Billionaire funding creation of artificial libertarian islands

[Jimmy Snyder]

Can you see the difference between a libertarian democracy (as modeled loosely by a condo community), versus a... social democracy? (as modeled loosely by a condo community)?

I have to admit that when you put it that way I can see no difference whatever.

 

[Evo]

I have to admit that when you put it that way I can see no difference whatever.

Does the condo have police, fire, sanitation, roads, schools, health department? hospitals, boards to oversee health (hospitals doctors, medical/pharamceutical, ambulance etc...? This is just scratching the tip of the iceberg of what needs to be decided. What color to paint, and picking out flowers doesn't require a group of people.

 

[rootX]

Does the condo have police, fire, sanitation, roads, schools, health department? hospitals, boards to oversee health (hospitals doctors, medical/pharamceutical, ambulance etc...? This is just scratching the tip of the iceberg of what needs to be decided. What color to paint, and picking out flowers doesn't require a group of people.

I was also saying this earlier. It is much easier to wave hands and say things will take care of themselves than actually planning and implementing a policy.

 

[Evo]

I was also saying this earlier. It is much easier to wave hands and say things will take care of themselves than actually planning and implementing a policy.

What's worse is not realizing how many things have to be done and overseen in a large group. How are people going to split the costs of all of the services a community will require? Will it be on a sliding scale according to income, that would be the only fair way. Paying an additional "cost per service" is fine, but it won't take care of administration and oversight of all of these services. Who's going to train people, who's going to make sure certain acceptable levels are maintained who's going to buy all of the police cars, ambulances, medical equipment, fire trucks...? So much to think about, because when you're on a dot in the ocean, you're pretty much SOL unless you have what you need right there.

 

[skippy1729]

Also, who is going to sell the developers the nuclear (I expect they anticipate) self-contained generating capacity?

If I were starting such a project, I would contact the North Koreans for help in starting up a nuclear program and military hardware for self defense.

PS This project is not a cheap trick. Besides power and defense, they will need a desalinization facility.

 

[rhody]

How about this, post apocalyptic http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mega-engineering-building-a-floating-city.html" . At 01:57 Costner is still looking for land, keep looking Kevin...

Seriously though, why don't these brainiac's consider a floating city concept instead of an island, seems like a better choice to me, more capital for sure, but it's jigsaw approach would allow you to add as you can afford it, seems pretty logical to me, and address every need you could dream of.

I am sure a small number of the most wealthy people in the world could start this if they had the collective vision, will, and money to bankroll it. The hard part would be getting these http://www.google.com/search?client...66&bih=585&q=billionaires&btnG=Google+Search" on the same page ideologically, look at the discussion that this thread has generated of differing opinions. Forbes says there are 1210 of them world wide, so there are plenty of them who could step up to the plate.

Rhody...

P.S. If located in deep enough water, no tsunami worries, although cat 5 hurricanes could pose a challenge.

 

[lisab]

What's worse is not realizing how many things have to be done and overseen in a large group. How are people going to split the costs of all of the services a community will require? Will it be on a sliding scale according to income, that would be the only fair way. Paying an additional "cost per service" is fine, but it won't take care of administration and oversight of all of these services. Whose going to train people, who's going to make sure certain acceptable levels are maintained whose going to buy all of the police cars, ambulances, medical equipment, fire trucks...? So much to think about, because when you're on a dot in the ocean, you're pretty much SOL unless you have what you need right there.

Good points.

Many people I know who label themselves libertarian have a belief that they are "self-made". They do not, or will not, recognize how much society has helped them become successful - subsidized education, paved roads, clean water, etc. Maybe help like that could be considered "socialist" and would thereby be a libertarian's worst nightmare .

No one I know has ever lost a child to a diarrheal disease. Infrastructure is destiny!

Paying taxes and abiding by laws are the price we pay to live in a civilized world. If these spoiled brats want to leave, I say let 'em go. Buh-bye!

