The Ultimate Solution

[Havet]

Hello fellow humans. I come to you to promote rational discussion, so I hope you are rational enough to respect it.

The problems in the world are real. The solutions must be too. Yet we fragment ourselves behind different ideas that seem the best to us. Let there be no mistake: we are all well-intentioned people. I have no doubt good ideas would spread a lot quicker and effectively if everyone applied logic and reason to their thoughts. However, it takes a considerable amount of time and effort to convince everybody of good ideas.

Yet there is an easier way to accomplish this. People tend to believe what they see. If we show them how the society we thought was better then they would naturally adopt it.

However, for this to be done envolves a bigger issue: current governments. I think I can safely assume no one here likes the way things are, otherwise you would't even be here. Current governments worldiwde seem to be heading towards greater tyranny and oppresion. In one word: fascism. The problem of we trying to show a certain type of society works best is that we have to compete with current governments, which have an insane barrier to entry. We would either have to win an election, a war or a revolution, which are costly both in money as in human lives.

Setting out mini-societies inside governmental area, which is the peaceful method that has most been tried, is in my opinion not very effective, because space in land is limited and costly to move through.

The solution to this problem is presented by no other than the grandson of the loved/hated Milton Friedman, Patri Friedman.

"Innovation in society and serving marginalized groups has always happened on the frontier," Friedman said in an interview last week. "We don't have a frontier anymore. The reason our political system doesn't innovate anymore is that there's no place to try out new things. We want to provide that place."
Designing an offshore place to live is one of the first tasks of the Seasteading Instiute, which Friedman, 32, founded last year and moved into shared office space near the Palo Alto Caltrain station two weeks ago. Another task is attempting to legitimize living on the seas as practical--and perhaps, given possibilities for offshore businesses, even profitable"

since i cant give links yet, look in seasteadingdotorg and google seasteading an digg in which you will find an enlighting article about it.

The amount of individual choice that would derive from this initiative would be tremenduous. If you don't like the current society then the cost of both moving and/or creating a new one is gretly reduced comparing to current alternatives.

If this sounds familiar to you, it is no coincidence. This was how early America was. DOn't like your neighbour? then move somewhere else, there's plenty of room for everyone.

There are some obvious quetions to ask (regarding seasteading please visit the "links" provided). The first is whether standarzation of societies would happen.

I think there could only be two ways for this to happen. Either there is a natural tendency for people to adop one kind (likely the best one), or (which begs the second question) they would end up having a loss of competition due to lack of space. regarding natural tendency, this is precisely why i think seasteadinhg is a very good option in the first place, because people will be able to see and choose which societies are best and which aren't.

As for lack of space, even though the cost of creating a new society will be lesser and thus easier, let's assume the problem occurs anyway. It would take several years for all or most part of the oceans to be completely full, like in America. This gives us precious time. For what? For us to develop techonology that would allow us to go to the next level: space.

Let the perfect city Rise!

Thoughts?

[Dejavu]

The solution to this problem is presented by no other than the grandson of the loved/hated Milton Friedman, Patri Friedman.

"Innovation in society and serving marginalized groups has always happened on the frontier," Friedman said in an interview last week. "We don't have a frontier anymore. The reason our political system doesn't innovate anymore is that there's no place to try out new things. We want to provide that place."
Designing an offshore place to live is one of the first tasks of the Seasteading Instiute, which Friedman, 32, founded last year and moved into shared office space near the Palo Alto Caltrain station two weeks ago. Another task is attempting to legitimize living on the seas as practical--and perhaps, given possibilities for offshore businesses, even profitable"This is interesting. My roomate , a market anarchist , is heavily involved with setting up the seasteading website. Its kinda cool knowing someone directly involved with a project like this. In fact this weekend he is attending another conference with the seasteading people. A few months back we attended a seasteading conference at UCLB and we met Patri. Aside from being really short , he was a pretty presentable guy and gave a decent presentation. Needless to say , my roomate was far more intrigued by it than I was. I just don't want to live in the ocean, I much prefer to start changing my community at the local level ( land lover here hahaha). But the seasteading is a cool project and they already recieved a funding donation from the guy who started paypal. There are some really innovative ideas. The reasoning is that no government has direct control over international waters and since every piece of land is controlled by some government ( aside from inner Anarctica), the only place to go is to the sea.
The idea is that people would have these modular platforms that can attach to other platforms. If a society forms at sea, you are free to move to any part of the society you want with your home in tact. Its the idea that wherever you want to go in that society, you're not forced to give up your possesions. I don't even think the anarcho-syndicalists and communists would necessarily reject it. Its not even homesteading land, the some remote location on the ocean which is plenty abundent ( I would argue that land is pretty abundent too but that's a seperate issue). This is something I would consider truly revolutionary and unprecedented.

