A common argument brought about statists for standing armies is that they keep us safe.
I was recently talking to a friend about this issue (friend is a statist), and he says that ancapiland will never succeed in the world because it can be easily teared down by the state through war/conquest.
And as such, i ought ot defend ancapiland. I need to flesh out some arguments here....
Assuming, that ancapiland is a relatively large area, probably around the same area as brazil or other country around the same size, it would be reasonable for us to suppose that a state will want to conquer ancapiland through means of war (as ancapiland wil not have a standing military). Also we must assume that ancapiland is the only anarchist piece of land that exists, and is surronded by other statist states.
1. I said to my friend.... Suppose that this ancapiland was a center of trade for other states. Other states may not be hostile to ancapiland so we must assume that a large number of states trade with ancapiland due to ancapiland's great economy, and production. Because of this, a state may be discouraged from invading ancapiland as it will damage relations to other states that may be trading with ancapiland.
So my friend said, lets assume that the state invading ancapiland gives 0 fucks about other nations relations with them.
2. There will be high demand for police, and security, and eventuall private companies may hire privatized armies to protect the citizens that pay. And as such, ancapiland may be defended in this way. Competing private armies will probably have to work together to defend its citizens as to keep the profits going.
What about the citizen that doesnt pay the private army? Will only his house be ransacked and then itl all be good?
Well no, the private armies will have to defend even the unpaids land, as an enemy breakthrough in a certain area may make other areas hard to defend (the statists could make a spearhead through a certain area that didnt pay the private army, and therefore would make it harder for the private army to defend areas that are actually paying them).
3. If ancapiland has good relations with another state, that friend state of ancapiland may aid in its defense against the state that is evil. Production licenses, and trade of resources will probably give ancapiland technology (if it doesnt already have) to combat the enemy state's invasion.
----
What other things should i mention? I know that at the moment the arguments that im making are not that great. What other things should i say?
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
The argument is that a free market will not have the power of the state to seize property and mass mobilize resources for that of war.
I must argue that demand will be as strong as a state in defense for a war, that the free market mobilization for war will be just as effective.
"There will be high demand for police, and security, and eventually private companies may hire privatized armies"
The first two are more likely than the last one. You don't address the public goods problem, which, when it comes to defense is the single biggest problem which anarchism would theoretically face, and the most difficult one to overcome, specifically because it is one of the cases of "market failure"
What do you mean by public goods problem? Can you explain?
I must also add to the argument that any citizen can own whatever kind of weapon they choose, adn that guerilla warfare will screw over a military tring to invade it.
Kelvin - read any introductory Micro textbook to learn about public goods. I suggest Principles of Economics by Mankiw.
Public goods are realistically the only really good case for government intervention in the economy. While most modern theorists focus upon the reasons for it, I think that more important point are the implications of it which comes down to the fact that any acting individual makes choices upon a marginal basis.
This plays into the prisoner's dilemma, but let's take the area of national defense. If you had to holistically choose between there being national defense and there not being national defense which would you choose? National defense of course. The problem? You will NEVER be asked to make that decision, it's not within your power. Let's say that you make an average 50K a year and that theoretically you would be willing to forego everything for national defense. Now let's say that tomorrow that the United States becomes an anarchist state and that (for the sake of argument) there is only one defense company which functions on a budget of 100 Billion a year. We'll say that this amount is what it takes to defend against foreign invasion, any more and the system fails and the U.S is invaded and reverted to a state.
Well what incentive do you have to pay any money towards defense? As counterintuitive as it seems, you have no incentive to pay because your donation doesn't matter. If you gave every last cent you have to the cause, well your contribution has made less than .01 percent of a difference to the income of the company. The contribution of your entire monetary wealth has given the company perhaps the ability to hire one more soldier... Do you think that a war will be won with a single more soldier? No, of course not. Therefore if we say that there are 200 million middle class Americans then if every person just chipped in 500 bucks then guess what? The areas fine and we can all go on living our life. Thusly we see marginal rationality, save the 500 bucks and cause less than a .0001 percent difference in defense spending, a change that's pretty much unnoticeable, which adds up to collective insanity. Everyone is better off if everyone pays, no one is better off if they pay.
Now some of these things are questionable, including the idea that it would cost that much to defend the society, what would happen if the system failed, and what the level of income inequality would mean since even in this relatively large example there are still those who could make a noticeable percentage difference in funding in they were willing to provide enough of their money. Nonetheless, I think that this displays the problem fairly nicely.