 

[skippy1729]

Their main hurdle (besides untold billions in expenses) is sovereignty. 1. Article 89 of the UNCLOS states:

No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty.

2. It seems that every uninhabitable piece of rock jutting out of the ocean is claimed by somebody.

With the economic mess that some nations are in it might be possible to buy one of these "rocks" and expand from it with platforms or landfill.
Greece has 89 uninhabited islands http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Uninhabited_islands_of_Greece. I am sure that for a billion or so (and another 100 million under the table), a purchase could be made of the land and the sovereign rights.

Skippy

PS Maybe a joint venture with the Maldives. Help platformize some of their islands in exchange for sovereignty over a tiny island.

 

[OmCheeto]

Good points.

Many people I know who label themselves libertarian have a belief that they are "self-made". They do not, or will not, recognize how much society has helped them become successful - subsidized education, paved roads, clean water, etc. Maybe help like that could be considered "socialist" and would thereby be a libertarian's worst nightmare .

No one I know has ever lost a child to a diarrheal disease. Infrastructure is destiny!

Paying taxes and abiding by laws are the price we pay to live in a civilized world. If these spoiled brats want to leave, I say let 'em go. Buh-bye!

I've only ever known one person(in person) that claimed to be a libertarian. He had to leave the state because he was caught dealing crack at work. (I don't believe for a moment that that is what Ron Paul thinks libertarians should be doing by the way.)

He moved in with his mother for a bit. He's 6 years younger than I am, so that would make him about 46. But I hear he got a good job, and is doing well now.

He was always most entertaining, as I never understood anything he was talking about.

And he gave me free drinks, at the expense of the house.

I do miss him.

 

[jambaugh]

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.

You paint a false dichotomy. The libertarian argument is that charity at the point of a gun is immoral. (And if you refuse to pay the taxes required for centralized governmental care for the sick and injured, guess who comes knocking at your door with a gun on his holster...).

There is a third alternative to government run social welfare vs Spartan abandonment of the weak and sick to die in the gutter.

 

[Evo]

You paint a false dichotomy. The libertarian argument is that charity at the point of a gun is immoral. (And if you refuse to pay the taxes required for centralized governmental care for the sick and injured, guess who comes knocking at your door with a gun on his holster...).

There is a third alternative to government run social welfare vs Spartan abandonment of the weak and sick to die in the gutter.

Just responding to flex's scenario. Not painting anything.

You're welcome to give your version of how this island would be run.

 

[turbo]

Good points.

Many people I know who label themselves libertarian have a belief that they are "self-made". They do not, or will not, recognize how much society has helped them become successful - subsidized education, paved roads, clean water, etc. Maybe help like that could be considered "socialist" and would thereby be a libertarian's worst nightmare .

No one I know has ever lost a child to a diarrheal disease. Infrastructure is destiny!

Paying taxes and abiding by laws are the price we pay to live in a civilized world. If these spoiled brats want to leave, I say let 'em go. Buh-bye!

A big thumbs-up to this post! Self-made men (or women) have usually been born on 3rd base and when they steal home, they act like they are special. If the libertarians want to leave, let them go, and see how they manage to maintain their life-styles without the structure of an underlying society that supports their superior status.

 

[Hurkyl]

You paint a false dichotomy.

It looked more like a prediction than a dichotomy to me.

The libertarian argument is that charity at the point of a gun is immoral.

This is a sound-bite, not an argument -- I believe it to be overly simplistic.

e.g. the libertarian would support the hospital running its own charity program to provide health care to those who can't afford it, and covering the costs by raising the rates they charge people who can afford it, right? But all that's changed is who is holding the gun.

 

[jambaugh]

Just responding to flex's scenario. Not painting anything.

You're welcome to give your version of how this island would be run.