I don't think its a silver bullet though. I mean the seasteading community , should it ever come into fruition, would face its own monumental problems. Plus, I don't know how many people would really fancy having their house in the middle of the ocean , I know I wouldn't.

[Dejavu]

hayenmill, you should get involved with the SSI, I mean if you really want to. We know the project cooridnator and if you have skype my roomate can provide you with his contact and you can talk to the people directly. Let me know if this is something you're interested in.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think seasteads and other micronations must be willing to band together for mutual protection from outside interference - while the British government more or less tolerated Sealand, a similar enterprise was utterly smashed by the Italian government.

[Salyut]

Pure libertarian fantasy.



As for lack of space, even though the cost of creating a new society will be lesser and thus easier, let's assume the problem occurs anyway. It would take several years for all or most part of the oceans to be completely full, like in America.

Except the oceans are going to be titanic dead zones inside of fifty years so um, what are all these people going to eat?

[Dejavu]

I think seasteads and other micronations must be willing to band together for mutual protection from outside interference - while the British government more or less tolerated Sealand, a similar enterprise was utterly smashed by the Italian government.

Yes I agree. That's one of the big problems facing it. If a seastead community is truly stateless then countries like the U.S. can claim its a terrorist harbor and easily shut it down , even if there was a system of mutual aid defense among the seasteaders. One idea to combat this is buying 'flags of convenience' Ships do it all the time. The SSI also spearheads a project to get 'hospital ships' out there which would anchor several miles away from what is considered 'national waters.' The idea is that it is an alternative source of affordable healthcare for those who can't afford modern medicine. The ships would go all over the world treating people that would otherwise not have access in their own countries. These ships would fly 'flags of convenience'

[Dejavu]

Pure libertarian fantasy.



Except the oceans are going to be titanic dead zones inside of fifty years so um, what are all these people going to eat?

Might be a fantasy. But it would not just appear out of the blue. It would be a graduated process, start small. What would likely happen first is what I mentioned to Noxion about hospital ships and other ships offering services to places where those services are hard to acquire.

The idea of modular farms are not fantasy. Plus , people can set up fisheries and the steads would not be closed to trade. Granted, perhaps in the beginning a lot of the goods imported to seastead would have to come via the black and grey markets since its questionable whether ships flying national flags would actually trade.

[Dejavu]

I would venture to say that nations wouldn't immediately move to shut down a seastead though. I mean they probably would not even care what some nothing people do on some remote location on the earth. As the seastead grows , providing it even gets started , more of these problems will be relevant.

[Dejavu]

Actually the whole things sounds pretty Agorist to me. This is why I think all Agorists should jump 'on board' with this project as to not be hypocrits. I wanna see all of them living at sea! :laugh:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Except the oceans are going to be titanic dead zones inside of fifty years so um, what are all these people going to eat?

If that's true, then we're all screwed. Many land nations depend on sealife as a source of food and commerce.

Also relevant: Megaships (http://orbitalvector.com/Megastructures/Megaships/MEGASHIPS.htm), Artificial Islands (http://orbitalvector.com/Megastructures/Artificial%20Islands/ARTIFICIAL%20ISLANDS.htm), Arcologies (http://orbitalvector.com/Megastructures/Arcologies/Arcologies.htm), Underwater Hotels (http://orbitalvector.com/Aquatic/Underwater%20Hotels/UNDERWATER%20HOTELS.htm), the Sea Orbiter (http://orbitalvector.com/Aquatic/Sea%20Orbiter/SEA%20ORBITER.htm) and Energy Islands (http://orbitalvector.com/Power/Energy%20Islands/ENERGY%20ISLANDS.htm).

I think the main obstacle to establishing a sovereign presence in international waters is the initial capital required, rather than technology, which is simply a matter of time and/or research. Ironically this means that those most able to establish such ventures are governments and large corporations.

I'm in favour of colonising the oceans, although obviously for different reasons than the libertarians. I also think that we should colonise Antarctica as a preliminary exercise in colonising other worlds.


I would venture to say that nations wouldn't immediately move to shut down a seastead though. I mean they probably would not even care what some nothing people do on some remote location on the earth.

What makes you so sure? Borgeouis governments can be a paranoid and cagey lot.

[Havet]

I think the main obstacle to establishing a sovereign presence in international waters is the initial capital required, rather than technology, which is simply a matter of time and/or research. Ironically this means that those most able to establish such ventures are governments and large corporations.

That's exactly why the idea attracted me in the first place, because it wasn't as expensive as, say, a rapture city clone (underwater city). You'd be amazed at the technology behind those modular cities. They're pretty much modern oil platforms.


I'm in favour of colonising the oceans, although obviously for different reasons than the libertarians. I also think that we should colonise Antarctica as a preliminary exercise in colonising other worlds.

well, i decided to show this precisely because it doesn't concern any ideology in particular (thus NOT libertarian fantasy), but because it shows a potential better way for people to show how their political ideas can work instead of just theorizing about it and arguing over past examples (critique to all ideologies)

[Havet]

hayenmill, you should get involved with the SSI, I mean if you really want to. We know the project cooridnator and if you have skype my roomate can provide you with his contact and you can talk to the people directly. Let me know if this is something you're interested in.

