by Simon Gibbs

Seasteaders: ready to make this dream come true if you are

The Seasteader’s strategy of creating new freer countries to provide competition for old authoritarian ones is conceptually powerful but always seemed slightly unlikely. The thought of living in a tiny community at sea means the default position for anyone supportive is it sounds great, but is “not for me”. Nevertheless Patri Friedman has long been building up a community of passionate supporters and providing experiences and experiments for them to test their enthusiasm and try to learn about practical problems in advance.

Now he seems to be putting his own enthusiasm to the test. His latest initiative is a systematic survey to try and find the actual people to populate the first actual Seastead:

Are you ready to take the leap toward the blue frontier? Do you crave personal freedom, and the chance to be a part of the first community at sea? Or perhaps you simply seek a fresh start, new economic opportunities, and the peace and solitude of an ocean community.

We hope to make seasteading accessible to as wide an audience as possible, but recognize that the earliest communities will comprise financially independent individuals with the means to afford an upscale residence in a major metropolitan area, either living at sea full time or as a timeshare. Gathering data from interested people who meet our criteria is part of a broader, comprehensive seastead plan, investigating common denominators of the majority of respondents. This plan is rooted in the belief that the seasteading movement is ready to advance to the next level.

The fact that many questions are quantitative (how much space, at what price, for how long) seems to suggest an investment decision is going to be made on the basis of this data. Let’s hope so: it’s not for me but it is a good idea.

11 Comments

  1. Good luck to them. Although the “international community” will use every “legal” means to prevent an escape from endless “Social Justice” taxes and regulations.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Perhaps, but when they need a containership full of batteries charged for their Prius’ and they’ve taxed their oil to ridulous prices (or we hit peak oil) then cheap renewables at sea will mean their outlook quickly becomes more flexible.

      That’s an example, but the point is that a vibrant economy with something to export can only be excluded for so long.

      Like

      Reply

      1. The latest Hollywood film has Matt Damon (fresh from his “wonderful” anti facking film financed by Arab oil interests) as a hero – a noble figther.

        What does the character actually do? He invades space to demand that people who have fled the planet provide free health care (and the rest of the Social Justice stuff) to anyone who demands it.

        You see I am not making it up – the establishment (incluidng the Hollywood establshment) is rotten to the core. Even prepared to use lethel force against people whose only crime is running away from them (even if those people have actually gone into outer space to get away from “Social Justice”).

        By the way the film is an, unintentional, warning about free migration – free migration IF it is joined with “social justice” (“positive rights”, “compulsory charity” [dry water, square circle], “justice as fairness”) ideology, is lethal. Only if free migration rejects the evil that is Social Justice and supports the non aggression principle of private property rights, is it libertarian.

        Like

      2. “When unlucky Max is backed into a corner, he agrees to take on a daunting mission that if successful will not only save his life, but could bring equality to these polarized worlds” – IMDB

        equality -> entropy

        Like

      3. Yes – and “unlcky Max” (an invader and plunderer) needs to be pushed out the nearest airlock – without a helmet. “Paul Marks being violent again” – errr people, if one is not allowed to be violent against a man who is using a weapon…..

        Contrary to the myth it was not Senator McCarthy who was interested in Hollywood (the HOUSE UnAmerican Activities Committee does not include Senators – ignorant “historians” please note), but the “paranoia” is correct – Hollywood is dominated (and has long been dominated) by a weird gang of ultra rich Communists.

        “Communinsts is too strong a word Paul” – what about a man who finances a film gloryfying the Communist terrorist “Che”and then follows it up with a film gloryfying the Communist terrorist “Weathermen”who were still murdering people as late as 1981 and wanted to send tens of millions of Americans to Death Camps? Step forward Robert Redford.

        And then we have Oliver Stone, “loveable” Tom Hanks (check out who he finances) and on and on ……

        Like

      5. The sad thing about talking about pro liberty places is that they used to exist – and not so long ago.

        For example, little Andorra did not fall to the Welfare State till 1966 – there were no government “insurance” scams there before then.

        Countries (governments) do not tend to copy freedom – they tend to copy FAILURE.

        For example what was the response of the governments of Guernsey, Jersey (and so on) to waching the terrible consequences of bank “deposit insurance” after 2008 (basically bankrupting many countries via the idea that banks could not be allowed to go bankrupt and the “depositors” LOSE the money they had LENT to banks).

        Why to SET UP THEIR OWN DEPOSIT INSURANCE SCHEMES of course.

        The failure of interventionism does not make interventionism retreat – it makes it expand.

        Like

Leave a comment