The success or failure of the island, or any society will hinge on the character of the population. It doesn't matter if it is socialist, libertarian, or monarchistic, excepting that some forms of government will decrease the likelihood of long term success in spite of the good character of the majority of the population, e.g. a tyrannical corrupt aristocracy can do a lot of damage.

True you were "predicting" and not "painting" (my comment was a weak attempt to whack with my coup stick) but you expressed the commonly represented belief that government form can replace individual character in a society. I believe that...

If the society is of such base character that its members will allow people to live in miserable poverty as others live in proximate luxury then government social programs will not help. The same lack of character will lead to corrupted programs rampant with fraud and waste, the explosive growth of "need" and erosion of responsibility.

And if a society is of such good character that social programs implemented through government work well then that same character will manifest in the private sector social work.

I further believe that divorcing the producers of wealth from direct involvement and credit for sharing their wealth with the impoverished, by implementing social welfare through government programs, harms the character of both the contributors and the recipients. I also believe that centralized charity is far less efficient than grass roots private efforts.

As to why I believe this, I haven't time to express right now, I have class in an hour. But I'll be back with some thoughts later.

 

[rhody]

The success or failure of the island, or any society will hinge on the character of the population.

I also believe that centralized charity is far less efficient than grass roots private efforts.

As a kid, I distinctly remember taking care of an elderly neighbor, checking in on her, getting her medications, and occassionally taking her to the Dr. She was too proud to ask for any help on her own, but appreciated ours. She knitted my Mom some quilts and made home made pies for for special occassions. We took responsibility for her well being and the arrangement worked out for the benefit of both of us. You don't have to be libertarian, conservative, or liberal in your views to make something like this work, just have basic compassion and decency, that's all. Maybe that's what jambaugh meant in his post with regards to: "private efforts".

Rhody...

 

[FlexGunship]

Paying an additional "cost per service" is fine, but it won't take care of administration and oversight of all of these services. Who's going to train people, who's going to make sure certain acceptable levels are maintained who's going to buy all of the police cars, ambulances, medical equipment, fire trucks...?

Subscription fees, or membership fees, or nothing at all. How can grocery stores afford to train their employees? How can engineering firms afford to train engineers when they receive money on a per-contract basis? How does your cable company afford all of those trucks it has to maintain? The answers are fairly obvious; unless your local cable company receives a significant subsidy from the federal government (okay, mine does, but only for repair services and disaster relief) and your engineers get funding from the city when they're not working.

Evo, I understand you flatly disagree, but I also know you're capable of finding much realer problems than these.

Furthermore, I was trying to illustrate a libertarian microcosm. The fact that it operates on a tiny scale is immaterial to the point I was making: that social groups can form without governments. Neil Stephenson's Snow Crash took this idea further with the idea of "burbclaves." They were small autonomous nations by all measures. They usually contracted a police and fire service to operate in their area, and depending upon your preferences, each community offered different priorities and different monthly membership fees.

Not every one of them was a haven to a happy populous or a utopia by any metric, but the idea exists.

So much to think about, because when you're on a dot in the ocean, you're pretty much SOL unless you have what you need right there.

Evo, that's a problem of any island nation, not exclusively libertarian island nations.

 

[FlexGunship]

If the society is of such base character that its members will allow people to live in miserable poverty as others live in proximate luxury then government social programs will not help. The same lack of character will lead to corrupted programs rampant with fraud and waste, the explosive growth of "need" and erosion of responsibility.

And if a society is of such good character that social programs implemented through government work well then that same character will manifest in the private sector social work.

Well said. <pat on the back>

 

[Ryan_m_b]

If the society is of such base character that its members will allow people to live in miserable poverty as others live in proximate luxury then government social programs will not help. The same lack of character will lead to corrupted programs rampant with fraud and waste, the explosive growth of "need" and erosion of responsibility.

And if a society is of such good character that social programs implemented through government work well then that same character will manifest in the private sector social work.

