster relief). There's nothing shameful about receiving help from a charity when you need it. In that type of society (with highly-paid elites) could you imagine charities NOT flourishing? With such a thriving private sector individual contributions to charity would be astronomical. Could you sit by and watch people simply perish? What makes you think that if you made more money you would be MORE likely to watch people suffer?

Furthermore, there are many members of society that are considered disabled that are fully capable of working, and that may, in fact, desire to work but are discouraged from it so that they may receive their full compensation (my uncle was once like this).

Evo, I'm not saying it's perfect, and I'm not saying my rebuttal covers all cases. But there ARE alternatives.

I can imagine charities not flourishing in an "everyone for himself" type of society. Many rich people only donate to charities for the tax breaks. Without that needed tax shelter, there would not be much given to charity, IMO.

 

[FlexGunship]

I can imagine charities not flourishing in an "everyone for himself" type of society. Many rich people only donate to charities for the tax breaks. Without that needed tax shelter, there would not be much given to charity, IMO.

Do you give to charity? If you made more money than you do now, would you give less to charities? I think people tend to villainize the wealthy either because of pop culture representations or misunderstandings; where did the idea of "everyone for himself" come from? Remember back in '07, the UK launched a study to find out why wealthy Americans are so generous with their money. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Steve Jobs are some of the richest men in society, and they're also the largest suppliers of charitable contributions. Some even have their OWN charities.

Furthermore, I'm not sure that a libertarian society is only for the wealthy. That's either a misconception or an intentional misconstrual. Even by the harshest possible metric, anyone who is not reliant purely on the government (and therefore other individuals) stands to gain by this system.

EDIT: I might cautiously argue (very cautiously) that the current body of social legislation is tailored specifically to the lowest class of citizens. A libertarian body of social legislation simply wouldn't favor any class specifically. If I were to play devil's advocate, I would say the largest political lobby in America is that of the poor. Not oil. Not coal. Not tobacco. The poor.

A libertarian society wouldn't prioritize anyone. Neither would oil have subsidies nor lettuce pickers.

 

[rootX]

But there ARE alternatives.

Without clear cut description and well defined scope for your alternatives, there is no way I can argue for or against it.

I would say the largest political lobby in America is that of the poor. Not oil. Not coal. Not tobacco. The poor.

Evidence?

 

[Evo]

A libertarian society wouldn't prioritize anyone.

That's what I'm thinking, the sick, the injured and the elderly would be left to fend for themselves, if they have money, no problem, if they don't, problem.

Of course since there is no such place, what would happen is idle speculation, I was just going by your list.

 

[FlexGunship]

Evidence?

Tobacco has gotten about $200 million each year (recently; mostly for anti-smoking campaigns)
Coal gets about $19 billion each year (mostly to fund black lung medical programs)
Oil once got $65 billion, but averages about $35 billion each year (I have no idea why they get so much)
Welfare (alone) costs $122 billion each year; if you add in food subsidies (both agricultural and food stamps) that's a total of $201 billion every year
(Sources are www.sourcewatch.com[/url] and the GAO at http://www.gao.gov/recovery/bimonthly/overview/)

 

[FlexGunship]

That's what I'm thinking, the sick, the injured and the elderly would be left to fend for themselves, if they have money, no problem, if they don't, problem.

Of course since there is no such place, what would happen is idle speculation, I was just going by your list.

It's difficult to keep the thread of conversation alive when tiny smatterings of my posts get quoted. I recognize that you disagree with me Evo, but I believe I've addressed the "sick and injured." You might disagree (again) with the solution, but I don't have the same bleak and cynical view of mankind as you do. In a healthy society, there's no reason to believe that humans suddenly become selfish. The wealthiest of us are incredibly generous with their money, and the thread of this discussion seems to suggest that only wealthy people would be interested in a haven of social and financial freedom.

This conversation gets very frustrating for me. I'm not rich; not by ANY stretch. But I'd love to live in a place where people have to pay for the social services they use so flippantly; often with an air of disdain for how crude or paltry the assistance is that they receive.

