These guys are just like every other group that wants to setup their own society "free" of government. But look closely at their plans. They don't want to get rid of nation states. They just want to setup their own nation states under their own legal structure, one that sees them atop everyone else too poor to build their own floating palace.<p>Ask them their opinions on the big crimes (murder/rape/arson etc). Will they allow me to keep slaves on my seastead? Of course not. May I operate an industrial smelter and dump the waste overboard? May I buys some guns, capture other seasteads and setup my own dictatorship? These people don't want to escape the real laws, just the handful of minor regulations with which they disagree. These are nothing more than rich randians complaining about their tax bracket.
This is one of those concepts that seems to come out of thinking of the law as similar to software. It's not, because software is run by computers while law is run by humans.<p>If you find a straightforward loophole in software, the computer running it will e.g. happily hand you information you're not supposed to have[1]. If you find that kind of loophole in the law, then the humans running it will usually just tell you to go home. They know that you know what they meant.<p>Laws can still have loopholes, but they are generally more subtle and complicated. Fixing them often has obvious unintended consequences. They're more like speculative execution bugs[2] than buffer overruns.<p>[1]- <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartbleed" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartbleed</a><p>[2]- <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectre_(security_vulnerability)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectre_(security_vulnerabilit...</a>
I wanted to actually dig into this, and see if there's anything that's underlying the ideas that are worth really considering but I've got to say, this really turned me off:<p>"When an Island or Peninsula breaks free from a larger country and creates its own legal structure, dramatic increases in prosperity often occur within 1 generation.<p>Under British rule Hong Kong habour was little more than a dockyard for the Royal Navy. Now thanks to modern trade rules and numerous land reclamation projects, the skyline features an abundance of skyscrapers."<p>That's just dishonest. Firstly, Hong Kong was not just a dockyard for the British Navy in 1997, it was already an incredibly rich place, with many skyscrapers and huge amounts of autonomy. Try googling a photo of Hong Kong in 1997. Secondly, it is has not broken free from a larger country, it was returned from the British Empire to Chinese control.<p>"Before World War 2, rickshaws were the primary form of transport in Singapore. Now there is a vast public transport infrastructure, including high speed rail networks and expressways."<p>Okay, what a funky timeline. Before WW2 Singapore was very poor! Along with basically everyone else in that region. It gained independence in 1959, but let's not talk about what happened in between!<p>None of the examples they give seem to offer anything other than "Pro tip: Be a tax haven". Singapore, Mauritius, Hong Kong? Notice what these places have in common? Like Jesus Christ guys could you not find a single example of a country whose independence made it wealthy without being a straight up tax haven for the surrounding larger countries?
Less than two weeks after a 'Seastead' got dismantled and towed away by the Thai navy:<p><a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/thai-navy-dismantles-floating-seastead-home-of-fugitive-bitcoin-couple_2890832.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.theepochtimes.com/thai-navy-dismantles-floating-...</a>
I read the seasteading book, and thought it made a fairly convincing case that seasteads could produce vast amounts of food, biofuel, and carbon sequestration.<p>I do think that setting out to build a "city" is not the way forward. Early experiments in deep-water aquaculture have been very profitable. Expand on that, and settlement will happen organically.
It's a simple and frequent mistake to believe that sovereign autonomy is wholly self-determined, and seasteading is the prime example for this.<p>Sovereign autonomy is not determined by oneself. It is determined by <i>others</i>, specifically by recognizing the sovereignty. Without recognition, it's basically impossible to conduct any type of transaction with the outer world, for lack of jurisdiction.
A cautionary tale on how this is likely to turn out:<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Foundation" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Foundation</a><p>> Part of a reef, normally a metre below sea level at high tide, was piled high with sand and a small stone platform was erected carrying the flag of the Republic of Minerva—a white torch on a blue background. The 'President of Minerva,' Morris Davis, declared at the time: "People will be free to do as they damn well please. Nothing will be illegal so long it does not infringe on the rights of others. If a citizen wishes to open a tavern, set up gambling or make pornographic films, the government will not interfere." Tonga’s claim to the reef was recognized by the South Pacific Forum in September 1972. A Tongan expedition was sent to enforce the claim, arriving on 18 June 1972. The Flag of the Tonga was raised on 19 June 1972 on North Minerva and on South Minerva on 21 June 1972.