I'll believe that when I see it. There's a keen difference between voting for a political candidate who believes in spending a proportion of tax on welfare programs and going out and funding a welfare program yourself.

Not saying it can't happen, there are great private charities out there. I just don't think it's feasible to build the welfare and infrastructure of a nation using privatised approaches alone.

 

[FlexGunship]

I'll believe that when I see it.

Frankly, I'm shocked at how many PFers don't contribute to private charities. This might be why so many people think I'm wrong about libertarian societies. I volunteer my time and donate generously; I guess I just assumed most people do, too.

I'm starting to see why so many people think taxing is a good option; because if someone didn't hold a gun to your head you wouldn't want to give up any of your money or time.

Head down to the soup kitchen some night; you're not going to be alone. A lot of people dedicate their time and money to help people who need it. You won't feel much better than feeding a family.

Taxes, on the other hand...

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Frankly, I'm shocked at how many PFers don't contribute to private charities. This might be why so many people think I'm wrong about libertarian societies. I volunteer my time and donate generously; I guess I just assumed most people do, too.

I hope you aren't making a presumption about me based on what I said. My opinions on the realistic nature of charity as opposed to tax are observational, not moral. I think it's shocking most people don't give to charity, I also recognise that because most people don't give to charity (and the nature of many big charities being special interest companies) it isn't a viable model for welfare on it's own.

 

[FlexGunship]

I hope you aren't making a presumption about me based on what I said. My opinions on the realistic nature of charity as opposed to tax are observational, not moral. I think it's shocking most people don't give to charity, I also recognise that because most people don't give to charity (and the nature of many big charities being special interest companies) it isn't a viable model for welfare on it's own.

No, I guess it's just the tone of the forum. Whenever the idea of abolishing government mandated welfare comes up everyone says: "what about all of the disabled and poor people?" as though they would just be left to suffer.

I didn't mean to imply a personal judgement.

I guess the worst part is that the United States has the highest rate of charitable donations int the world, $29 billion annually (Source:http://www.oecd.org/document/11/0,3746,en_2649_34447_44981579_1_1_1_1,00.html). The idea that if the government stopped FORCING people to give money that they would just keep it to themselves seems appalling to me. I know that SOME would, but I also know that many wouldn't. But of all places, we're on the PhysicsForums (bastion of liberal ideology to be sure) and people would prefer not to donate to charity willingly, but rather have that money taken forcibly from them.

No one else is slightly taken aback by this?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I didn't mean to imply a personal judgement.

In that case no offence taken

I guess the worst part is that the United States has the highest rate of charitable donations int the world, $29 billion annually (Source:http://www.oecd.org/document/11/0,3746,en_2649_34447_44981579_1_1_1_1,00.html). The idea that if the government stopped FORCING people to give money that they would just keep it to themselves seems appalling to me. I know that SOME would, but I also know that many wouldn't. But of all places, we're on the PhysicsForums (bastion of liberal ideology to be sure) and people would prefer not to donate to charity willingly, but rather have that money taken forcibly from them.

No one else is slightly taken aback by this?

There's two things here in my opinion. Firstly whilst people here may want to give to charity and do it themselves there is a recognition that not everyone does this (indeed the majority of people do not) and those who do give to very select charities. That $29billion figure sounds good but how much does welfare actually cost? Can't find a solid number with a quick google but according to wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_welfare_state#Programs" and only 4% of that is from purely private funding. Secondly welfare is not the only issue with taxes. There is also the infrastructure of a country and how to run the interactions with other countries, few people are convinced that this could be accomplished with libertarian mechanisms over central government with taxation. Again though I would be interested to see the system tried in a micro-nation experiment.

 

[FlexGunship]

There is also the infrastructure of a country and how to run the interactions with other countries, few people are convinced that this could be accomplished with libertarian mechanisms over central government with taxation.

Well, for better or for worse, most libertarian idealists tend to adopt a VERY limited stance on foreign policy and policy enforcement (whether it be foreign wars or foreign aid).

