Billionaire funding creation of artificial libertarian islands

[FlexGunship]

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.

See! That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. Why take a stance? It was a mistake made in the past. We give benefits to those who are married in the U.S. for some reason. Why?! Let it be a private decision with private ramifications. Instead, it has been deeply forged in our minds that government must decide who can get married, and when, and if there is a reward or penalty for it.

It's nonsense, frankly.

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.

Okay, I disagree, but in a very specific way. Please stay with me as a struggle to differentiate.

If you allow any socially popular topic to become a political issue (simply because the public believe it impacts them in some form) then there are no limits on what can be considered open for debate. As a result, you must either allow anything for debate, or decide upon rules to use to decide what is debatable and what is not. And who will create those rules but those who have a political interest in their outcome ALREADY!?

At one time homosexuality (in many cultures, not just the U.S.) was considered to be within the purview of the state. Who you chose to share a bed with was a matter of public interest. As a result, it became a political concern (exactly as you've outlined above). If the only metric is "enough people care" then you will have to write laws, and rewrite laws constantly (exactly as we see now).

In contrast, a society which values the freedoms of the individual would be writing laws solely to protect individuals from public involvement where matters of public safety, health, and well-being are not concerned. I'm not gay, but I'd be damned angry if my neighbor could vote my partner out of bed.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

See! That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. Why take a stance? It was a mistake made in the past. We give benefits to those who are married in the U.S. for some reason. Why?! Let it be a private decision with private ramifications. Instead, it has been deeply forged in our minds that government must decide who can get married, and when, and if there is a reward or penalty for it.

It's nonsense, frankly.

Marriage is one example. I too think that there should be many freedoms but there has to be a government to protect those freedoms and to validate them. It is societies fault that there are laws regarding marriage, not the governments.

Okay, I disagree, but in a very specific way. Please stay with me as a struggle to differentiate.

If you allow any socially popular topic to become a political issue (simply because the public believe it impacts them in some form) then there are no limits on what can be considered open for debate. As a result, you must either allow anything for debate, or decide upon rules to use to decide what is debatable and what is not. And who will create those rules but those who have a political interest in their outcome ALREADY!?

At one time homosexuality (in many cultures, not just the U.S.) was considered to be within the purview of the state. Who you chose to share a bed with was a matter of public interest. As a result, it became a political concern (exactly as you've outlined above). If the only metric is "enough people care" then you will have to write laws, and rewrite laws constantly (exactly as we see now).

In contrast, a society which values the freedoms of the individual would be writing laws solely to protect individuals from public involvement where matters of public safety, health, and well-being are not concerned. I'm not gay, but I'd be damned angry if my neighbor could vote my partner out of bed.

This is the tricky part. I would say that everything has to be on the table because it's impractical to have anything else. Having said that there should still be very strict ways of determining an issue i.e. rather than simple referendum of opinion both sides of the issue must be properly presented. For example; all issues must have full formal logic analysis.

Problem is I don't know of any practical way of making a good and inclusive democratic system though recently I have been quite interested in reading about how better software could allow a proper workable E-democracy model.

Regarding laws governing private lives unfortunately there is no defined line between public and private. Ultimately the debate has to be social, trying to restrict what can be said at a political level is a recipe for disaster in my opinion.

 

[FlexGunship]

Problem is I don't know of any practical way of making a good and inclusive democratic system though recently I have been quite interested in reading about how better software could allow a proper workable E-democracy model.

Regarding laws governing private lives unfortunately there is no defined line between public and private. Ultimately the debate has to be social, trying to restrict what can be said at a political level is a recipe for disaster in my opinion.

Well, try this: "Where matters of the social interaction, societal operation, and the freedom of expression by individuals within a society are concerned, the need for a law must be shown by demonstrating that a lack thereof would cause manifest harm to the health or safety of other individuals within the society. Personal opinion, personal or religious revelation, personal distaste, and speculation are not sufficient evidence for this demonstration."

Then the definition of "harm to health and safety" could be open for debate, of course. It's a rough first cut, obviously, but outlines a simple guideline for even considering a law and it has a very libertarian flare.

Lastly, as far as creating a line between public and private: "that which is not observable by the body public under normal circumstances is to be considered private." That is to say: "sex in the bedroom" is private, and "sex on a park bench" is public.

EDIT: I don't want to be cornered into defending the ideas above. I'm just illustrating that it's not IMPOSSIBLE to protect against infringement on personal freedoms while still retaining the ability to legislate.

DOUBLE EDIT: To keep this thread on-topic, I'll add the following: if these islands actually come to fruition, I think the most interesting piece of information will be the "libertarian constitution" that they start with.

 

[Galteeth]

Question: Why does this bother you guys? The people who would theoretically live on these islands would go there of their own free will. They're on islands, not connected to your country. They will have no effect on you whatsoever.