Have you ever seen a mother trying to buy energy drinks with food stamps? I have. And I watched her flip out on the cashier when she told her she needed to purchase them separately. Here is a woman receiving money to help feed herself (and her children) from me, and the people around her. And she has the sheer disrespect to use that money for nutritionally-null food IN FRONT OF THE PEOPLE HELPING HER. It's like a spit in the face.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It's difficult to keep the thread of conversation alive when tiny smatterings of my posts get quoted. I recognize that you disagree with me Evo, but I believe I've addressed the "sick and injured." You might disagree (again) with the solution, but I don't have the same bleak and cynical view of mankind as you do. In a healthy society, there's no reason to believe that humans suddenly become selfish. The wealthiest of us are incredibly generous with their money, and the thread of this discussion seems to suggest that only wealthy people would be interested in a haven of social and financial freedom.

I'd love this to be true but I don't think it is. Without mandatory taxes and social welfare far less money would be given to those in need. Charities cannot be relied on to take care of people because the revenue they receive is not secure, can come with strings and is funnelled into one direction.

This conversation gets very frustrating for me. I'm not rich; not by ANY stretch. But I'd love to live in a place where people have to pay for the social services they use so flippantly; often with an air of disdain for how crude or paltry the assistance is that they receive.

Have you ever seen a mother trying to buy energy drinks with food stamps? I have. And I watched her flip out on the cashier when she told her she needed to purchase them separately. Here is a woman receiving money to help feed herself (and her children) from me, and the people around her. And she has the sheer disrespect to use that money for nutritionally-null food IN FRONT OF THE PEOPLE HELPING HER. It's like a spit in the face.

That is stupid but anecdotes like that do not really represent those in need of financial aid. I'm also not rich (except by the measure of being amongst the poorest in a developed nation and therefore very rich relative to most of the planet) but I would take an opposite view to you. I would like to see many public services free to the public with lot's of aid to those in need. This is contingent on well structured aid that takes care of people in trouble by both giving them money/food stamps etc and leading them down an avenue that will result in them being able to get a job again.

 

[FlexGunship]

That is stupid but anecdotes like that do not really represent those in need of financial aid. I'm also not rich (except by the measure of being amongst the poorest in a developed nation and therefore very rich relative to most of the planet) but I would take an opposite view to you. I would like to see many public services free to the public with lot's of aid to those in need. This is contingent on well structured aid that takes care of people in trouble by both giving them money/food stamps etc and leading them down an avenue that will result in them being able to get a job again.

In my, albeit limited, experience this is never how aid works. Or at least it's certainly not the predominant way. The problem is not the particulars of the system, but rather the system itself. It's one thing to help someone back on to the bottom rung of the ladder, but quite another to hoist them up and hold them on the fourth rung while they eat McDonald's's food (I never know how to put a possessive on McDonald's Restaurant's food. The name is already possessive How do you denote food that belongs to a name that is possessive?).

If at anytime you remove that support, they are sure to fall back off. No one on aid is thinking of how they can live without aid. No one is setting up budgets for when the welfare checks stop coming.

Now to bring this around to the original topic: IT'S A LIBERTARIAN EXPERIMENT, not a human chattel experiment. I say let it go, and let's all watch. I'd bet that the "island" becomes a very successful "nation" and eventually anyone self-reliant enough will want to emigrate there. For self-makers it'll be the new promised land. Hard working immigrants will arrive in droves, ready to wash toilets and hopefully work their way up the CEO of a multi-national corporation. In my opinion, it'll hardly become the hell hole that is being described here.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

In my, albeit limited, experience this is never how aid works. Or at least it's certainly not the predominant way. The problem is not the particulars of the system, but rather the system itself. It's one thing to help someone back on to the bottom rung of the ladder, but quite another to hoist them up and hold them on the fourth rung while they eat McDonald's's food (I never know how to put a possessive on McDonald's Restaurant's food. The name is already possessive How do you denote food that belongs to a name that is possessive?).

If at anytime you remove that support, they are sure to fall back off. No one on aid is thinking of how they can live without aid. No one is setting up budgets for when the welfare checks stop coming.

I would agree that this is a fundamental problem albiet one that isn't true of all cases (It's not evidence but the majority of people I've known who have accepted welfare have done it for good reasons and stopped once they got a job). However I still agree in the principle, the practice needs to be refined.

Now to bring this around to the original topic: IT'S A LIBERTARIAN EXPERIMENT, not a human chattel experiment. I say let it go, and let's all watch. I'd bet that the "island" becomes a very successful "nation" and eventually anyone self-reliant enough will want to emigrate there. For self-makers it'll be the new promised land. Hard working immigrants will arrive in droves, ready to wash toilets and hopefully work their way up the CEO of a multi-national corporation. In my opinion, it'll hardly become the hell hole that is being described here.

