Ajare on 12/8/2009 at 09:49

---

Seasteading, and the general concept of living "on" the ocean is actually a pretty cool idea, and I wouldn't be too surprised if it becomes more viable in the future. The sad thing is that it's inevitably associated with crazy libertarians who want to found their own utopia, rather than make scientific progress towards something practical.

The most amusing thing I remember was (http://royhalliday.home.mindspring.com/rla.htm) Operation Atlantis, an early (and well-named) attempt at founding such a paradise on a ship made of cement, with predictable consequences.

Starrfall on 12/8/2009 at 14:56

---

Libertarians tried (and are still trying, apparently) this with (http://www.freestateproject.org/) New Hampshire and achieved a WHOPPING 3% of their goal so fuck knows why they think this will fare any better. I suspect that if nothing else, they're going to be so very disappointed when all they get is a bunch of Joe the Plumbers instead of the best and brightest who they think (thanks Ayn Rand) will come flocking to their magical utopia.

Stop and think of what you know of Joe the Plumber and imagine living in a community full of him. Yeah.

I won't be shedding any tears if they do manage it though, as long as they promise never to come back.

heywood on 12/8/2009 at 18:34

---

I think Robert Ballard is also a big proponent of seasteading, but not for political reasons.

For these nuts, a commune seems like a far more practical alternative. If they got together and bought up enough land, I would be open to granting them some kind of limited autonomy like we do for reservations, only without the subsidies.

Anyway...

Regarding the free staters, let them colonize West Texas or something, not New Hampshire. One of these is enough:

(http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/10/crimesider/entry5148952.shtml) Man Booby-Traps Home to Beat the Tax Man

I used to live in southern New Hampshire and I think people outside the state get the wrong idea from the license plate slogan. It's not a libertarian utopia. NH politics is far more pragmatic than ideological. It doesn't even have many true libertarians. It has a lot of self-reliant people who stay out of each others business and make good neighbors. And a lot of independents who are politically active. And the least dysfunctional government of any state I've lived in (NY, OH, MA, NH). I kinda miss it.

Queue on 12/8/2009 at 22:57

---

:rolleyes:

demagogue on 13/8/2009 at 03:32

---

I'm sympathetic to a lot of libertarian-esque tendencies -- I think all else being equal, if private enterprise can do the job, let it, and only let the gov't do things that can't get done properly otherwise; and gov't agencies should always feel pressure to explain this or that program and what its budget and restrictions are really doing ... not what they "say" they're doing, but get a gaggle of economists to tell them what it's doing and then have them explain. But if a gov't program is the only way some socially essential shit can get done, and it has a damn good explanation, then it would be bad news IMO not to give it that free space to act in. Have your big debates and keep the pressure on, but when a decision is made and is legitimated, let the gov't do what it does.

I don't really get the zeal that some of the full-fledged wacky whole banana libertarians have to transform our political system to the equivalent of Malawi's. Nations with nuclear-armed militaries and budges in the 100s-billions/trillions are in no way served by emulating the politics of fledgling governments like those of poverty-stricken countries. Why would you want a government that impotent and out of touch with governing?