I think it important to note that if someone is arguing for statism on anything other than something which is ultimately a public good then it's probably an argument which can be criticized by reference to simple market forces
"Theres no market failure, just positive and negative externalities."
No, there's just public goods and the imperfection of human knowledge.
"People who have wealth invest in protecting it. Other people can benefit as a result, its cool."
So we can hope...
http://candlemind.com/projects/progclub/file/michael/getEducated.php?listID=16
For the minarchist trio.
Neodoxy, I'd like to point you out to D. Friedman's great point that just because something is a market failure it doesn't mean government can handle it any better.
Link?
The ultimate failure of government results from the fact that it suffers either from the tragedy of the commons or the public goods problem itself. I would also like to say that the only realistic argument for government, in my mind, is specifically the one from national defense being a public good, and I think that if the anarchist state ever comes to be, then the challenge for its survival will be to either solve the problem or to make it irrelvant.
Well, yeah, national defense is the biggie.
As to a link, he discusses it in the Machinery, but he also has this lecture on it:
Then there's also his dad:
To put it in more theoretical terms, Coasian bargaining may fail on the market, but I don't find much literature that explains why govt actually reduces transaction costs. Also, Austrians critique the Coase theorem as well, so that might be worth looking into.
Neodoxy: The ultimate failure of government results from the fact that it suffers either from the tragedy of the commons or the public goods problem itself. I would also like to say that the only realistic argument for government, in my mind, is specifically the one from national defense being a public good, and I think that if the anarchist state ever comes to be, then the challenge for its survival will be to either solve the problem or to make it irrelvant.
There is no argument for government. There are plenty of smaller (weaker) states that are presently not being conquered by larger (stronger) states every single day. If an anarchist state ever came to be, it would be an order of magnitude harder to "conquer" as there'd be no parasitic gov structure for the conqueror to overtake. Also, "national" defense may be a public good -- defense is not.
If an anarchist state ever came to be, it would be an order of magnitude harder to "conquer" as there'd be no parasitic gov structure for the conqueror to overtake
I used to buy this, but my faith was shaked by reading about the conquering of medieval England.
Z,
1. There are arguments for government. If you think that the issue is entirely one-sided then there's something that you're missing
2. That's an oversimplification of the matter. There are specific reasons why those specific states have not which may not be the case for the anarchist society. There have been smaller, weaker states in the past which have been conquered and we cannot foresee the political atmosphere that would necessarily surround the anarchist society.
3. It is true that it would be quite difficult to conquer the anarchist society, but this depends partly on the resilience of the people within the society and in the conquering state, both of which are highly variable, and I think an important question to ask is how many people are we willing to have die to uphold voluntarism over minarchism.
4. Your last sentence holds a good point, but the fact is that there are definite "chunks" of defense which need to be provided and economies/diseconomies of scale at each one of these "chunks". This is to say that it's a lot easier to defend my house if I can prevent invaders from entering the town that my home is in, which may well be easier to defend from an overall monetary aspect. At any rate merely pointing out the fact that defense does not need to be national does not erase the entire issue.
This is why I've been turning away from anarchy.
An existent and stable propertarian anarchist territory would absolutely unacceptable to those who rule the world. It would reveal the lack of necessity for a state, and the intellectual foundations for statism would be crushed in the face of a supposed miracle. This would be completely unacceptable to them. The Religion would be broken and the foundations of their authority, true belief, would dissolve. False flags thus ensue, upon which the world powers crush the anarchist territory. Power will not give itself up lightly.
A minarchist territory then, neither invites the malice of the great states of the world and also can provide for itself defense.
A bitter irony: that which needs X cannot have it, and that which has X would not need it.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
Um, what? In which period? England had relatively strong (compared to anarchy) state-structures within a couple centuries of the migrations. Have you looked at the long struggles to subjugate Wales and Ireland? The societies in those places were much more anarchic, and much less willing to submit.
Anyway, to answer the OP, it really depends on the circumstances. Not all states can defend themselves against states - does that mean the losing state structure is flawed for that reason alone? Not necessarily, and not very likely at all.
Mightn't he be talking about Ireland, which was eventually subjugated through intense violence on behalf of the English?