I'm quite opposed to libertarianism both practically and ethically however I would love to see how a libertarian experiment works. So long as immigration and emigration was not restricted (i.e you come only by your own consent and leave via the same). I suspect that it would not be a powerful nation but we can argue about that until the cows come home. It would be more interesting to see it from afar.

Having said that it brings up an interesting idea. How about state funding of several of these islands as experimental nations? I.e. they are build part with private part with public funding and then left to run. You could have a wide variety of islands running different social/political/economic systems that aren't seen anywhere in the world. They'd be like interesting test tube nations, if something works you can look to take it for your own country.

 

[FlexGunship]

Having said that it brings up an interesting idea. How about state funding of several of these islands as experimental nations? I.e. they are build part with private part with public funding and then left to run. You could have a wide variety of islands running different social/political/economic systems that aren't seen anywhere in the world. They'd be like interesting test tube nations, if something works you can look to take it for your own country.

As long as they have clean bathrooms, I'm there.

 

[FlexGunship]

I'm quite opposed to libertarianism both practically and ethically [...]

As a side note; libertarianism is as diverse a concept as socialism. There are just as many people (maybe more?) that have a knee-jerk revulsion when they hear the word "socialism." However, the well-informed among the political populous know the word represents a diverse set of ideas: some favorable, and others not.

Socialism is the idea that society should rely on individuals. Libertarianism is the idea that individuals should rely on individuals.

You are free to mix and match working ideas from each group to create a democratic government (or maybe something else?).

 

[Ryan_m_b]

You are free to mix and match working ideas from each group to create a democratic government (or maybe something else?).

This I definitely applaud, no system we've yet devised is good enough IMO and there's a disturbing lack of willingness to come up with something new. All I ever hear about is discussion of what we've done in the past, perhaps that's just me though.

 

[FlexGunship]

This I definitely applaud, no system we've yet devised is good enough IMO and there's a disturbing lack of willingness to come up with something new. All I ever hear about is discussion of what we've done in the past, perhaps that's just me though.

I think this stems from the idea that you can only ADD laws to the existing body of legislature. The concept of expiration or repealtion (this might be a word) seems foreign or silly to law markers.

This is one of the reasons why I (personally) like the idea of a libertarian society. It's a fresh start with no silly laws on the books (like subsidizing corn to make it cheaper to buy, and then subsequently taxing it when it's in soda to make it more expensive... given that both the subsidy and the tax require taking money from the public). Surely, over time, it will grow into a society just like the States with more laws than it can reasonably enforce.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I think this stems from the idea that you can only ADD laws to the existing body of legislature. The concept of expiration or repealtion (this might be a word) seems foreign or silly to law markers.

This is one of the reasons why I (personally) like the idea of a libertarian society. It's a fresh start with no silly laws on the books (like subsidizing corn to make it cheaper to buy, and then subsequently taxing it when it's in soda to make it more expensive... given that both the subsidy and the tax require taking money from the public). Surely, over time, it will grow into a society just like the States with more laws than it can reasonably enforce.

Hmmm I should have clarified earlier that what I am opposed to is only parts of the philosophy behind libertarianism but mostly I'm opposed to the ways I usually see it invoked. I agree with liberal ideas to an extent but the hands-off approach is not something I advocate. You're right in saying that it's much harder to change a system once it is implemented, this is why experimental mini-nations would be useful. It would provide a decent platform for exploration of different models and could provide well-rounded approaches that could be adopted if/when the larger nation decides a big change is needed. Problems with complete overhaul are 1) not knowing how and what to change and in what order 2) not having a clear final goal. If a mini-nation has a fully functional model that the macro-nation wants to adopt that's problem two out of the way straight off. That makes it easier to work through problem one.

 

[daveb]

As a side note; libertarianism is as diverse a concept as socialism. There are just as many people (maybe more?) that have a knee-jerk revulsion when they hear the word "socialism." However, the well-informed among the political populous know the word represents a diverse set of ideas: some favorable, and others not.

Absolutely brilliant!! Too few people realize this. While I'm an unabashed socialist in some instances, I'm also an unabashed libertarian in others (especially when it comes to 1st Amendment issues). The field of beliefs on both sides is very diverse.

 

[Evo]

Absolutely brilliant!! Too few people realize this. While I'm an unabashed socialist in some instances, I'm also an unabashed libertarian in others (especially when it comes to 1st Amendment issues). The field of beliefs on both sides is very diverse.

I hope you guys get your islands soon!