StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Zaune wrote:

Broomstick wrote:If they're outside of American territory they're pretty much on their own. If they're outside anyone's territory they better be able to defend themselves, because pretty much any pirate or other interest will see them as fair game.

That said, if they start buying in serious military hardware they're going to find themselves branded as pirates themselves... and I find it chillingly easy to imagine this turning out to be true if some of them get bored enough.

Exactly who is going to attack them ? And if they arm themselves who is going to see profit in taking the risk ?

Pirates, for one. A nice, juicy island full of rich idiots who deliberately removed themselves from the protection of a nation with a military - what's not to like about that?

The armed forces of whichever country they happen to be nearest, for another, at least if they get it into their heads to arm themselves beyond a few rifles. I suspect even the United States would take a dim view of a lot of Objectivists stockpiling heavy machine guns and rocket launchers on a floating platform a day's sailing from their coastline.

Zaune wrote:I suspect even the United States would take a dim view of a lot of Objectivists stockpiling heavy machine guns and rocket launchers on a floating platform a day's sailing from their coastline.

Hardly. There's no benefit and lots of downside (i.e. shutdown of the campaign funding spigots) for any US politician who wanted to cause them problems. For security they can just hire Blackwater or similar and get plenty of mercenaries toting low-end military hardware. Although a lot of this discussion is completely speculative, what's actually being built is just a luxury cruise liner with some permanent residents, so I don't see why it would have any more security issues than a typical ship of that type.

It's not governments they should worry about. It's success. If the island is nothing but an insignificant backwater, then it won't matter. But if it becomes fabulously prosperous as they no doubt expect it to, then it will create a much more tempting target for pirates.

Darth Wong wrote:It's not governments they should worry about. It's success. If the island is nothing but an insignificant backwater, then it won't matter. But if it becomes fabulously prosperous as they no doubt expect it to, then it will create a much more tempting target for pirates.

Why call them "pirates"? Let's be even-handed and refer to them as "entrepreneurs." This is simply the market regulating itself; if anything, such pirates as do attack should be praised for their healthy initiative in fostering competition.

While I have no doubt that you were being facetious, a market is supposed to operate without coercion, and therefore, piracy is quite the antithesis to it. What they may find out is that the market can find it hard to operate without rule of law.

madd0ct0r wrote:I don't know whether it'll set on fire, fall over or sink first.
possibly all three, in that order.

Only on the third try.

How the hell do they plan on getting around law of the sea treaties? As much as they may wish to declare otherwise, they're still on an oceangoing vessel.

So basically, it will beTHIS, just in shiny?

And with bigger yachts...

If the pirates are smart they'll do what the mafia does and extort them for protection money.
Assuming of course that the place is a success and actually turns a decent profit.

LaCroix wrote:So basically, it will beTHIS, just in shiny?

And with bigger yachts...

What is that?

That is the atoll from the opening of Waterworld.

Also, amusingly this (living at sea to evade taxes) is the Scientology model. That's why it's called the Sea Org, don't you know.

We don't have to worry about anyone attacking it.

It will self destruct for predictable reasons.

One of the stated reasons is that they want looser building codes.

Sure, looser building codes on a floating city. That can work well.

But what about keeping it running?

Who's going to pay for the divers to continually inspect, clear, clean and repair the hull?

Who's going to pay for the inspections to all plant equipment to make sure that they have fresh water and power?

A body corporate? Some other form of collective body? THAT SOUNDS LIKE COMMUNISM!

A few reasons why it won't work.

Also, there was a cruise ship version of this plan that never went anywhere, either, and a breakdown by another blogger on what that was all about in the link.

A lot of the backers for this are libertarians, but fundamentally seasteading isn't about libertarianism, or any particular ideology; it's about creating a more fluid market in governance. If some seasteads fail because they forgot to defend themselves from pirates at all, and others have their governmental shit together enough to drive off pirates, then hooray, the system will be working as intended by selecting for governments that don't suck. The same goes for catching on fire, or falling victim to rampant crime, or getting destroyed by frightening weather: it's Darwinian selection, and presumably the people who go to live on these things know what they're signing up for.

Really, this is just feudalism with higher standards than in the middle ages, and much more mobile populations.