Oh, he means the conquests by England. Well, that works against him. Ireland was a poor backwater with far less population than England, and yet they managed to hold out for hundreds of years, rebel many times and become independent in various periods. The English took centuries to become dominant in Ireland, and then in the 15th century they lost all their power. Compare that to something like Alexander taking over the Persian Empire.
I meant England:
http://praxeology.net/libertariannation/a/f21l1.html
Jargon: This is why I've been turning away from anarchy. An existent and stable propertarian anarchist territory would absolutely unacceptable to those who rule the world. It would reveal the lack of necessity for a state, and the intellectual foundations for statism would be crushed in the face of a supposed miracle. This would be completely unacceptable to them. The Religion would be broken and the foundations of their authority, true belief, would dissolve.
An existent and stable propertarian anarchist territory would absolutely unacceptable to those who rule the world. It would reveal the lack of necessity for a state, and the intellectual foundations for statism would be crushed in the face of a supposed miracle. This would be completely unacceptable to them. The Religion would be broken and the foundations of their authority, true belief, would dissolve.
This is true, and why it's imperative for us to setup a libertarian society ASAP, because of the resulting inexorable delegitimation and demystification of all other statist territories.
But, they think they've got all the land in the world locked up already. So they're not worried at all that such a thing will happen. They figure they have more than enough ways to deal with any random influence or idea that might appear, through their state alliance with, or control of, intellectuals and the organs of communication.
The simple fact is, they don't even imagine a seastead is possible. A seastead is the end run around their jurisdictional powers.
And they would have to break their own laws in order to shut such a place down, which while certainly possible, makes it much harder for them.
Jargon: False flags thus ensue, upon which the world powers crush the anarchist territory. Power will not give itself up lightly.
They won't resort to outright force immediately. The attack will be intellectual and media outrage and denunciation. Which actually furthers our goal of educating people.
They will suggest that our haven will fail, and simply await that outcome. Should it succeed, it may be too late for them to contain the damage.
Jargon:A minarchist territory then, neither invites the malice of the great states of the world and also can provide for itself defense. A bitter irony: that which needs X cannot have it, and that which has X would not need it.
I'd rather make a true libertarian society that only appears outwardly minarchist. Also, there are ways to insure your existence.
For instance, suppose I start a seastead based on the business of creating a gigantic algae-based biodiesel farm, since the ocean has easily enough space to make enough to entirely replace middle-eastern oil, assuming price parity. Do that, and the US needs you, no matter what.
That would be ideal anyway :P
I meant England
As I said, England was certainly not anarchic in 1066. Even if the king did not have the powers that he later would, his position and the state powers that he did have were respected and viewed as legitimate.
Anenome: They won't resort to outright force immediately. The attack will be intellectual and media outrage and denunciation. Which actually furthers our goal of educating people. They will suggest that our haven will fail, and simply await that outcome. Should it succeed, it may be too late for them to contain the damage.
Why not? They have everything they've ever worked for to lose, don't they? It would be easy enough: "NEWSFLASH: Anarchist pirates on an ocean fortress have bombed an American embassy in Portugal! These agents of chaos must be thwarted!"
This is quite a good idea, except the info wouldn't remain secret for long. A new libertarian outpost would certainly attract attention.
For instance, suppose I start a seastead based on the business of creating a gigantic algae-based biodiesel farm, since the ocean has easily enough space to make enough to entirely replace middle-eastern oil, assuming price parity. Do that, and the US needs you, no matter what. That would be ideal anyway :P
Also not a bad idea. But Seasteads are so vulnerable. What if the devices holding it up "malfunction" one day, and the whole place sinks, thus "proving" that we need government to run things for us? I find such a scenario probable in the extreme, which is why pursuing true liberty is a noble but Icarian endeavor, and could possibly be used to further hurt the already infamous public-image of the message.
I know this thread is about an idealized, hypothetical anarchist society, but where would this place be in the world and how would it come about?
One factor that has to be considered and from what I've seen from libertarianism is generally not given the attention it needs is that any anarchist society will have to exist within the current international state system, and have to navigate the obligations and duties of sovereignty. Since all discussions of an hypothetical anarchist society I've seen seem to implicitly assume that the society will essentially be a territorial state with an anarchist political structure, the problem of sovereignty must be addressed.
