Seasteading: Libertarians Set to Launch a (Wet) Dream of 'Freedom' in International Waters

Brad Reed claims to value the contributions libertarians make to political discourse, but undermines the claim with a dismissive tone. Saying "people who believe X undermine themselves when they fail to accept that they're doomed to be a frustrated minority" is not really compatible with taking such people seriously.

It's also a little strange to call libertarians "bipartisan", which is a word whose common use in place of "nonpartisan" shows the depth of the effects of the two-party system on political thinking. This narrowing of debate to two poles is only one of the many causes for disillusionment with State-centric democracy.

I don't say this to specifically support this seasteading idea, which has practical problems just as mentioned. I do accept the libertarian claim that restrictions on state power which were put in place in the West at great cost in the late Enlightenment period have been reversing themselves in recent decades.

The Welfare State is the usual culprit for right-leaning libertarians, as the Military-Industrial complex is for the left-leaning. In either case, the basic dynamic is that some group of people wants something (programs promoting social welfare; national defense; the world's most expensive prison system), and decides that the only/best/easiest way to get it is to have the State provide it. As it gets larger, it becomes more and more natural to use the State to solve further problems, and so on. People start to see checks and balances restraining State power as attacks on the ends they want to use it for. Even when some programs are cut, it's usually in favor of different programs backed by a different sector of the ruling classes (which, in a functioning democracy, means different parts of the middle class).

So the typical dynamic is for States to expand, acquire more and more functions, and to resist attempts to control them. This is not a partisan issue - it's a structural issue. The administrations of both Bush and Obama, for example, support(ed) the view that the State can spy on citizens without consequences, or detain people indefinitely on the basis of evidence that wouldn't hold up to due process.

I see no obvious reason to think that some other politician will come along and reverse this process - it was underway for a long time, and accelerated from about WWII onward. The same dynamic shows up for as long as States have existed - they grow and centralize power until they become brittle, then collapse completely or partially. Then repeat.

There are some recent opposing trends - globalization of the economy and the global financial crisis means that a lot of this process is now happening with international institutions like the IMF, World Bank, etc. where a State in the usual sense hasn't formed yet (and doesn't seem imminent). This weakens national independence, and therefore States, but doesn't restore checks, balances, or democratic participation in decision-making. It does lead to investing more, and less accountable, power in institutions.

So what do libertarians (including non-rich ones) have to complain about? For one thing, the fact that their ability to influence the political side of their lives is being reduced, even the growth of the State is bringing more and more aspects of life into that side.

Utopian thinking may be impractical, but it provides a foil for thinking about these problems. Valuing this contribution to discourse means more than poking pragmatic holes in a particular scheme - it means addressing the ideas that motivate it. I for one haven't seen much of this from "progressives" (or whatever the term of the week is now), who regard the State as a given, without seriously asking whether it's the right means to their chosen end.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think there are a lot of malcontents who don't want to fight for change in this country...They don't want to work within accepted legal means...

And so they want to LEAVE and start their own country.

But WHERE can they go?

THE NEW WORLD ORDER HAS INFILTRATED EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!

SO now they are soliciting money from the gullible, the malcontent, the nonconformist and those who have read history and know how this works...

I read once about a "Back to Africa" Act where some African American con artist began to solicit money from African Americans all over the country to start their own country for expatriated African Americans somewhere in Africa and, instead, used the money for his own luxuries including some rather ludicrous uniforms visible in the old photographs.

In previous posts, I have asked the rhetorical question: If the New World Order takes over our country and enslaves and starts to genocide the population, WHERE WOULD WE GO?

I guess this was an attempt to answer my question ... with a SCAM...

Haven't they heard about Operation HARP which is climate control capabilities? What makes these guys think that they wouldn't be all bunched together and then an artificial tsunami --like an artificial flu virus can be created -- that would DESTROY ALL VOICE OF DISSENT AND REBELLION!

How stupid is this?

I am not sure there is ANYPLACE you can go where you can get away from the NEW WORLD ORDER people IF they succeed in taking over our country and it looks like they have a good start...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This idea has been around for years. I remember a project called Defiance Island 9 or 10 years ago that was practically a done deal, they just needed a few more forward thinking people to sign up!! and of course it never amounted to anything.

