|
Check this out:
http://seasteading.org/
Brief intro:
Currently, it is very difficult to experiment with alternative social, political, and legal systems on a small scale. Countries are so enormous that no individual can make much difference in how they work, and the existing entrenched power structures have tremendous inertia. Seasteaders believe that government shouldn't be like the cellphone or operating system industry, with a tiny number of providers who offer few choices and make it hard to switch. Instead, they envision something more like web 2.0, where many small governments serve different niche markets, a dynamic system where small groups experiment, and everyone copies what works, discards what doesn't, and remixes the remainder.
This is something I've been following for awhile, and it's legit. Shit, we put a guy on the moon, this should be easy.
Digg the intro, if you will. I see this as a great hope for human advancement and freedom.
|
Building a rocket to send some guy to the moon is easy compared to making people change what they've been used to for hundreds of years.
|
Yeah, social engineering != putting someone on the moon.
|
Belgium6759 Posts
So basically they wanna go back centuries in time?
|
If this ever gets rolling, I would want to be a part of it.
|
if this ever gets rolling I'll be sure to be part of the biggest country that conquers all the little ones
|
On a related note, pirate attacks have increased by 14% in the first 9 months of 2007
|
The site isn't loading for me, but from what I'm gathering, this is a project that wants to basically experiment with different modes of government? Sounds interesting, but you would have a hard time emulating real world conditions. What works in the middle of the ocean with a small selection of carefully selected volunteers without any outside influence isn't guaranteed to work in the real world. There are also serious ethical concerns with just "experimentation". Sure, it sounds exciting, but I don't expect to be signing up for one of these colonies any time soon.
Ok, site just loaded, and the first thing that came to mind is *Andrew Ryan*  .
Maybe this is some kind of alternative reality game promotion for Bioshock 2 =))))))))
|
Cool...can anyone who disagrees with this please issue forth a critique rather than a feeble one liner?
|
United States41934 Posts
On April 18 2008 06:46 HamerD wrote:
Cool...can anyone who disagrees with this please issue forth a critique rather than a feeble one liner?
I really don't wish to fully critique this but it seems like a ridiculous waste of money to obtain a theoretical freedom which will either be anarchic or mob rule. The end result will be the majority creating a system of laws and accountability by which they can agree to exist, and then the minority who don't want to live on seastead will come up with some plan to create a new floating island in the sky where they can be free. And the whole thing will repeat itself.
There's a reason societies look like they do. The system works. Also societies benefit from economies of scale, the cost of living on a seastead would be far greater than on land.
The only people for whom this'd be good are madmen who can all get together and think their crazy way of life is normal but even then it'll either be unsustainable or so immoral that a benevolent neighbouring nation sinks them to put them out of their misery.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 18 2008 06:46 HamerD wrote:
Cool...can anyone who disagrees with this please issue forth a critique rather than a feeble one liner?
It's simulating what it'd be like to live on mini-platforms with other people out in the ocean, not what it'd be like to run governments.
The "testing governments" part is just a far fetched addon, but the gist of the program is running away from current nation states.
The key to civilization is some type of bureaucracy, whether it's for running full scale federal programs or just managing food supplies. That simply isn't present in this idea. They're also eliminating history, expertise, and the islands are essentially impotent. How do you simulate the best way to run development programs in South America based on 100 people surfing the internet in little plastic structures?
Honestly, I made more of a rebuttal than it deserves. I could've just said "there's no agriculture" and it would've fallen flat on its face as a political tester. If you want to live in a sea going colony of hermits for a very expensive price, then it sounds great, but it has absolutely nothing to offer to political theory. Survivor and that Kid Land TV show offer more value than these do.
|
cool idea. think I'll wait for a moon colony tho 
|
As for the idea of "niche governments", there's the problem of huge negative externalities. With the power a government usually wields, it only takes a few bad ones to cause a lot of problems. It doesn't even have to be something big. For instance, one micro-country could just legalize child pornography and start up an underground market that imports it. If they deny access to other countries' law enforcement agencies, then the only way to stop this is to invade, which is extremely inefficient.