Reading up on some mainstream IR, I think, would enrich this discussion. These are a few articles of interest that have free online copies available.
http://www.metu.edu.tr/~utuba/Wendt.pdf
http://www.rochelleterman.com/ir/sites/default/files/Hurd%201999.pdf
http://www.rochelleterman.com/ir/sites/default/files/wendt%201987.pdf
Jargon: Anenome: They won't resort to outright force immediately. The attack will be intellectual and media outrage and denunciation. Which actually furthers our goal of educating people. They will suggest that our haven will fail, and simply await that outcome. Should it succeed, it may be too late for them to contain the damage. Why not? They have everything they've ever worked for to lose, don't they? It would be easy enough: "NEWSFLASH: Anarchist pirates on an ocean fortress have bombed an American embassy in Portugal! These agents of chaos must be thwarted!"
They're blinded by ideology. They will automatically discount a libertarian haven as doomed to collapse in on itself. They will be taken by surprise rather if it does work.
The legitimacy damage of such a place working is something they won't immediately think of, much less worry about. Because a small libertarian haven cannot have that effect. It's only when the size of such a place inflates to something considerable, say 1 million+, that the legitimacy hazard to other states becomes apparent, and by then it's too late for them.
Suppose they did smash such a place at that point. It might actually be wonderful for libertarianism. Because although it would be oppressive and painful for everyone involved, the smashing of such a large seastead would cause the people to scatter, founding seasteads potentially the world over. They would turn one successful seastead into several dozen smaller ones incubating the world 'round.
It's all about creating situations where no matter what happens your goal is furthered.
Jargon: I'd rather make a true libertarian society that only appears outwardly minarchist. Also, there are ways to insure your existence. This is quite a good idea, except the info wouldn't remain secret for long. A new libertarian outpost would certainly attract attention.
Well, I'm gonna do my best to confuse them for as long as possible :P
Jargon: For instance, suppose I start a seastead based on the business of creating a gigantic algae-based biodiesel farm, since the ocean has easily enough space to make enough to entirely replace middle-eastern oil, assuming price parity. Do that, and the US needs you, no matter what. That would be ideal anyway :P Also not a bad idea. But Seasteads are so vulnerable. What if the devices holding it up "malfunction" one day, and the whole place sinks, thus "proving" that we need government to run things for us? I find such a scenario probable in the extreme, which is why pursuing true liberty is a noble but Icarian endeavor, and could possibly be used to further hurt the already infamous public-image of the message.
An 'Icarian endeavor,' hah, I love that. Well, one day I'll reveal the details of the proposal and you can judge the question of sinkability :P There are a couple new technologies out there, some of which I've originated and many which I haven't, which are game changers for this question.
When you want to build something that can last potentially for hundreds of years without sinking, you can't rely on mere water displacement by air. What you need is water displacement which, if the skin is punctured would not let water rush in and flood the chamber. The way to do this is fill the cavity with a light solid that would resist water pressure and a multitude of internal chambers as well. One answer to this is to 3D print floating structures so they can have complex internal geometries so this end.
Regardless, I'm dead-set on the seastead idea, and appreciate all the worries about what can go wrong because I have one major advantage: they don't even imagine a seastead is coming. Thus, I get to choose how it is revealed, and that could make a difference in its reception and eventual fate. Also, we can choose to timing.
A US so deeply in debt that it's focused on internal problems could be seriously beneficial for a seastead. And with universal healthcare set to rock the already trillion dollar deficit, they might be too preoccupied to bother with a widdle seastead :P
Anenome: They're blinded by ideology. They will automatically discount a libertarian haven as doomed to collapse in on itself. They will be taken by surprise rather if it does work.
I'll be glad if you're right, but I don't think they believe what they say or have an ideology other than the pursuit of power, which incidentally makes them keen to this kind of thing.
True, but each Seastead is presumably a massively expensive project, meaning it wouldn't be so simple for people to just disperse and start anew.
Jargon: Regardless, I'm dead-set on the seastead idea, and appreciate all the worries about what can go wrong because I have one major advantage: they don't even imagine a seastead is coming. Thus, I get to choose how it is revealed, and that could make a difference in its reception and eventual fate. Also, we can choose to timing. A US so deeply in debt that it's focused on internal problems could be seriously beneficial for a seastead. And with universal healthcare set to rock the already trillion dollar deficit, they might be too preoccupied to bother with a widdle seastead :P
Call me cynical but I think you underestimate them. They've got a lot to lose: all the money in the world.