It's an unworkable scheme (like the space hotel made out of shuttle fuel tanks, set to go up within 5 years of whenever the inventor talks about it...since 1997) that appeals to people with more money than brains, put forth by would-be used-car salesmen who sit back and collect "consulting fees" for doing nothing while blustering about the guvmint takin' their hard-earned money.

But as long as it keeps at least some libertarians occupied, it's fine by me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Libertarians are by definition "fringe." America was once the destination of choice for such folks, the proverbial huddled messes yearning to be free.(Many of us are their descendants.) They founded dysfunctional utopias, as in Oneida, NY, and became living proof of the adage that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. ... Now that America is no longer the land of the Free or the home of the Brave, where are they supposed to go? The Moon? Let 'em float off into the sunset. They are doomed, of course, but aren't we all?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In the Pacific Ocean there's an area called the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch", an area twice the size of Texas that's filled with mostly plastic debris. It's ready made for these people and will save them thousands on construction costs. They should feel right at home.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

... it would quickly become, in addition to a drug haven, a floating brothel... and I would be surprised if child prostitution didn't flourish as well.

I don't say this because I believe lawlessness would itself breed such debauchery, but because of the emphasis on catering to the desires of those from societies like that of America and Europe, which clearly and unquestionably funds the majority of drug and sex tourism in the world today.

I should point out that my problem with libertarianism is that it still insists on the existence of the state and does nothing to balance the power of the corporate structure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We do not live in a f**kin' Democracy!!! Our Founders did not create a Democracy, which is basically, by the old and true definition, a government in which 49% of the people control the other 51%

Our Founders created a Republic: (as defined by Oxford'd Mordern Dictionary: "A state in which supreme power is held by the people or their elected represenatives and/or President.
We live--or are supposed to live--under a constitutional Republic. Yes, we do use a democratic process to elect our represenatives, but that does not make us a Democracy. Of course, now the definition of "Democracy" has changed, and so it wouldn't be inproper to call it a constitutional Democracy; even more proper would be a democratic constituional Republic. But a Republic is the form of government that was intended by our Founders--not a Democracy, where 51% of the people can usurp the rights of the other 49%, but a Republic, in which one is born with certain inalienable rights guaranteed under our Constitution.

Of course, today, we live in none of these forms of government. rather, they have taken the very worst aspects of capitalism and Communism and combined them together under a government in the form of corporatism.

What is corporatism? Well, the fascist Italian dictator and friend of Hitler's, Mussolini once said, "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism, for it is the perfect merger of corporate and State power.

Today, our government is nearly completely corrupted, and owned by Wall Street, Central (as in the FED) and international bankers. Below them stands the Military Industrial Complex, and below that the medical Industrial Complex. America's #1 export is weapons. The bankers finance BOTH sides (yes, they even financed the Nazis; in fact, Prescott Bush, GWB's grandfather, sold steel to the nazis during WW2, and Rockefeller sold them a needed fuel additive. The bankers make the winner pay any debts of the losers that they can't pay themselves. In turn, the bankers will finance the one they want to win slightly less, dependent on its powers, but long enough to keep them fighting for as long as possible;through 9/11, which allowed them to create the "war on terror," they have achieved their perfect dream: an unwinable war on a tactic. A War on the ideals of anyone that opposes American dominance of the world, or what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians, which is pretty much the same type of horror the Nazis visited upon them. It is war without end, which will benefit this handful of bankers, weapon designers, the medical/pharmaceutical complex (because of all the inhuries and pills needed for soldiers)while leaving the rest of the country in utter poverty, until finally the bankers have destroyed our dollar completely, when they will push us to form another Union, possibly the N.A.U. between the 3 countries here in North America. These bankers ultimate dream is a one-world government with them in charge. First, they are getting nations into huge blocks--the EU, the NAU, the Asian Union, etc and then bring them all together. This is not conspiracy theory but based upon david Rockefeler's own wors in a speech he gave as head of the C.F.R. in June of 1991. It is through the power to create money that these FED bankers, and their associates on Wall Street, maintain complete control over "our" officials, who need millions to get re-elected, or so they believe. Actually, they could save much of that money by representing we the people instead of these special interests. But we desperately need campaign finance reform.