Sure, i'd like to help in whatever I could. Unfortunately i don't have any skype, only email and messenger. Thanks for letting me know though.

Btw, what kind of society would you like to try if you lost your "land love" someday?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That's exactly why the idea attracted me in the first place, because it wasn't as expensive as, say, a rapture city clone (underwater city). You'd be amazed at the technology behind those modular cities. They're pretty much modern oil platforms.

Still, it takes an oil company (who are hardly short on cash, needless to say) to build an oil platform, plus they have an immediate proven incentive to build such things.

I'd love it if such an independant sovereignty (sp?) was built, even if it was done by libertarians since it would still tell us much about what it takes to colonise ocean surfaces.


well, i decided to show this precisely because it doesn't concern any ideology in particular (thus NOT libertarian fantasy), but because it shows a potential better way for people to show how their political ideas can work instead of just theorizing about it and arguing over past examples (critique to all ideologies)Indeed, a true independency started "from scratch" would provide an acid test of the ideologies of the builders, whatever they are.

[Dejavu]

Sure, i'd like to help in whatever I could. Unfortunately i don't have any skype, only email and messenger. Thanks for letting me know though.

Btw, what kind of society would you like to try if you lost your "land love" someday?

Well, I suppose we can keep tabs on RL. Do you have any particular skills? Maybe in software? Engineering? anything?

Well I sort of like the 'pananarchism' approach. For me personally, I would like a free enterprise based community with general rules , ethical enforcement mechanisms, community regulation , and some mutual aid. I would move to a steading community that shared those values. However, I would not claim that all steadings must follow my ideal. I'll just move my moduale where I see fit , others can do the same with theirs , perhaps to seastead commune , syndicate , whatever.

[Dejavu]

Still, it takes an oil company (who are hardly short on cash, needless to say) to build an oil platform, plus they have an immediate proven incentive to build such things.

I'd love it if such an independant sovereignty (sp?) was built, even if it was done by libertarians since it would still tell us much about what it takes to colonise ocean surfaces.

Indeed, a true independency started "from scratch" would provide an acid test of the ideologies of the builders, whatever they are.

If I could give you a rep point and a thank for the post , I would. :thumbup:

[Havet]

Well, I suppose we can keep tabs on RL. Do you have any particular skills? Maybe in software? Engineering? anything? I can speak english, portuguese and spanish. I have elementary software skills and engineering skills. I suppose I could learn whatever they wanted, but I have limited time trying to self-employ myself and attending university.


Well I sort of like the 'pananarchism' approach. For me personally, I would like a free enterprise based community with general rules , ethical enforcement mechanisms, community regulation , and some mutual aid. I would move to a steading community that shared those values. However, I would not claim that all steadings must follow my ideal. I'll just move my moduale where I see fit , others can do the same with theirs , perhaps to seastead commune , syndicate , whatever.

Great idea :)

[Dr Mindbender]

Hello fellow humans. I come to you to promote rational discussion, so I hope you are rational enough to respect it.

The problems in the world are real. The solutions must be too. Yet we fragment ourselves behind different ideas that seem the best to us. Let there be no mistake: we are all well-intentioned people. I have no doubt good ideas would spread a lot quicker and effectively if everyone applied logic and reason to their thoughts. However, it takes a considerable amount of time and effort to convince everybody of good ideas.

Yet there is an easier way to accomplish this. People tend to believe what they see. If we show them how the society we thought was better then they would naturally adopt it.

However, for this to be done envolves a bigger issue: current governments. I think I can safely assume no one here likes the way things are, otherwise you would't even be here. Current governments worldiwde seem to be heading towards greater tyranny and oppresion. In one word: fascism.

No.

Tyranny and fascism aren't mutually exclusive. To me at least, the american and israeli governments are tyrannical but they're certainly not fascist.

[Havet]

Tyranny and fascism aren't mutually exclusive. To me at least, the american and israeli governments are tyrannical but they're certainly not fascist.well, in fascism you have greater tyranny, although a government could be tyrannical and not fascist. It all depends on the definition of fascism.

"Fascism is a radical, authoritarian, corporatist and nationalist political ideology."

"An extreme-right totalitarian political regime ideologically based on centralized government, violently repressing any criticism or opposition of the regime, leader cult and exalting nation-state and/or religion above individual rights"

the following are the ones that i find most interesting

"As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer."

"Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic
processes through direct state operation of the means of production,
fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of
nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property
explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use
their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic
authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated
by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations
outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while
planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and
prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and
wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the
marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather
than consumers, determined what was produced and under what
conditions."

[Havet]

c'mon people, more thoughts on this