I will call massive seasteading a possibility, when there is an open-source movement providing know-how for all kinds of processes involved (production of ultra-light solid materials, schematics of hulls, complete step-by-step manuals for assembly, basic navigation, security procedures, interaction with international law, etc.).
I think such projects should optimize for the shortest supply chain possible (using consumer-grade tools and materials), not for overall efficiency or quality[*] - this will make it extremely hard for the governments to outlaw crucial parts of the supply chain. If 100 guys, 10 of whom have some relevant education (like welding, applied chemistry, computer hardware and software) can build a functional seastead from whatever is available in a typical DIY store - how will you stop them?
[*] - e.g., using for buoyancy empty plastic bottles instead of ultra-super-nano-foam.
http://fringeelements.tumblr.com/search/defense
http://foranemergentgovernance.tumblr.com/post/1517369132/defense - this one starts off the same, but it adds more info in the second half
http://fringeelements.tumblr.com/post/6154773025/re-raymonddundas-and-t3hsauce-on-stateless-defense
http://fringeelements.tumblr.com/post/6199232972/last-attempt-on-defense
http://fringeelements.tumblr.com/post/2158320208/emergentism-vs-anarchism-on-defense-14
http://fringeelements.tumblr.com/post/1377725073/stateless-law-and-defense-encapsulated-9-37
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylXAhyDZhZ4
This might be of interest; I think I remember this guy also has a different view of defense than the "ancap orthodoxy": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37CEsB3NK5w (he might even be on this forum?)
Faulk talks somewhat about it here, I think: http://fringeelements.tumblr.com/post/1616885073/broad-overview-of-problems-and-directions-in
Jargon,
"An existent and stable propertarian anarchist territory would absolutely unacceptable to those who rule the world."
Ah, the whole conspiracy of the elites...
Anenome,
The existence of the anarchist society depends upon the prosperity of the society above all else, and this in turn depends upon the specific circumstances surrounding the society, rather than the society itself. I think that a possible boon, indeed possibly the only ultimate hope for the society would be acting as a tax haven and area of production for industries illegal in other areas, although this too could ultimately spell its doom.
In this same vein I'd like to point out to both of you that the supposed examples of thriving socialist societies', the Scandinavian countries, have not dramatically changed the world stage.
Jargon: Anenome: They're blinded by ideology. They will automatically discount a libertarian haven as doomed to collapse in on itself. They will be taken by surprise rather if it does work. I'll be glad if you're right, but I don't think they believe what they say or have an ideology other than the pursuit of power, which incidentally makes them keen to this kind of thing.
There may be a few who are that cognizent, and they'd be intellectual movers and shakers. But they too would be unable to come out openly against a seastead for the reasons of its delegitimation effect. Instead they'd need to craft other, fake excuses for the masses to buy.
Which means the ball is in my court, because if we don't give them a foothold to latch on to, their attempt will itself be delegitimized and rejected even by the common leftist.
Now, I'm not the kind of libertarian who wants to start something like this in order to use drugs myself. That would, presumably, be their main line of attack, and other attacks would be along those lines.
But again, if we launch a seastead stealth style, with the purpose being not 'libertarian haven' but rather initially something like a massive biodiesel farm designed to get the US to energy independence, do you see how I then have forced them into a quandry. The masses would think it a great idea, and those who realize the actual danger would have a problem attacking it.
Jargon: Suppose they did smash such a place at that point. It might actually be wonderful for libertarianism. Because although it would be oppressive and painful for everyone involved, the smashing of such a large seastead would cause the people to scatter, founding seasteads potentially the world over. They would turn one successful seastead into several dozen smaller ones incubating the world 'round. True, but each Seastead is presumably a massively expensive project, meaning it wouldn't be so simple for people to just disperse and start anew.
Nah, they're not gonna be massively expensive. I haven't done the numbers formally, but I'm looking at making a profit on ~2,000 square-foot floating houses for something like $20-$30k. That's only possible because of using the dome-house style and 3D printed interior for rooms and walls. No real labor costs, meaning immediate 80% cost reduction. Obviously more for amenities and furniture and if you want to put an engine in your house to move it independently. But I figure most will use tugs.