I'm out of space and will continue in another post.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Federal Reserve is more in charge of our government that vice-versa. The lender is always superior to the borrower, and now, becuase of the 1913 federal Reserve Act, the government has to pay the FED interest to print our money, which they could print the money themselves--and are required to under our Constitution--interest free! Also, our Constitution demands that our money be only issued in gold or silver, or backed by such. Today, our money is backed by absolutely no capital, because they need to print more than they ever could if it were tied to gold or silver. This is what causes inflation. The more one has of something--including unbacked dollars, the less it is worth. By printing money completely out of proportion to our GDP, the FED continually devalues our dollar, which causes prices to appear to rise. In truth, prices are not rising due to what we learned in school about aupply and demand--that's another form of inflation that's less common and far less harmful. The type of inflation I'm talking about makes prices appear to rise because they are devaluing the purchasing power of the dollar. So, if a dollar declines, it takes more of them to buy the same product or service. Our dollar is only worth about 70% what the Euro is today.
Since the inception of the FED, they have devalued our dollar by 95%. This is why it used to cost a nickel for a chocolate bar, and now costs aprox a dollar, more or less. Chocolate has become much cheaper to make, as it's made on a massive scale now. If our dollar were grounded by gold or silver, and they didn't still over-print money, our dollar should grow in value. Also, when the FED gives out these huge loans, in the billions or trillions, the people who first receive the money get it at its full value, as the market is unaware of its existence. If they trade these dollars in for gold quickly, or spend them quickly in any way, they are robbing us of the soon to be devalued wealth of our dollar. This is a little difficult for some to understand, but think on it, and it should become apparent. When they spend this huge loan, prices have not yet been raised because of the devaluation that will take place just as soon as the money enters circulation, and the 'market' realizes there's suddenly a lot more money chasing the same amount of goods and services. This is just another way these "banksters" rob us of our wealth, and keep moving wealth moving upwards to the rich.

Please understand, when I say most Americans are idiots, it doesn't mean I don't care for them, or think they're stupid. Idiot refers to being ignorant, which just means they are unaware. It is, sadly enough, true: most Americans are more involved with imaginary TV characters and the real life celebrities that play them than they are about Peak Oil, Over-population, our completely corrupt monetary and credit policies, Global Climate Disruption, the massive injustices being allowed to take place here in America and all over the world, the emerging police state, our disappearing Civil Liberties, or the two pre-emptive, unconstitutional, illegal wars we are waging in Iraq and Afganistan. Most Americans can't even name the 3 branches of our government.
I understand the cynicism; every once in awhile, I strongly consider just unsubscribing from the ACLU, Amnesty Int,, WSPA, etc. and just concentrating on my own spirtual/neurological growth, and ignoring it all. Because no one listens anyway.

But this is excactly what they want. As long as people become too cynical to vote or even become involved in politics, they continue to win by default. Remember: all it takes for evil men/women to succeed is for good men/women to do nothing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is a large-ish (for libertarians, anyway) movement to settle in NH over the course of the next decade or so, as it represents an arguably good setting where state law could be influenced by a few tens of thousands of new voting residents*, instead of places like Texas, Florida, California, and New York, which are more or less fortresses dedicated to the vehement defense of the Status Quo. That, I reckon, would rate as a much scarier--and realistic--bugaboo than the author's flotilla conspiracy. But it wasn't as fun or ridiculous, so I get why Alternet had to tart things up a bit--same reason that tabloids are able to sell stories about how "celebrity X" looks in a swimsuit.

Bah, nevermind. I don't want to scare anyone with the idea of a government that would not squander our nation's blood and treasure, nor listen to our phone conversations or intrude with its opinion on the sanctioning of marriage based on which naughty bits you and your partner happen to sport.

Look, it's a new Fat Roll on Oprah's boyfriend's pet labrador!!! On a flotilla!!!

*as opposed to those who simply don't give a damn

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Friedman said that seasteading was his personal solution to this problem because, "expensive though ocean platforms are, they are still cheap compared to winning a war, an election, or a revolution." Additionally, Friedman pointed out that "the unique nature of the fluid ocean surface means that cities can be built in a modular fashion where entire buildings can be detached and floated away."

Western-style democracy only works when there is infinite room to expand, so that one can run away from an intolerable situation.

What happens when there is no more roomm to run?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If they ever get it together to actually build a sea platform-community, a la Stargate Atlantis, knowing how most American libertarians are general members of the managerial/coordinator class there will be too many chiefs and not enough Indians.