 

[FlexGunship]

Question: Why does this bother you guys? The people who would theoretically live on these islands would go there of their own free will. They're on islands, not connected to your country. They will have no effect on you whatsoever.

Doesn't bother me in the slightest. Originally the thread had a "mocking" tone; as though to say "look at these knuckleheads." Which gave way to a core misunderstanding: some people associate libertarianism with anarchism. Most of the conversation has been about these discrepancies.

I think, in general, most people are okay with the idea.

Perhaps there is an underlying fear that the movers-and-shakers of wealthy nations will leave those nations for the freedoms of a libertarian island nation and in turn ruin the nations they leave.

 

[DoggerDan]

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've lurked this thread, but I'll take a stab at it: If it's a truly libertarian society, the members would be largely self-sufficient in these areas and would pitch in as a community. In other words, those who wanted would be formally trained and would volunteer time, the same as I'll soon be volunteering time at our local fire department.

As far as what color to paint, that'll be left up to individuals to paint whatever portion of the island they bought, unless those who're getting this idea off the ground, er, out of port implement covenants. So far as I know, covenants aren't anti-libertarian. It's usually in the best interests of a group of people to have some restrictions on design to prevent a lone individual who departs from desired features from dragging down the property values.

Libertarianism isn't "everything goes" and "everone for themselves." The concept of mutual social interaction and reliance still exists, a it's healthy.

 

[turbo]

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.

I'll have to see if I can borrow a copy of that book again. I liked it, and probably for the same reasons that you did, though I was following a trend that started with William Gibson back when Science Fiction sections in bookstores were turning into dragon-fests with wizards everywhere. Sick!

 

[FlexGunship]

Libertarianism isn't "everything goes" and "everone for themselves." The concept of mutual social interaction and reliance still exists, a it's healthy.

It seems that it's become synonymous with anarchism in some circles. In a libertarian society there are still laws; in most models the system includes a judicial branch, legislative branch, and executive branch very similarly to the model in most democratic world powers. Power of election and expulsion still lie with the people. The fundamental difference is prioritization of individuals over their government. It's literally a government for the people; not a parent-state for the people.

I'll have to see if I can borrow a copy of that book again. I liked it, and probably for the same reasons that you did, though I was following a trend that started with William Gibson back when Science Fiction sections in bookstores were turning into dragon-fests with wizards everywhere. Sick!

I hope to be L. Bob Rife some day. He's kind of a personal hero. Someday I hope to own an aircraft carrier.

Oh, and who doesn't love the name Hiro Protagonist? At first I wasn't sure if he was a good guy or a bad guy.

 

[mheslep]

Doesn't Hong Kong already qualify as a libertarian island?

 

[FlexGunship]

Doesn't Hong Kong already qualify as a libertarian island?

It is autonomous from mainland China (even has it's own leader), but certainly not libertarian. The fact that it's elections are "closed door" really seals the deal; even when citizens vote, they are unaware of the voting outcome and an electoral panel secretly votes to fill elective roles. Furthermore, it is only now being democratized. I don't think you can have libertarianism without flourishing democracy.

Although, now that I'm reading more about it, it certainly sounds much better than mainland China. The freedoms afforded by their "Basic Law" far exceeds those afforded to other Chinese citizens.

 

[mheslep]

It is autonomous from mainland China (even has it's own leader), but certainly not libertarian. The fact that it's elections are "closed door" really seals the deal; even when citizens vote, they are unaware of the voting outcome and an electoral panel secretly votes to fill elective roles. Furthermore, it is only now being democratized. I don't think you can have libertarianism without flourishing democracy.

Although, now that I'm reading more about it, it certainly sounds much better than mainland China. The freedoms afforded by their "Basic Law" far exceeds those afforded to other Chinese citizens.

I'm referring of course to the economics and business practices of Hong Kong, and to the degree that the government stays out of people lives with respect to both economics and social issues, regardless of what input citizens have or don't have into the govt. process. Even the OP artificial island won't be perfectly libertarian if it is realized, just as one won't find any system of economics and govt perfectly socialistic, perfectly conservative, etc.

 

[FlexGunship]

I'm referring of course to the economics and business practices of Hong Kong, and to the degree that the government stays out of people lives with respect to both economics and social issues, regardless of what input citizens have or don't have into the govt. process. Even the OP artificial island won't be perfectly libertarian if it is realized, just as one won't find any system of economics and govt perfectly socialistic, perfectly conservative, etc.

I concede the point and agree. By your metrics, your argument is sound.

 

[Evo]

Off topic posts deleted. This thread is about building artificial libertarian islands in the ocean.

If you want to discuss New Hampshire, there is now a thread in P&WA.