Jargon: Anenome: Regardless, I'm dead-set on the seastead idea, and appreciate all the worries about what can go wrong because I have one major advantage: they don't even imagine a seastead is coming. Thus, I get to choose how it is revealed, and that could make a difference in its reception and eventual fate. Also, we can choose to timing. A US so deeply in debt that it's focused on internal problems could be seriously beneficial for a seastead. And with universal healthcare set to rock the already trillion dollar deficit, they might be too preoccupied to bother with a widdle seastead :P Call me cynical but I think you underestimate them. They've got a lot to lose: all the money in the world.
Anenome: Regardless, I'm dead-set on the seastead idea, and appreciate all the worries about what can go wrong because I have one major advantage: they don't even imagine a seastead is coming. Thus, I get to choose how it is revealed, and that could make a difference in its reception and eventual fate. Also, we can choose to timing. A US so deeply in debt that it's focused on internal problems could be seriously beneficial for a seastead. And with universal healthcare set to rock the already trillion dollar deficit, they might be too preoccupied to bother with a widdle seastead :P
Delegitimation is a perniscious and invisible process. Remember, they hold all the organs of communication and education. They think they're bullet-proof in any case. A lone seastead won't threaten them from the beginning. They'll laugh it off at worst. We're not talking armed revolution here.
Unless they drop the ball, I can't harm them. They realize this. Besides which, they won't realize that I plan to create space for a billion citizens on the ocean. Seeing one house in a seastead won't automatically make them realize there's near infinite room for expansion.
Andris Birkmanis: I will call massive seasteading a possibility, when there is an open-source movement providing know-how for all kinds of processes involved (production of ultra-light solid materials, schematics of hulls, complete step-by-step manuals for assembly, basic navigation, security procedures, interaction with international law, etc.).
Agreed.
Andris Birkmanis:I think such projects should optimize for the shortest supply chain possible (using consumer-grade tools and materials), not for overall efficiency or quality[*] - this will make it extremely hard for the governments to outlaw crucial parts of the supply chain. If 100 guys, 10 of whom have some relevant education (like welding, applied chemistry, computer hardware and software) can build a functional seastead from whatever is available in a typical DIY store - how will you stop them? [*] - e.g., using for buoyancy empty plastic bottles instead of ultra-super-nano-foam.
I'm building monolithic dome houses using basic concrete, not even spraycrete, waterproof basalt rebar made in russia, and 3D printed floating artificial dock--all manufactured on site, and out of materials available anywhere in the world. Well, except for the rebar. But anyone could make that rebar, we have an effectively infinite supply of basalt in the world :P Some spray foam or other insulator too. Nothing fancy, nothing cutting edge (save perhaps the 3d printing).
Neodoxy:Anenome, The existence of the anarchist society depends upon the prosperity of the society above all else, and this in turn depends upon the specific circumstances surrounding the society, rather than the society itself. I think that a possible boon, indeed possibly the only ultimate hope for the society would be acting as a tax haven and area of production for industries illegal in other areas, although this too could ultimately spell its doom.
Well, I'm certianly not going to encourage something like drug production. There is that danger, and for that reason I'll try to discourage at least early in the lifespan of such a place, by advocating against it.
What I would like to see in this vein are medical services that are fleeing Obamacare. I'd like to see large manufacturers move offshore because there's no red-tape and they can make huge profits without the cost of land rent nor taxation. That alone should make it a manufacturing center. But of course we need a mature energy production strategy to pull that aspect off.
There is also the ability to literally mine minerals out of sea-salt that was recently discovered. Desalinate water for drinking and then process the leftover salt to recover magnesium and other metals for industry.
I think the fact that there's going to be zero property tax and no income tax, and no SS or FICA tax, and much lower rent / mortgage, means most people living there would see something like a 70% effective income boost. How could it fail to be massively wealthier? And it should have drastically lower cost of goods, due to lack of red tape and various taxation. Once an egg reaches your table it's already been taxed some 300 times.
That's why you can live in the Phillipines for like $3k a year or w/e :P
Imagine Phillipines-level cost of living with double the American purchasing power and standard of living. That should make it the wealthiest society on earth in due course.
The major inhibitor there is the need to invest large amounts of capital to build everything that needs to exist. But since this will be an ad hoc, decentralized society, that should take care of itself.
Neodoxy:In this same vein I'd like to point out to both of you that the supposed examples of thriving socialist societies', the Scandinavian countries, have not dramatically changed the world stage.
Socialist countries end up being inherently insular, because their welfare societies cannot easily absorb new people financially without severely taxing the system. Socialism hasn't proved to be the international movement Marx hoped, but each new region made their own version and fought with others.