So, if you make the presumption that any successful government must play nanny to any unsuccessful government then, yes, libertarian ideals fall short. But I would say that is not a presumption made by all people. In fact, in a time of extreme economic hardship, it might seem silly (to a hypothetical person) to offer so much foreign aid to those starving in other countries when we have starving individuals at home.

As a society, the U.S. is deeply entrenched in existing foreign aid relationships. There are, literally, countries that subsist on the aid provided by the U.S. and other wealthy nations; a sort of international welfare. When it comes to choosing to spend a dollar on domestic charity or foreign charity, then there is a significant debate to be had as to whether private charities could do the work of a national government.

However, and I stand by this strongly, there is no single stance that is uniformly adopted regarding the balance of domestic and foreign aid. A rational and pragmatic individual should recognize that it costs more money to help more people. The prioitization of that assistence should be left to the individual to decide upon and not to the government. Some days I feel like helping Somalians, but other days I'd rather help the homeless guy downtown. Unfortunately, I don't really have an option; no one does. We only decide where the tip of the iceberg goes.

 

[OmCheeto]

Furthermore, I was trying to illustrate a libertarian microcosm. The fact that it operates on a tiny scale is immaterial to the point I was making: that social groups can form without governments. Neil Stephenson's Snow Crash took this idea further with the idea of "burbclaves." They were small autonomous nations by all measures. They usually contracted a police and fire service to operate in their area, and depending upon your preferences, each community offered different priorities and different monthly membership fees.

Not every one of them was a haven to a happy populous or a utopia by any metric, but the idea exists.

That's funny. Evo and Char_Limit talked me into reading Snow Crash a while back. Evo, being the computer nerd that she is, liked the idea of virtual reality. I think Char, being the mathematician ninja that he is, liked all the action. I thoroughly enjoyed the book, but my take away was that it portrayed libertarianism gone wild.

The U.S. government had devolved into an island city. The country was basically being run by the mob. Technology was rampant, and available to just about anyone who would work for it. And on every other page, someone was being murdered.

But still, it was a delightful book, and I would recommend it to everyone.

ps. I will stand behind none of the comments made above, as I am old and forget lots. Hopefully Evo and Char will be able to correct any errors.

 

[FlexGunship]

I thoroughly enjoyed the book, but my take away was that it portrayed libertarianism gone wild.

The U.S. government had devolved into an island city. The country was basically being run by the mob. Technology was rampant, and available to just about anyone who would work for it. And on every other page, someone was being murdered.

Well, it was portraying anarchism. Maybe this is a common confusion? Each burbclave was an island of libertarianism. I would be wary of confusing anarchism and libertarianism. I don't think many practical libertarians promote the level of discord illustrated in the book.

EDIT: And for the sake of clarity, the people being murdered were being killed by a murderer (much in the same way that a book might depict a murderer murdering someone in a democratic society). And the country was not run by the mob, the pizza delivery industry was run by the mob. Big difference. :)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

However, and I stand by this strongly, there is no single stance that is uniformly adopted regarding the balance of domestic and foreign aid. A rational and pragmatic individual should recognize that it costs more money to help more people. The prioitization of that assistence should be left to the individual to decide upon and not to the government. Some days I feel like helping Somalians, but other days I'd rather help the homeless guy downtown. Unfortunately, I don't really have an option; no one does. We only decide where the tip of the iceberg goes.

I would agree with this. Sometimes I think aid is misapplied, other times I am annoyed to hear the response of people saying things like "why do we give aid to a country which has it's own space program" to which the reply is always "because having your own space program is not a marker for a government that's willing to feed its poorest people".

Regarding the second bolded statement (emphasis mine) I would say that this is where we part ways ideologically. I believe that this phenomenon is an indication that A) people should be educated so that they have the appropriate critical skills to examine all facets of the problem and B) Better versions of democratic government should be employed that devolve power more so that the process of making decisions about your country is far easier and more potent than it is now.