 

[Proton Soup]

would it be OK to discuss guns on libertarian islands per the OP?

 

[Chi Meson]

Utopias have always worked out well, haven't they?

 

[Evo]

would it be OK to discuss guns on libertarian islands per the OP?

All the OP says on that is

Mr Thiel and his colleagues say their ocean state would have no welfare, looser building codes, no minimum wage, and few restrictions on weapons.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ountry-coast-San-Francisco.html#ixzz1VzPwlY8J

I said guns because that seems to be what libertarians rant about, so my bad.

 

[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.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I like the idea of a man made floating island, lego style. One of its advantages, is that if needed it could be relocated to a more secure or God forbid desirable location. This would be to accommodate weather conditions, civil unrest on the mainland next to this floating paradise. Lastly, if the nearest country had problems with the unruly island tenants, they could simply move it. The more I think about it from a functional perspective, the more I like it.

I prefer not to enter into endless discussion about the perils and benefits and organization of such a society because it devolves into conservative, moderate, liberal and libertarian thinking. We all know how well these three groups get along in US culture, now don't we !

I will say this, if the host country nearest this man made floating island has no major issues (assuming it is in international waters more than 12 miles offshore), I say let them have a go at it and see what happens. I think the outcome cannot be reasonably predicted by anyone contributing to this thread, so let's conduct an experiment, see what happens. One last thing, only private funds should be used to create it.

Rhody...

 

[OmCheeto]

Not to beat a dead horse, but I like the idea of a man made floating island, lego style. One of its advantages, is that if needed it could be relocated to a more secure or God forbid desirable location. This would be to accommodate weather conditions, civil unrest on the mainland next to this floating paradise. Lastly, if the nearest country had problems with the unruly island tenants, they could simply move it. The more I think about it from a functional perspective, the more I like it.

I prefer not to enter into endless discussion about the perils and benefits and organization of such a society because it devolves into conservative, moderate, liberal and libertarian thinking. We all know how well these three groups get along in US culture, now don't we !

I will say this, if the host country nearest this man made floating island has no major issues (assuming it is in international waters more than 12 miles offshore), I say let them have a go at it and see what happens. I think the outcome cannot be reasonably predicted by anyone contributing to this thread, so let's conduct an experiment, see what happens. One last thing, only private funds should be used to create it.

Rhody...

They had a floating island in Snow Crash. How it could actually function made me think about this yesterday. If there's one guy fishing for food, and he catches a fish, how does the island society decide what it's worth? And how would islands of different ideologies handle the situation?

This is how I perceived it:

A socialist island: Take the fish away from the fisherman, throw the fish in a pot and feed everyone.
A democratic island: Pay the guy for the fish, throw the fish in a pot and feed everyone.
A republican island: Only the people who invested in Fishing Inc. get to eat.
A libertarian island: The guy with the most money buys the fish, and eats it.

Of course, I've left out the fisherman, and how he feels about this, being jerked around by the different ideologies. And I suppose it all depends on what kind of human he is, that would determine which island he would choose.

And how old he was. A young person with a fishing pole would probably chose the libertarian island. Once he's collected lots of money, he'd move to the republican island and invest all his money. But if the Fish Market(sorry) went bad, he might want to move to the democratic island, since there's no guarantee of anything on the republican island. And of course, when he got old and senile, he'd want to live on socialist security island.

Anyways, I would like to see them build the artificial libertarian islands. It would be fun to watch.

 

[FlexGunship]

They had a floating island in Snow Crash.

Hah ha, I'm not 100% sure that "The Raft" is a perfect analogue considering it was made by people tying a bunch of boats together as it follows ocean currents around the world.

 

[Evo]

Hah ha, I'm not 100% sure that "The Raft" is a perfect analogue considering it was made by people tying a bunch of boats together as it follows ocean currents around the world.

Actually, that seems to be the plan. And they are thinking of buying boats instead of building platforms.

The long-term plan would be to have dozens and eventually hundreds of the platforms linked together.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ountry-coast-San-Francisco.html#ixzz1W3bczavp

Ahaha, on the official site they say that power will come from deisel fuel generators!

Q: Will seasteads provide their own food/power?

A: Diesel fuel costs are reasonable to operate generators for electrical power.

http://seasteading.org/about-seasteading/frequently-asked-questions#is_it_safe

 

[Chi Meson]

Ahaha, on the official site they say that power will come from deisel fuel generators!

So the guy who imports the diesel, and the guy who can fix a generator will be the richest guys (and/or gals) on the island. Don't piss them off, or they will let you die (economically) by not fixing your own generator.

You simply cannot anticipate the problems that will arise. Everyone is selfish to a degree, and everyone has a sense of fairness, to a degree. These degrees depend on what is perceived around them. It seems most people will overestimate their own worth while underestimating other peoples' values and contributions. Even if they managed to create an "island" where people would actually want to go to, how large a society can it possibly support before some guy gets it in his head that everyone owes him more?