Libertarianism may be different in that regard, it may indeed be international, and the focus on self-reliance, not a welfare state, means that such a place need not have a restrictive immigration policy at all. Anyone can come and work. And if there's jobs to be had, and we're inviting anyone to come, it would be like moving to the US without needing to spend 20 years obtaining citizenship. I think the place will be flocked to by the ambitious of the world, once we get it established and to a minimum level of amenities and culture.
I've definitely had this discussion before, and we came to something of a conclusion. Anyway, the hypothetical situation posed IIRC was:
The people of Germany decide to dissolve the state (Through some form or another). Everything is privately owned, and defense is now run through a mixture of PDAs, communal militias a la the Spanish volunteer brigades in the civil war, and heavily armed individuals. Germany begins to prosper.
However, the people of France are still staunchly statist, and seeing that Germany is thriving and "stealing" their tax revenue from businesses moving across the "border", they are whipped into a nationalistic fervour by the government and sent to war. France is significantly poorer and less powerful than anarchist Germany as a whole, but France is able to devote a substantially larger portion of its resources to warfare through conscription, etc while Germany's strength is largely economic in nature.
Thus, we reach the problem; while France is able to fight with all of its strength against the anarchist Germans, at no point is Germany capable of using ITS full strength. The heavily armed individuals would be basically survivalists with land mines and would simply be short-term problems for the French as they passed through. The PDAs would have to all work together to fight the French to even have a chance, but the PDAs would be forced to at least break even with profits to keep themselves armed. The French government, meanwhile, could pass its losses onto the private sector.
So in the "direct" war, it would be a contest between French public opinion and German profit margins, a contest which France would almost certainly win. The weaknesses of the defending Germans would only be made worse because only the Western German militias and PDAs would have to fight; if the French ate Germany up slowly, the Eastern militias and PDAs would profit in the short term by sitting back and doing nothing.
After that, it comes down to whether the French are capable of pacifying former anarchist zones while keeping the attack going into still-free German areas. Whatever the result, it would be tremendously bloody without any measure of which side had been defeated.
Neodoxy: Jargon, "An existent and stable propertarian anarchist territory would absolutely unacceptable to those who rule the world." Ah, the whole conspiracy of the elites...
Was there a point to this other than to ridicule me whilst providing zero substance?
Ridicule was not intended, skepticism was.
Though I'm sure you're aware of some such kind of pattern, I'll show you this small, superficial compilation of Presidential Candidates which is entirely inappropriate as representative of the entire network about which I am talking, as it excludes international banking organizations, intelligence community positions, and regulatory agency positions. That said it is an adequate primer and I'll leave the matter at that:
Anenome: There may be a few who are that cognizent, and they'd be intellectual movers and shakers. But they too would be unable to come out openly against a seastead for the reasons of its delegitimation effect. Instead they'd need to craft other, fake excuses for the masses to buy.
Exactly. I believe history is witness that they are more than capable of doing that via false flag incidents, or as other posters have noted, the Drug Trade issue.
They can create their own footholds via false flags and selective information.
Agreed, that's definitely the best approach in my opinion.
Interesting. But there would be no platform? Just individual floating houses and workplaces?
Regardless, I'm dead-set on the seastead idea, and appreciate all the worries about what can go wrong because I have one major advantage: they don't even imagine a seastead is coming. Thus, I get to choose how it is revealed, and that could make a difference in its reception and eventual fate. Also, we can choose to timing. A US so deeply in debt that it's focused on internal problems could be seriously beneficial for a seastead. And with universal healthcare set to rock the already trillion dollar deficit, they might be too preoccupied to bother with a widdle seastead :P Delegitimation is a perniscious and invisible process. Remember, they hold all the organs of communication and education. They think they're bullet-proof in any case. A lone seastead won't threaten them from the beginning. They'll laugh it off at worst. We're not talking armed revolution here. Unless they drop the ball, I can't harm them. They realize this. Besides which, they won't realize that I plan to create space for a billion citizens on the ocean. Seeing one house in a seastead won't automatically make them realize there's near infinite room for expansion.
I think they are quite vigilant of their limitations, thus the recent measures to expand global authority: such as the construction of the Utah Data Center, the SOPA/PIPA acts, and the like. Maintenance of power requires vigilance, and from the past decade of politics it seems that they are indeed of what risks lay ahead, which is why Ron Paul was not allowed to speak at the GOPCon.
