Yeah, damn those fuckers that rely on benefits to have shelter, food and warmth. Ridiculous that they should even consider that they require that as a basic necessity in life

and highlighting our name is getting rather tedious. It’s a brand name - get over it.

The word ‘liberal’ has a meaning - it isn’t just a brand name. There seems to be some illiberal sentiment from time to time. Therefore some articles seem at odds with your brand.

That’s all some of us are pointing out.

That said, I am skeptical of the economics of seasteading.

I believe that if you have benefited from a country or a society, then you have responsibilities to that society even if it is not wholly the kind of society or government that you would choose

This is true only up to a point. There is an argument that nobody asked to be born in, say, the US or Britain and expecting them to maintain a lifelong responsbility to the country of their birth/early life is not always reasonable. I agree that there is a moral responsibility, but I also believe that it’s not for me to impose my morals on others. I’m also (as I’ll come back to in a moment) not so sure that seasteading isn’t of some benefit to the ‘fatherland’ society from which one is departing.

Again, I am not saying anyone should be prevented from bailing out, but I personally don’t think that it is the right thing to do when the society needs your talent, your money and your political input. Changing a society is best done from within.

Again, that’s not always true. Should India have remained within the British Empire so as to have reformed the system from within? Sometimes striking out and creating something different can teach a lesson to the parent society, particularly when that society has become ossified by conservatism. The US constitution served as a catalyst for social change in Europe which has had broadly positive effects. We’re still yet to learn the lessons that India may teach us about mass democracy in the fullness of time. Diversity of governments and social structures may mean that sometimes people create ones that we don’t like, but the world as a whole benefits from having that diversity - better systems generally prevail, and if seasteading can help then that’s probably no bad thing.

The intention (from which I can only go by the manifesto and the historical examples outlined in the article linked by Douglas above) is an individualistic one. It is selfishness

This is a mistaken argument, in my view. One does not have to be a pure and good person for one’s actions to have good consequences. The long-term consequence of the seasteading experiment will be to prove whether or not seasteading works. If it does (and that’s a gigantic if), most of the benefit of seasteading will accrue to those who follow the pioneers - i.e. the general public inhabitants of seastead communities, who may be as likely to be creating a socialist, environmentalist, communist, liberal, religious or artistic community as the original seasteaders are to create a libertarian one. Ideas are public goods, and the plans, designs and experiences of seasteading will be available to all, for the benefit of all. This is the pattern that is followed by all innovation, a great amount of which has been carried out by individuals seeking personal benefit but has long since resulted in great improvements for the rest of society.

It is also instructive, well I think so anyway, to look at one example of just how messed up this sort of community can get:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand

‘Treason!’, ‘Coups’, fun for all the family!

Robert- Libertarianism in this extreme form is in my opinion an abjection of social responsibility. I believe that if you have benefited from a country or a society, then you have responsibilities to that society even if it is not wholly the kind of society or government that you would choose. Again, I am not saying anyone should be prevented from bailing out, but I personally don’t think that it is the right thing to do when the society needs your talent, your money and your political input. Changing a society is best done from within.

Alix - I am not sure that you have read the manifesto, but there is no suggestion in it that this will benefit the societies that have been left behind. The motive is to benefit the individual exiles and the people that come after that. The ‘open source’ term was my own summary term for an argument in the manifesto and is not explicitly used. However, my point is that it is open source is not really open at all. The intention (from which I can only go by the manifesto and the historical examples outlined in the article linked by Douglas above) is an individualistic one. It is selfishness. And that is my problem with seatsteading and with libertarianism.

I am personally liberal on many issues, but I understand that those liberties are only possible because I have the protection, education and wealth of the state around me. Libertarianism in this form is about putting those benefits in your pocket and sailing away with them. It is in my eyes, not facing up to the problems that exist, but hiding from them, and then cloaking what you do in high words about liberty and pioneers.

So this is not about misrepresenting anyone or trying to prove that I am right (if that is even possible). It is my political opinions based on the examples set out. These are complex issues and cannot really be satisfactorily dealt with in one blog post, but they are interesting questions for us to talk about as this thread has shown.

If seasteading proves viable, the nature and character of the original pioneers will be rendered irrelevant. Ideas are public goods, and if the idea of seasteading is something that can have positive implications (something that you appear to acknowledge with reference to pirate radio stations) then it doesn’t really matter how it becomes popularised, but that someone does it. If these people are happy to pay for the research, testing, experimentation and so forth required to turn seasteading into a viable proposition, why on earth would we want to stop them? For my part, as someone who would like to see the field of human endeavour expanded, I’m cheering them on.