And the stuff flushed from the numerous toilets on the island...a good libertarian society should exile anyone who raises any sort of environmental concern ["our trash all goes in the water, now shut up!"--in the 80s, the Libertarian party actually carved-out an environmental platform, but a more recent quote from a Libertarian is "I can pile my own property knee-deep in plutonium waste if I choose to do so"-- but I digress--what was I saying...?]

The trashman argument was always brought up in discussions of Utopias. With Communism, he is supposed to be paid as much as the surgeon. That didn't work. In Libertarianism, or pure Capitalism, one gets paid as much money as he can get through market economy. I suspect that as soon as the floating project get big enough for 2 trashmen, a family from Rhode Island, with a name like Luciano, will come aboard and show people how to run a business.

I'll bet my house [NR] that this project never gets off the drydock. If it does I give it a few weeks before it becomes nothing more than the new Delaware Corporation mailing address, and a haven for internet gambling and porn.

 

[FlexGunship]

So the guy who imports the diesel, and the guy who can fix a generator will be the richest guys (and/or gals) on the island. Don't piss them off, or they will let you die (economically) by not fixing your own generator.

Meh, if the importer or technician start charging too much or refuse to work, you'd better believe there will be PLENTY of other individuals willing to step in and make that profit instead.

And the stuff flushed from the numerous toilets on the island...a good libertarian society should exile anyone who raises any sort of environmental concern

So you can't be an environmentalist libertarian? Libertarianism is a political ideology, not an environmental one. Furthermore, it's an ideology of freedom of choice; the except same individual preference for saving the environment could only be stronger when you have the freedom to act.

The trashman argument was always brought up in discussions of Utopias. With Communism, he is supposed to be paid as much as the surgeon. That didn't work. In Libertarianism, or pure Capitalism, one gets paid as much money as he can get through market economy. I suspect that as soon as the floating project get big enough for 2 trashmen, a family from Rhode Island, with a name like Luciano, will come aboard and show people how to run a business.

If they can do it cheaper and safer, that sounds like a good idea. The competition will help drive prices down for all residents.

I'll bet my house [NR] that this project never gets off the drydock. If it does I give it a few weeks before it becomes nothing more than the new Delaware Corporation mailing address, and a haven for internet gambling and porn.

Among other freedoms? Or just that?

 

[mheslep]

Why do folks constantly equate libertarianism with anarchy?

 

[FlexGunship]

Why do folks constantly equate libertarianism with anarchy?

I mentioned that earlier; I can't figure out where that misconception came from! It seems to be pervasive though. It has the feeling of the anti-socialism craze that hit the U.S. during the last presidential campaign. I'm waiting for someone to accuse libertarianism of having "death panels" next.

 

[Evo]

If they can do it cheaper and safer, that sounds like a good idea. The competition will help drive prices down for all residents.

LOL, first time I've ever heard anyone say the mafia was good for competition.

Anyway, I came upon this blog which has a piece on Snow Crash, OM I think you'll like this.

http://machines.pomona.edu/55-2008/node/275/

I think it's time I read it again, I lent it to Spawn and never got it back.

 

[FlexGunship]

LOL, first time I've ever heard anyone say the mafia was good for competition.

He said a name like "Luciano." If he's implying that Italians and Sicilians are gangsters, then that's unfortunate. I work with an Italian guy and, while I don't care much for his shoes, he's a good person.

I suspect the actual garbage tycoons on these islands would probably be from Mexico or Latin America since they have proven themselves incredibly hardworking and willing to take jobs readily that others seem not to want to take. I would expect to see the hardest working make the most money on these islands. Modern Andrew Carnegies.

 

[Evo]

Why do folks constantly equate libertarianism with anarchy?

There's a difference?

 

[rhody]

I suspect that as soon as the floating project get big enough for 2 trashmen, a family from Rhode Island, with a name like Luciano, will come aboard and show people how to run a business.

Chi,

I know my home state is not perfect, far from it, but the Luciano's could easily come from Little Italy in New York. Our poor state has enough political corruption, financial trouble and grift now as it is. Can you please give Rhody a break ?

Rhody...

 

[lisab]

Chi,

I know my home state is not perfect, far from it, but the Luciano's could easily come from Little Italy in New York. Our poor state has enough political corruption, financial trouble and grift now as it is. Can you please give Rhody a break ?

Rhody...

I always thought you took your name from the plant, not the state !

 

[rhody]

I always thought you took your name from the plant, not the state !

Or as I have learned as of late from Don, there are Rhody Red CHICKENs as well. ACK !

Lisa,

Plants ? Ghost peppers, I am lost here...

Rhody...