EDIT: Furthermore I'd like to reiterate how beneficial I think experimental islands could be. Not just for examining different systems but so that if you wanted to live in a libertarian country you could run off and do so, likewise if you wanted to live in a socialist country you could too.

 

[FlexGunship]

I believe that this phenomenon is an indication that A) people should be educated so that they have the appropriate critical skills to examine all facets of the problem and B) Better versions of democratic government should be employed that devolve power more so that the process of making decisions about your country is far easier and more potent than it is now.

Careful; too strong of a majority will always rub the minority of their freedoms. That's one of the unsung dangers of a democracy and one of the reasons why a representative democracy is important. This is my strongest reason for advocating individual social and economic freedoms.

When you are free to spend your money and do as you please in your own home, it doesn't matter what the motives of the elected officials are.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Careful; too strong of a majority will always rub the minority of their freedoms. That's one of the unsung dangers of a democracy and one of the reasons why a representative democracy is important. This is my strongest reason for advocating individual social and economic freedoms.

I would hope that better approaches for applying democracy should be designed and implemented to stop things like this. We need a good and healthy balance between direct and representative democracy. I also think that we should have many social and economic freedoms but less so than you.

When you are free to spend your money and do as you please in your own home, it doesn't matter what the motives of the elected officials are.

I'm sure you didn't intend this to be an exhaustive statement so don't take this as a naive criticism but I strongly disagree with this. It's not so simple as freedom in your home, freedom in public is obviously desirable too but there's always a conflict between people's freedoms even if one person is in their home. Mediating that conflict is the job of the government through law and ultimately the government should be a mechanism of the people.

 

[FlexGunship]

I'm sure you didn't intend this to be an exhaustive statement so don't take this as a naive criticism but I strongly disagree with this. It's not so simple as freedom in your home, freedom in public is obviously desirable too but there's always a conflict between people's freedoms even if one person is in their home. Mediating that conflict is the job of the government through law and ultimately the government should be a mechanism of the people.

You're right; and I didn't mean it as am exhaustive statement. More as a sweeping generalization of my stance. But there are obvious examples of state and federal government interfering with private and personal matters. Same-sex marriage and private drug use are two in the States.

Furthermore, there wouldn't even be conflicts in many cases. The idea that marijuana use is "bad" stemmed from government action taken in the past. It now has a stigma attached to it. Not because it's manifestly evil, but because of past action taken by the government on behalf of the governed. The great controversy being experienced today is not some requisite; it's ancillary only because of past actions.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

You're right; and I didn't mean it as am exhaustive statement. More as a sweeping generalization of my stance. But there are obvious examples of state and federal government interfering with private and personal matters. Same-sex marriage and private drug use are two in the States.

Furthermore, there wouldn't even be conflicts in many cases. The idea that marijuana use is "bad" stemmed from government action taken in the past. It now has a stigma attached to it. Not because it's manifestly evil, but because of past action taken by the government on behalf of the governed. The great controversy being experienced today is not some requisite; it's ancillary only because of past actions.

I wouldn't say those issues could be solved without government interference though. Considering marriage is something that has to be recognised legally there has to be a law regarding it. Therefore you need a government to come up with the laws.

Simplistically my view on a government is:
It should be a democratic institution that decrees the laws of the nation, manages its public finances to maintain infrastructure and deals as a mouthpiece to other nations. Essentially it is a concierge for a society. The mechanism by which it makes its decisions must be democratic with a good balance of direct and representative democracy, ultimately it must be the talking shop of the nation.

So on issues like smoking weed or same sex marriage the discussion is mainly in the public sphere. It becomes such an important issue socially that it becomes a political issue, there the opinions of the public are outlined with the important details filled in. On the basis of this laws are made. In conclusion: what you do in your own home and private and personal matters are issues of state in so much as if they are important socially they are important politically.