Assuming that these rugged-individualists can even agree upon some spot in the ocean at least 200 miles from the nearest shoreline, how many will want to carry out the garbage when the time comes? Since many American libertarians have a better than average education and are employed in high profile, high income jobs here in collectivistland, who among them would really enjoy swabbing toilets on a daily basis? I mean, after all here in collectivistland that's why your average libertarian-coordinator hires illegal immigrants in the first place, isn't it?

After these seagoing libertarians work out who will scrub the biffy and who won't comes the problem of governance. Will their Randian paradise be a democracy or a tyranny? I'm sure these self-styled philosopher kings and queens believe they can fashion some sort of cooperative, non-coercive form of non-government, perhaps something a kin to a cyber-age Amazonian tribe. But anthropology tells us that these sorts of arrangements only work well in reproducing populations limited to about 30 people, any more and governing gets more complicated.

In my limited experience with real-life libertarians, it seems to me the one constant is that they all have enormous egos. So saying that 200 to a thousand of these critters could even agree on sea platform-community, I imagine that non-coercive, cooperation would last about six months or so then devolve into either totalitarianism or anarchy. Either way the project would soon slip under the waves like Plato's mythical Atlantis.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Never mind the political and economical motives. Look at it as a scientific, architectural and engineering project the end-product of which would not be any different from conventional islands the populations of which have already solved practical issues such as waste management, energy needs, food and fresh water needs, etc., except that it would be floating thus capable of changing its location. It could be tourist attraction if the choice of its position was in climates desirable for enough customers. This project could be the terrestrial equivalent of the space station housing research facilities.

On a less serious note, consider the forward looking aspect of this project. One such floating island could be positioned in the Nordic Ocean for those who believe in Al Gore’s predictions. Also, as the leading experts further escalated their prediction on rising sea levels to the point that Mount Everest would be submerged, this new technology could serve as the modern Noah’s ark on a planet otherwise uninhabitable due to runaway global warming.

No matter how I look at this idea, both the serious as well as the funny aspects of it are worth considering.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yeah on the surface it might seem like a cool idea to 'live at sea' ala water world.

But there's one serious problem with that idea: The Sea

Do we not remember this?: Katrina and You

Despite Republican claims, Katrina -destroyed- a dozen oil platforms and spilled over 9 million gallons of oil. Some of those oil platforms were never found again.

Can you imagine what something like that would do to your floating city? You'd go from stalwart libertarianism to "OMG WE NEED RESCUEZ PLS HLP" in one hurricane season. It wouldn't even have to be a Katrina sized storm. There's a reason why boat captains generally aren't stupid enough to stay out on the ocean during a weather even like that. Because it's freaking dangerous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All the societies we know of which have both agriculture and metallurgy also produce the state. If, as seems likely, states arise spontaneously from human action but not through human design, then libertarianism defies human nature and the effort to construct libertarian societies with minimal or nonexistent states will consistently fail.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Indeed, Thiel thinks democracy in the United States has been a dead end since the 1920s, when "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."

Yeah, if you don't like the given human race with all its weak members who need some level of zoo keeping to stay out of trouble, and if you especially don't like that troublesome majority born with two X chromosomes, then build your own island utopia and create another human race more in line with your standards to populate it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As entertaining as the libertarins are, i would remind them and others that the age old idea of creating safety for opposing ideas through physical isolation invites challenge. It is far easier to remove ones mental and emotional attachment from the erroneous idea that freedom is about the control of physical space than it is to attempt to protect that physical space. real freedom of ideas and lifestyle can be realized here and now when we give up the fearful grip of the ego. The history of the world reveals little if any progress on this front. There can be no unity in this world based on libertarians, republicans,democrats, independents,etc. because all of these ideas invite challenge and defense. The above is true even more today, considering the fact that there is no new "solid" physical space to start a new trembling society that is based on treading water, while deep down it knows drowning is as close as the next storm.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm a center-left libertarian situated philosophically between John Stossel and Bill Maher.

This whacko fringe of libertarians should encourage the paleoconservatives who took over the Libertarian Party USA last year to move with them out to sea and stay there. Until they do, we principled but pragmatic libertarians will have nothing to do with the party anymore. A lot of us are now registered as non-partisan voters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A good place for them would be the "Pacific Vortex", a place where a giantic volume of plastic trash from around the world acculumates. They could perform a valuable service by re-cycling that trash and making an island of it for their habitation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

People whose behavior is at the extremes are often a fantastic source of humor. Case in point! This article is extremely well-written, and I am grateful for bringing this to our attention.