Jargon: Anenome: There may be a few who are that cognizent, and they'd be intellectual movers and shakers. But they too would be unable to come out openly against a seastead for the reasons of its delegitimation effect. Instead they'd need to craft other, fake excuses for the masses to buy. Exactly. I believe history is witness that they are more than capable of doing that via false flag incidents, or as other posters have noted, the Drug Trade issue. They can create their own footholds via false flags and selective information.
Yeah, it's a good point. Possibly and hopefully, the decentralized nature of such a place would make that much harder to do. There's no 'government' per se in a free society, so it's pretty hard to dress up as their non-existent military and kill someone on their name. Which is the typical false flag action for war pretext.
They could create fake splinter groups that endorse aggression and try it that way, but since their values are contrary to the NAP, they'd be seen as not an extension of the society but a violation of it, and roundly denounced.
Jargon: Nah, they're not gonna be massively expensive. I haven't done the numbers formally, but I'm looking at making a profit on ~2,000 square-foot floating houses for something like $20-$30k. That's only possible because of using the dome-house style and 3D printed interior for rooms and walls. No real labor costs, meaning immediate 80% cost reduction. Obviously more for amenities and furniture and if you want to put an engine in your house to move it independently. But I figure most will use tugs. Interesting. But there would be no platform? Just individual floating houses and workplaces?
Checkout this Candock interlocking dock system. I think we could make a version of those with 3D printers and use them to create artificial land as much as you want. They are also useful for tamping down wave action, so people would likely put these around a floating home to create something like a front and back yard :) as well as to create private pier-dock for smaller transport craft and the like.
Average wave action off the coast of California is among the smallest in the world. Other places might need to use modular docks with more mass and more float capacity to compensate for bigger average waves.
Jargon: Regardless, I'm dead-set on the seastead idea, and appreciate all the worries about what can go wrong because I have one major advantage: they don't even imagine a seastead is coming. Thus, I get to choose how it is revealed, and that could make a difference in its reception and eventual fate. Also, we can choose to timing. A US so deeply in debt that it's focused on internal problems could be seriously beneficial for a seastead. And with universal healthcare set to rock the already trillion dollar deficit, they might be too preoccupied to bother with a widdle seastead :P Delegitimation is a perniscious and invisible process. Remember, they hold all the organs of communication and education. They think they're bullet-proof in any case. A lone seastead won't threaten them from the beginning. They'll laugh it off at worst. We're not talking armed revolution here. Unless they drop the ball, I can't harm them. They realize this. Besides which, they won't realize that I plan to create space for a billion citizens on the ocean. Seeing one house in a seastead won't automatically make them realize there's near infinite room for expansion. I think they are quite vigilant of their limitations, thus the recent measures to expand global authority: such as the construction of the Utah Data Center, the SOPA/PIPA acts, and the like. Maintenance of power requires vigilance, and from the past decade of politics it seems that they are indeed of what risks lay ahead, which is why Ron Paul was not allowed to speak at the GOPCon.
I think the regimes most afraid of the delegitimation via comparison are tyannical regimes. Dictators feel the delegitimation problem in their bones, because they're ruling by force and fear.
But take someone like Obama. Do you think he'd understand the delegitimation risk of a seastead? I don't think so. Instead he'd have influential people who perhaps do understand come to him and complain, basically lie to him to get him to do X or Y.
But would they? A seastead poses no short-term risk to any racket they've got going. Delegitimation can't happen overnight.
I think the major thing some power might be against is the idea of drug trafficking in their territorial waters, and security risks from like terrorists or something. I don't see those as huge problems. The drug thing, they'd eventually just treat people coming from the seastead like foreigners coming into any airport, and same with worry about personnel. Passport checks on shore. I'd be willing to work with them to setup something like that, since that would actually be legitimizing our sovereignty.
No, if they'd gonna crush it, it will have to be done when it's still in its infancy, before a seastead style of living becomes a mature technology.
And thus, if I come out with it as the solution to energy independence with permanent structures just there for a few workers, then we should be able to hit critical mass before they realize what's happened.
Genie out of the bottle :)
In any case, even if they object, their jurisdiction ends 14 miles out. Even the coast guard can't go after us barring suspecting piracy or something. And I expect all of the early people who are to be part of this to be US citizens, which will make it much harder for them still.