[Jon Dorian]

Many people believe that the only way forward for Libertarianism is to obtain their own country. This is not exactly so. As far as we can tell, there are only two possibilities as follows:

1 - Get our own country (for that, see "Micronations - The Next Frontier Of Freedom" http://www.freedomandpower.ws/index.php/81-entrepreneurship/368-micro-nations-the-next-frontier-of-freedom)

2 - Wait and do nothing (for that, see "When Countries Dissolve" http://www.freedomandpower.ws/index.php/al-lessons/69-lesson-022-when-countries-dissolve)

The first option is certainly possible but at this junction in time it requires a lot of guts, a fair amount of money and the will power to go native. This is not an option for most people. The advantage, however, is that it can be done today.

The second option is the most interesting one. It is a natural process. As countries dissolve they will naturally trend towards Libertarianism and Austrian Economics. We know this because it is happening today. The advantage is that people will naturally follow this trend, the disadvantage is that we can't do anything about it. We can only wait and see.

[Rejn]

You've probably heard of the Free State Project, but just in case I thought I might link it anyway.

The Free State Project is an effort to recruit 20,000 liberty-loving people to move to New Hampshire. We are looking for neighborly, productive, tolerant folks from any and all walks of life, of all ages, creeds, and colors, who agree to the political philosophy expressed in our Statement of Intent, that government exists at most to protect people's rights, and should neither provide for people nor punish them for activities that interfere with no one else.

In a vote that ended in September 2003, FSP participants chose New Hampshire because it has a low state and local tax burden, a low level of dependence on federal spending, a citizen legislature where state house representatives have not raised their $100 per year salary since 1889, low crime levels, a dynamic economy with plenty of jobs and investment, and a general culture of individual responsibility, independence, and self-reliance.

http://freestateproject.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_State_Project

[Eran]

Another relevant idea is Seasteading.

[slybaldguy]

If libertarians really wanted their country they'd have one by now. They are too busy freeloading of nation states.

[Eran]

If libertarians really wanted their country they'd have one by now.

Which one?

They are too busy freeloading of nation states.

Not at all. Libertarians still pay their taxes. And are much more likely to be tax payers rather than tax receivers.

[slybaldguy]

Why don't you chip together and buy a decommisioned naval ship or a cruise liner?

[Eran]

Because such vessels are highly dependant on land facilities, and cannot be self-sustained. The Seastead Institute is seriously exploring more sustainable and economically-viable options for long-term oceanic habitation.

[Decky]

It wouldn't work anyway, if the libertarians operated some lawless zone where the worst atrocities agaist humankind were commited all the time and they sat back and let it happen the the UN would step in and take control of the vote and put the rulling class (oh sorry, privite citizens who "happen" to have more money) on trial.

Then again maybe I'm wrong, you could argue that they already have their libertarian paridise (Somalia) and no ones does anything about that.

[SolarCross]

Because such vessels are highly dependant on land facilities, and cannot be self-sustained. The Seastead Institute is seriously exploring more sustainable and economically-viable options for long-term oceanic habitation.

Its true that they need to go to port, for refueling and periodic maintenance, but being highly mobile means you have literally a world of choice as to which port to go to for that, and while doing so does put you within arms reach of some government or another it doesn't necessarily mean a surrender of sovereignty. Lots of governments are paper tigers really, just slip their goons a little baksheesh and they are your BFF. Self-sustaining doesn't necessarily mean self-sufficient, as long as you can "export" enough value to reliably cover the value you must import, fuel and whatnot, isn't that self-sustaining enough? The trick is to figure out what possible product for trade can one make on a floating platform in international waters?? That problem isn't so different for a converted cruise liner as it would be for a custom built platform. Fishing? Narcotics? Porn? Tourism? Piracy? Smuggling? Gun running?

EDIT ADDITIONAL

I've had a look for cruise ships for sale and they tend to go from $6mil to over $100mil depending on size and luxury. One of the larger ones will take up to 2500 passengers for $118mil which is an average of $47,000 per head. Given a fair amount of the ship will probably need to be converted to some kind of workspace, hydroponics or whatever, one probably would only want to accommodate roughly half that many people, so that would be around $100,000 per head. Not totally unreasonable, like buying a house in the UK.

[Eran]

It wouldn't work anyway, if the libertarians operated some lawless zone where the worst atrocities agaist humankind were commited all the time and they sat back and let it happen the the UN would step in and take control of the vote and put the rulling class (oh sorry, privite citizens who "happen" to have more money) on trial.