Years of distrust in our government and elected politicians can give me a deep understanding of what underlies these peoples' discontent and actions. This article reminded me of Marshall Savage's Millennial Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Universe_Foundation), which in contrast is a brilliant, thorough, and well-planned series of stages designed to get Humanity to colonize the planets. The first stage, Aquarius, sounds like the fringe Libertarians because it involves self-sufficient manufactured floating island cities. If this idea even tugs faintly at your sense of wishfulness, take a gander at Savage's book. It is a really great read.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and take Texas, and, New Hampshire, with you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That about sums it up, LOL.

Reminds me of the Scientologists Sea Org (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_org). The ocean can be a good place to avoid reality, and taxes, so this could be a good money raising scheme.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think someone has been watching too much of a certain very promising but poorly executed film.

Libs seem to me the ilk that end up in the self-fellating cults called "smokers" in the Waterworld universe. So, okay, I guess they were big fans of the film and Dennis Hopper's character. We should help them out and let 'em give it a try. And film it.. the ultimate reality TV show... bwhahahaha

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'd rather have libertarians out at sea pollluting the ocean than screwing up America by posing as Democrats and Republicans.

In case you didn't know, libertarians all over the country like to run for office as Democrats and Republicans. Ron Paul of Texas is the most famous example.

If I found out that Democrats all over the country were pretending to be in some other party to win elections, I'd quit the party.

And yet libertarians have no problem with the fact that their candidates routinely lie to get into office. It suggests a distinct deficiency in ethical development.

Of course, libertarians pose as Democrats and Republicans because they could never get elected to anything if they ran as libertarians. We all know this.

But it doesn't excuse the face that libertarians routinely use deception to get into power.

This strongly suggests libertarians are not to be trusted. It vexes me that we'll have to send rescue teams to their offshore colonies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've been tracking this idea for over a year as it surfaces in this or that on-line web site. I'm glad to see it pop up on Alternet.

Technologically, the entire idea looks weak to me. Simply surviving storms with very limited mobility is going to be a real challenge (and expensive). Sea state homes will definitely be for the very rich, if they can be produced at all.

For this reason, the average libertarian must be looking at the idea as fundamentally irrelevant. Granting liberty only to the very rich is a feudalistic goal, not a libertarian one. (Though it's true enough that feudalists, never very numerous and in modern times subject to political ostracism, have taken to hiding their ambitions under a libertarian banner.)

But that doesn't mean the very rich or organized crime syndicates might not be interested in the sea states idea, if it truly can deliver business and residential zones unhampered by law or morality. (That's a big "if." I'll return to this point in a moment.)

Banks established on a sea state could, perhaps, offer more secure anonymity than Switzerland, Austria, or the Caymans, all nations which can sometimes be compelled to reveal information about depositors and their transactions. Secure anonymity is of interest not only to drug dealers but to anyone wishing to avoid national taxation or obscure illegal sources of money through laundering.

Today, much of the shipping industry operates under Liberian flags to escape taxation and regulation. Sea states could perhaps steal some of that business by offering even less interference in shipping operations.

High-end gambling, in theory, could be a profit center for a sea state. There would be plenty of competition from much more accessible national gambling institutions, however.

But I think the primary attraction of sea-states is likely to be avoidance of moral restraints. Think about wealthy people who want to own slaves, or molest children, or enter into multiple marriages, or watch and gamble on blood sports. de Sade's conception of "libertine" is nothing more elaborate than a "libertarian" who refuses to accept moral restraints, you will recall.

I don't expect drug addicts to find a hassle-free place for themselves on sea states. Except perhaps for a few high-end prostitutes, addicts aren't going to command enough wealth to find liberty there. More likely, addicts will find themselves exploited, with none of the constraints nations attempt to place on that exploitation.

The whole sea state idea is doomed to failure, of course. The US Navy can, and will, under international law, interefere with criminal activity on the high seas. So will the US Coast Guard. So will the navies of other nations. This is a point which is generally overlooked by hopeful advocates of sea states who have not done their homework on international law.