There's a certain parallel to "a solution in search of a problem".<p>I haven't thought of a witty way to phrase the problem; "a utopia in search of a social movement", maybe?<p>It's really fun to design your new utopian community: the principles, the laws, the layout of the streets in the city (or the ships, in this case). But this is precisely backwards. You aren't playing SimCity, or SimSeastead. You can't just build (or make blueprints for) your ideal city, then summon a hoard of obedient minion-citizens to build it and inhabit it and behave in the way you have dictated.<p>The social movement has to come first: you need a large group of people, with similar aims and goals, working together, making decisions and plans a group. Then maybe you build a city. Or a commune. Or a co-op. Or who knows; the group may end up with other needs that you didn't anticipate.<p>Hypothetically you could build your community around your utopian vision, but why should they flock to you? All you've got is an idea. I've got some ideas, and so has every other person who might hypothetically be interested in joining your community. Why should I join you on your seastead instead of you joining me in my mountain enclave, or my seastead in a different ocean, or exactly like your seastead started out, except it's my seastead, I make the decisions?<p>Start by building a community, a movement. Or stick to writing fiction and playing the Sims.
"On January 13, 2017 we signed a Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) with French Polynesia [...] agreeing to cooperate on developing legislation for The Floating Island Project by the end of 2017"<p>Is there any more news on this?
Let's ignore the contentious legal aspects and focus on the general idea: Create a floating structure that offers space for living, working or agriculture. Has this been done with areas that are much larger than a typical house boat?<p>What kind of waves/storms can these structures deal with?
The images here are charming, but there's not nearly enough population density in those to make them viable. The images display floating luxury homes complete with a yard.
I read: "Seasteading is building floating societies with significant political autonomy".<p>So when they go outside the jurisdiction (and protection) of a nation-state and their law enforcement, the first question that comes to my mind is: what about piracy?<p>And as a matter of fact, they have a youtube channel "tough questions" talking about that (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PLUZ9bzUGY" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PLUZ9bzUGY</a>) - tldr: it's gonna be private security firms, so it's not gonna be cheap ... and they claim only 2% of world's oceans are even considered piracy waters, but I think that's going to change as soon as there are wealthy communities floating in unprotected waters ...
These clowns have no clue what it takes to live on the sea. None of them have any serious experience in marine engineering, or in operating large ships or offshore platforms. They'll be begging the Coast Guard for rescue when the first big storm comes through.
Sounds very similar to Sealand <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand</a>
Every July in the California Delta near Rio Vista I go to a weeklong festival called Ephemerisle, created 15 years ago to promote interest in seasteading.
It’s full of Burners, SV people, and seasteading investors hanging out on yachts, barges, tugboats, and lots of DIY crafts: DeLorean hovercraft, flame boat with 100kW sound system, etc.
Odd that, unless I missed it, their blog mentions nothing about the Thai Navy destroying a seastead...<p><a href="https://fee.org/articles/the-world-s-first-seasteaders-are-now-on-the-run-for-their-lives/" rel="nofollow">https://fee.org/articles/the-world-s-first-seasteaders-are-n...</a>
Does it seem odd to anyone else that French Polynesia is their testbed for "a floating legal entity designed to maximize personal and economic freedom," given that personal liberty and pursuit of happiness were not at all underlying principles of Tahitian society?
I've always been curious about initiatives like this.<p>What happens if there becomes resource exhaustion and similar problems? How would the safety of the inhabitants be ensured in events like that?
Seems like Peter thiel was tired of not getting libertarians elected in the USA so he went and made his own country.<p>> Obsolete political systems conceived in previous centuries are ill-equipped to unleash the enormous opportunities in twenty-first century innovation.<p>I wonder if woman's suffrage is included in his thoughts on obsolete political systems?<p>> The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of "capitalist democracy" into an oxymoron
Off-Topic:
The site horrible "jitters" when scrolling around, pretty much unreadable/unuseable.
At least for me with Chrome 74 on Fedora. Firefox 67 is fine.