It is a good thing no atrocities against humankind will take place on the seasteads (not that the UN has a great record suppressing atrocities against humankind perpetrated by governments around the world).

The most important feature of seasteads is that of voluntary association. Nobody is forced to live on a seastead, and individual residents can "decouple" their homes and float to be associated with a different community.


taxizen,
You make a valid point.

In all likelihood, the first seasteads will actually be retrofitted ships.

Our longer term vision requires larger, less mobile designs. Ultimately boats go places, while seasteads are living spaces. Boats are more suited to a nomadic lifestyle, whereas our designs will hopefully evolve into cities.

Elsewhere, they mention the advantage of a modular design (to which I refer above) - another point in favour of custom-built habitats.

[Heisenberg]

I love the idea that libertarians actually watched Waterworld and thought "Hey, let's do that!". Having said that, I'm all in favour of libertarian ship-countries. They'd be much easier to sink than actual land masses.

[mum]

Would rich militarized countries secretly try and torpedo the seastead and blame it on something related to tax havens and terrorism ?

[Heisenberg]

"Secretly"? "Try"?

The seasteading movement says more to me about libertarianism's self-pitying defeatism than it does about the alleged "evil" of government. Who would willingly exile themselves on a glorified oil rig, in the middle of the ocean, just so they didn't have to pay income tax?

[mum]

"Secretly"? "Try"?

The seasteading movement says more to me about libertarianism's self-pitying defeatism than it does about the alleged "evil" of government. Who would willingly exile themselves on a glorified oil rig, in the middle of the ocean, just so they didn't have to pay income tax?

Yeah mate, you summed it all up in a nutshell, well done.

A seastead would rapidly become a very rich business center, attracting business from all over the world.

[Heisenberg]

What sort of business? If we look at comparable existing countries like the Cayman Islands, it'd basically be financial services. No one would want to go on holiday to a big chunk of metal in the North Sea, so that rules out tourism. A seastead would be useless for shipping, so that's out the window as well. It would have no agriculture, not enough room or resources for manufacturing, and the chances of any existing country ceding fishing rights to it are laughable. It's a ridiculous length to go to just for the sake of hedonism and low taxes. Only the most pathological libertarian would give up having any sort of life for the sake of "economic principle".

[mum]

Then the market will decide that won't it

Financial services for sure, but also letter box companies for just about every other business possible. Internet companies of all descriptions comes to mind as well.

[Nunt]

Maybe some large scale fish farms. It would be nice to have some sustainable fishing for a change.

[SolarCross]

A seastead would rapidly become a very rich business center, attracting business from all over the world.

The cost per sqm will have come down to about the same as that of land based tax haven or free trade zone for that to happen which seems unlikely. The other thing is scale. Even really tiny land based jurisdictions: Singapore, Leichtenstein, Andorra, Vatican City, Tuvulu are effortlessly supermassive compared to foreseeable seasteads. Could a seastead ever match the land area of say Singapore (716 sq km)?

As a bit of history the first libertarianesque seastead (in the sense of using international waters to circumvent legislation) may well be Radio Caroline founded in 1964.

Radio Caroline is a British radio station founded in 1964 by Ronan O'Rahilly to circumvent the record companies' control of popular music broadcasting in the United Kingdom and the BBC's radio broadcasting monopoly.[1] Unlicensed by any government for most of its early life, it was a pirate radio station which only became formally illegal in 1967.

The Radio Caroline name was used to broadcast from international waters, using five different ships owned by three different owners, from 1964 to 1990, and via satellite from 1998 to 2013. Radio Caroline currently broadcasts 24 hours a day via the Internet and by occasional Restricted Service Licence. Radio Caroline broadcasts music from the 1960s to contemporary, with an emphasis on album-oriented rock (AOR). The company also licenses other stations around the world to use the Radio Caroline name.

The other thing that occurs to me is that the only reason that government don't bother much with the sea is that no one really lives there. Governments are people farmers, to the extent there are prosperous people living at sea they will follow after them; their jusisdictions are largely imaginary lines in the sand and imaginary lines can be drawn at sea too. At best seasteading will be a temporary respite. Full escape will have to be in spacesteading but that's a technical challenge orders of magnitude greater than seasteading.

[Godstud]

Leave your country alone. Libertarianism is a utopian nightmare.

[Decky]

Read that again Godstud.