The truth is that sea states will be frightfully expensive to establish and maintain. They will be small. And when the Navy comes a-calling, there will be no place to run.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I appreciate a lot of things about the libertarian perspective. However, many libertarians are extreme in their underappreciation for how much our survival relies on viable, rich eco-systems. Due to over-fishing, they can't live off what they catch in the sea. They'll find it difficult to eek out a life without the life-giving gifts of the land. And that's without considering the psychological benefits of the richness of the land.

Despite this, they might still prove something to us about the possibilities unleashed without so much government. If it turns out to be a floating red-light district, that might work out well for everyone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I know you were being sarcastic about the "iron fist of democracy." But perhaps you said more than you meant to. Considering how the "iron fist of democracy" just bashed gay couples in the teeth maybe the libertarians know more than you think. The California Supreme Court just ruled that majorities can strip minorities of rights, even rights the Court previously ruled they hand. That sounds pretty iron fisted to me. But then perhaps your marriage rights weren't harmed so you don't care.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Flipping through the FAQ and the extended FAQ on the Seasteading Institute's website, there was not one word on how to supply a seastead with food and water.

They spent a lot of time comparing themselves to cruise ships without seeming to be at all aware about the quantities of food, water, and other supplies a cruise ship must carry to keep the passengers happy.

So they apparently are going to import all their food and most of their water.

You want to take over a seastead? Who needs pirates? A good old-fashioned siege will do it for you!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

condos and apartment buildings, airports and theme parks?

Will there be high school proms?

Will they create their own curency and what country would accept it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Whatever you think of libertarians or utopian dreams, I thought this article was funny, user-friendly, and thoughtful. I hope to see more like it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A private island cost what $10 million dollars. To me the things they are proposing look a lot like oil rigs. Well, oil rigs cost millions more than even small islands and are a lot smaller than most private islands.

I guess I'm rooting for them to pull off some engineering genius on a grand scale. Maybe I'll even pass on a few suggestions being somewhat of a fan of invention.

But the reality of it is that maybe they are better off just managing to buy a small plot of land from a country willing to sell it to them. The USA obtained quite a lot of their land through purchases, so I don't see why these idealists couldn't.

Its nice and refreshing to see Alternet put serious journalism into a "crazy idea" so they have my congratulations. These people are not lunatics they simply are dreamers and I think that is a good thing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A couple of writers here "smell bullshit" when I related having gone to live in the woods, first during high school, then a second time after IRS destroy my business, my marriage, and drove one of my children to suicide. Like Thoreau, I sought a place out of reach of the zoo being run from the monkey cage, as H.L. Mencken described democracy.

For me, "the zoo" was more like street warfare, the kind Ayn Rand described:
You do not care to compete in terms of intelligence – you compete in terms of brutality... Your system is a legal civil war, where men gang up on one another and struggle for possession of the law, which they use as a club over rivals, till another gang wrests it from their clutch and clubs them with it in their turn...

Who the hell needs it? Certainly not those like me. Society has never been anything but a burden, a colossal one. People like me have never needed societies damned police forces and their cynical "serve and protect" propaganda - in fact, a protection racket that has never been anything but an annoyance.

My country, in the guise of its whoring government, the nation whom I served for twenty three years, stabbed me in the back. It took everything I had earned in bringing myself up from abject poverty to riches and gave it to its sick, lame, and lazy, people whom I didn't owe a damned thing.

Who can blame the stag who would rid himself of flies, or the shark who would rid himself of his remoras? As I said here elsewhere a while ago, I hope that when this dying totalitarian Frankenstein monster breathes its last, it is choking on the flag it has so dishonored.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You brush aside libertarian concerns about the FDA, but have you seriously examined any evidence that there may be a problem? One example is the issue of access by patients with life-threatening illnesses to drugs that have not yet been approved by the FDA:

Washington Legal Foundation
Abigail Alliance

From the latter site: "Every drug for cancer and other serious life-threatening illnesses that the Abigail Alliance has pushed for earlier access to in our eight year history is now approved by the FDA! There is not one drug that we pushed for earlier access to that did not make it through the clinical trial process. Many lives could have been saved or extended, if there had been earlier access to these drugs!"

A less serious example is Cheerios: the FDA recently accused General Mills of selling Cheerios as an unapproved new drug. Might this be over-regulation, at least a little bit?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I can understand your journalistic imperative for sensationalistic connections so as to attract readers, but it is unfortunate that you connected a plethora of fringe, lunatic groups to the entirely legitimate idea of an ocean-based country, an idea which has been around for at least a decade.