|
On April 18 2008 07:12 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2008 06:46 HamerD wrote:
Cool...can anyone who disagrees with this please issue forth a critique rather than a feeble one liner? I really don't wish to fully critique this but it seems like a ridiculous waste of money to obtain a theoretical freedom which will either be anarchic or mob rule. The end result will be the majority creating a system of laws and accountability by which they can agree to exist, and then the minority who don't want to live on seastead will come up with some plan to create a new floating island in the sky where they can be free. And the whole thing will repeat itself. There's a reason societies look like they do. The system works. Also societies benefit from economies of scale, the cost of living on a seastead would be far greater than on land. The only people for whom this'd be good are madmen who can all get together and think their crazy way of life is normal but even then it'll either be unsustainable or so immoral that a benevolent neighbouring nation sinks them to put them out of their misery.
-ps i am actually responding more to your post out of context than in-
I disagree with your general opinion...I think there are several different ways of running a country and drawing up a government; that's obvious. To say 'the system works' is just vague to the point of unintelligibility: which system?
I think that if one examines the Ancient Greek method of government, de-centralization, one finds a highly developed political system, shepherded by philosophers and scientists just as much as power-mad rulers and hereditary leaders (and remember this is a damn long time ago); which led to the country being the forerunner in all matters of intellectual and artistic pursuit, and even military. Are we to say that the Greeks were in fact genetically superior to us, or just that their system of government was one which one could now consider to be different and perhaps more functional in pursuing the end which they did at that time.
I think that centralization is safe but it is in no way optimal. Centralization is good for the security of the nation, and for the purpose of fighting crime and such, but weaker when it comes to individual micro-management of areas; I don't think that can be argued against.
I would finish that it's a very very bad idea, in my opinion, to do anything like this (op). A war with the terrible, militaristic governments of China or Russia seems on the cards. It could be the fatal weakness if the 21st century west chooses to randomly shuffle about its hand while China draws more and more cards.
|
United States41934 Posts
You lose all respect in my eyes by being ignorant enough to suggest I examine the ancient Greek method of government. Why don't you go examine it and tell me what you find out. Get back to me when you have. Also, the fact you capitalised it makes you all the more hilarious.
|
Agreed with Kwark. Greece was not a "country". Speaking of vague to the point of unintelligibility... Are you talking about Athens? Sparta? or are you confusing Greece with Rome?
Honestly dude... the psuedointellectualism reeks.
|
United States41934 Posts
I felt the need to post again because on reflection your post is fucking hilarious. I mean god, "the country"!?!? The country of Greece? That well known staple on ancient maps. With it's highly developed political system.
It is perhaps the funniest thing I've seen posted on teamliquid in the last 12 months and I read everything Moltke posts.
|
Few people recognise just how successful modern societies are. Just consider, a few MILLION people organised into places of work and places of residence, global economies involving the entire globe where everyone in the workforce is a specialist particularising in certain facets of that society (such as construction, science, engineering), and all working more or less in harmony and peace. There's a lot to be improved of course, a lot, but not so much as to warrant the claim that the foundations of modern society are useless.
BTW, what this experiment suggests has already occurred. It has taken human society thousands of years to get to where it is today. In the process of 'testing' different systems of governments, humanity has endured wars - none more devastating than the two world wars, and in modern times, none more resounding than democracy's victory over communism during the Cold War. These wars, as much as peace is, have been critical in the development of human society - and for want of better word - have been a darwinian process, if only prima facie. How it will be possible to simulate this process through a more or less un-scientific experiment, i think, will be the experiment's theoretical and practical failure. And this is not to mention any practical issues with establishing the experiment in the first place - e.g. how is this going to fit in with international law? where is the money going to come from to establish the experiment? etc.
In short, if we were to express what we have just said in internet parlance, we'd call this psuedo-experiment an "epic fail".
|
ah whatever...rather not pick fights.
|
I'm just going to stay out of this
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