You seek to dismiss a legitimate concept by weighing it down with unwarranted connections. Are the same individuals who are birthers also involved in this project? Are you smearing people with legitimate ideas?

An ocean-based country or two may well be in our future. Wave-based energy could supply them with the energy they need as well as enough to "export" to land-based countries. They could also develop fisheries. They do not have to engage in activities that are illegal elsewhere. Where better to locate a university devoted to oceanography? Where else to study marine fishing? There are numerous legitimate and legal activities that they could engage in to make their living.

As far as being a center for activities that are prohibited elsewhere, this would not be a wise idea. How else could a land-based country get rid of a whole "army" of drug freaks and other crazies at one fell swoop than a well-placed megaton bomb dropped in the middle of a thunderous cyclone?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

is where Stephen Colbert suggested might be a good place for Rander's to settle. John Stossel can lead the way. Bye bye John and don't let the door hit you in the ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If there are Evangelicals who are getting tolerant, they're not posting on townhall.com. Today I was on a thread that touched on In-Vitro Fertilization and got into it with a lady who posted, (verbatim quote) "God simply cannot bless children that begin life with the act of masturbation." She goes on to call IVF "evil" (presumably for the reason she stated?) and says that "sometimes not being able to have children is our cross to bear". I asked her how God feels about babies conceived on a drunken one-night-stand or by rape or incest. I never realized God had such strict rules. She makes him sound like a townhall poster. I think he needs a new publicist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I wonder how these libertarian seasteads would handle fugitives from justice. Libertarians raise their hands in horror at the fact that "men with guns" enforce tax collection, even though the same "men with guns" will also show up on your doorstep if you don't pay your mortgage or your child support. So, if a libertarian deadbeat dad takes refuge on one of these seasteads, and a government issues a warrant for his arrest and sends officers to the seastead to pick him up, what would the seastead owners do?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First off, I could see some kind of ship designed to withstand 200 mph wind gusts and to dissipate 70 foot waves. I just wouldn't like to pay for the thing. A mobile ship is the sanest way to avoid a hurricane.

Penny-ante casinos already cruise the Bahamas. They are great places to catch the norovirus.

If the Libertarian floating island ever went big time into drugs, one Mexican cartel or another would ask for a huge shakedown. Or, some mob boss would ask for the shakedown. This would drain all of the profit and much of the original capital out of the Libertarian enterprise until the effort collapsed. Stinger missiles don't work against these crooks. Instead of fire "protection" the Libertarians can pay for sinking "protection". What if someone opens a valve or jams an expensive pump some night? And how do you consistently keep the mobsters off the ship if you have illegal activities for outside tourists?

Libertarians talk a good game about running a heroin shooting gallery for profit, but when the deal goes down that's not how they want to spend their workdays, being bellhops at H hotels and watching other people slowly die in front of them. Who wants to be the bellhop?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But you have to renounce your citizenship when you do. We'll even give you a ride out there.

Couple things, though: You're banned. We don't want you either. But if you pollute out there, foment trouble that will be harmful to us, engage in organized smuggling, kidnapping, piracy, etc., we're gonna come blow very big chunks of concrete off your house. As a warning. Unless someone else does it first.
Then we'll just giggle a lot.

WOOHOO!! FREEDOM!! Sounds great to me.

Tell me one thing, though? Who do you want for dictator? Cause that's what you'll have. Who owns the platform, controls the water and power supply? That guy. He's dictator. Whether you know it or not.

Oh...and how are you gonna collect the cash to pay off the myriad of criminal organizations not to invade you every other week? Not with taxes, of course. What are you gonna do if someone hijacks your ship? What if the US tracks every ship that leaves your platform and confiscates it - and other nations do the same?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not all seasteads are created equal and not all are scams. I am building a floating island that will be self sufficient in food, water and energy. The island will rest on thousands of 60 gallon plastic barrels, each barrel a watertight compartment. The island will ride the waves rather than fight them and have a low profile so as not to catch the wind. 12 years on the sea in a US Navy destroyer and 50 years as a jack of all trades is more than enough training to live well on the sea. My island will be 250 nautical miles ENE of Belem Brazil in international waters. I am not selling shares as I can afford to build the island and do not need the headaches of ruling morons.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

http://zapatopi.net/cascadia/



http://zapatopi.net/bsa/militia/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I want to build a Jumbo Ark
A stretch seven-forty-seven
And with the grace of God
I will win my place in heaven

Mr. Boeing can you hear me now
Way up there in Seattle
You better sit your big self down
Cos I'm about to make the phone line rattle
Get busy with your peppy team
And your compass and protractor
Cos I'm sent here to contract yer
To construct this wing-ed thing

(chorus)

We are talking 'bout an aquaplane
With it's floats made out of liners
And a hold like Carolina
For the load it must contain
Don't tell me that it can't be done
Cos we're livin' in the 80's
Boy we will not be mateys
Lest we do this wicked thing

(chorus)

Information I have received
From let's say higher sources
That leads me to believe that heavy weather
is around the bend
The clouds are gonna bump and cry
And down will rain destruction
But with the aid of our construction
We'll survive and thrive again

(chorus)

I want to take the ape and the kangaroo
From out of the wild and out of the zoo
I'm gonna have to take extra cattle and swine
Cos the beasts on each other
Do love to dine
Every fish-
Fowl
Thing that howl
Will all be kicking up a hell of a row
When I build a Jumbo Ark
A stretch seven-forty-seven
And with the grace of God
I will win my place in Heaven

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

this idea is no better!

libertarians will do anything to not participate in social evolution...

So much for their political morality and meaning.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I support a mixed economy, but I am highly, highly sympathetic towards what's normally seen as libertarian: an ending of the Federal Reserve. Why is it that Alt/Leftist media never makes this an issue. It seems to be something that's "packaged" politically w/ far right capitalists/libertarians, no?

Simply put, why don't any leftists support the idea of a mixed economy, which includes social programs for the poor, but a stable economy where money isn't printed freely?

Why isn't this a subject on Alternet, for instance? Can someone explain this to me, please?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DO WHAT EVERY CRUISESHIP DOES:

register a boat with an 'amenable' Banana Republic that will insulate the off-shore activities on the ship from actual laws & oversight.

*tahDAH* just like every major cruiseline does.

raped by a cruiseline crewmember?: the ultimate 'legal protection' is to be registered by a 'lawless' & compliant nation.

just TRY to prove it & get your day in Court!



perspective, people.


Perspective.

The Jeff Farias Show: streams FREE & LIVE Mon-Fri, 6-9pmEDT

FREE podcast
=============
"... tolerance of intolerance is cowardice..." ~ Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.

"Violence can only be concealed by a Lie, & the Lie can only be maintained by Violence." ... "Any man, who has once proclaimed Violence as his Method, is inevitably forced to take the Lie as his Principle" – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Actually, this project has already been done. The name of the micro-country is SEALAND, and it consists of a previously-abandoned fort/ platform about 7 miles off the coast of England. This libertarian city-state has been recognized as a legitimate nation by England and at least some other countries.

However, I read that an international law was subseguently enacted that requires a prospective float/platform nation to obtain the permission of the nearest established country. (Another requirement is that the micro-nation be firmly attached to the ocean floor or some other piece of land.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Listening to Libertarians reminds me of my freshman year as part of the pioneer class of UCSC and the debate they held during the World Civilization class over the topic of "Lyndon's Beagles or Zeus' Eagles?", which was whether it was better to live in ancient Greece or in America in 1965.

Predictably, the overwhelming percentage of students voted for living in ancient Greece. This was despite my pointing out the fact that only 1 person in 10 in ancient Greece was a citizen...the bulk of the rest were slaves and people of no rank, who worked for the citizens. Of coure, ALL of the students assumed that THEY would be one of the citizens...even though the odds were 9-1 against that outcome...and anyone who was not a citizen was not allowed to vote.

Libertarians always assume they would be free and unencumbered in their new utopian society...completely forgetting the reality that ALL societies MUST have people at the bottom doing the dirty work to support it...and it's usually a larger percentage than the privileged few who get to make their own decisions. Same fallacious reasoning as the students at UCSC...just a different scenario.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Somalia,the most libertarian country in the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Couldn't they put some dirt on these concrete islands and grow some trees and their own food?

(Hey, sometimes I'd like to leave too, guys. But I'm a socialist. I haven't gotten my way in a long time either.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]