So these particular pioneers might not hold the exact same political views as yourself. But, for all that, there’s not a whole lot that’s terribly objectionable about their views. They want to create their own society, with their own rules and - unlike previous generations which have wanted the same thing - are not proposing to invade or displace anyone else in order to do it. Above all, your assumption that they should, in any way, have to conform to your notion of righteousness is intolerant in a way that I find hard to agree with. You’re entitled to your view, but I don’t think you’ll find much agreement from people whose primary concern is for liberty above conformity.

“Here was a genuine example of where a seastead did change society through positive example. The pirate radio djs didn’t want to escape their country but to improve it and to gain more liberty for it. This they managed to achieve because they remained a part of that society. The new generation of seasteaders have no such noble cause if their manifesto is anything to go by.”

This quote appears to show that you are still not addressing two of my main points. Your thinking only appears to evolve when presented with an opinion that is congenial to your existing assumptions. This is worrying.

1. It is purely *your* reading of the manifesto that the seasteaders have no noble cause. Their manifesto, apparently, talks of “open source government”. That to them is a noble cause. It may not work (it probably won’t) and it may get hijacked by people who want to use said noble cause for their own ends (it probably will), but the stated intention is to create a social experiment - the idea of open source is that it can be copied by others who may want to do quite different things with it. Whether or not you believe the seasteaders’ account of themselves is entirely up to you - but you must understand that to disbelieve it is an *assumption* on your part.

2. You talk once more of segregation. You overlook what “open source” actually means (in computing terms). The intention of these people is that their idea should spread. The pirate DJs are a good analogy because they were doing, via literal instant communication, what (some of) the seasteaders hope to do via long-term market forces. The intention is to create an experimental society which *will* eventually inform the norm in a way that the individuals involved couldn’t separately. This is what the parables are intended to illustrate - their helplessness within society to change things. By voting with their feet, they both serve their own immediate selfish desire to live in their own ideal society, and add to the collective voice of that society so that its cultural influence grows. Selfishness and the evolution of the social form they favour are intertwined here.

Again, I don’t believe for one moment that it will work overnight, in ten years’ time, or possibly even at all. But you cannot simply misrepresent someone’s *intentions* and use it to “prove” that you are right and it’s all a terribly idea.

Mieville also highlights the comparison with pirate radio ships in the sixties. Friedman and Gramlich highlight this in their manifesto as well. However, as Mieville suggests, this comparison is a false one. Pirate radio disc jockeys didn’t take to the seas in order to exile themselves from their country but to provide a service to the people of that country that the state would not allow them.

Here was a genuine example of where a seastead did change society through positive example. The pirate radio djs didn’t want to escape their country but to improve it and to gain more liberty for it. This they managed to achieve because they remained a part of that society. The new generation of seasteaders have no such noble cause if their manifesto is anything to go by.

In fact as the parables I highlight above show, far from wanting to change society, they wish to exile themselves from it while still trying to portray themselves as righteous pioneers. Unlike the pirate radio djs, they want to take themselves and their taxes away from the country that has made them what they are. Far from changing their country, they will only impoverish it of their money, their talent and their political views. I see nothing especially liberal in that.

You might find this interesting, it’s an earlier critique of an earlier version of the same thing. China Mieville is a very good new wave fantasy author and a bit of a left winger too, so, an all round good guy:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3328/floating_utopias/

He had a bit of a vested interest in the idea, as his book ‘The Scar’ made use of the idea of a floating city, albeit run by pirates IIRC.

Excellent. The parrot was the stumbling block on our last attempt.

I have a feeling that this time, it just might work…

What do the people that work in a country house do if they don’t agree with the people that own it? They put their notice in and leave. Exactly the same would happen here but with the added advantage that they could also change their neighbours (and to a limited extent weather) as well.

The same would happen on a seastead. If the cooks, cleaners, and marine engineers that would be needed to keep these things running decided that they did not want to work their anymore (a better offer on another seastead for example) they would just put their notice in and be landed with the next supply run. Somebody else would be hired to take their place and the lord of the watery manor probably would not even notice that the person tiding up the detritus of their non-stop orgying had changed.

If the cleaners refuse to clean anymore the Lords of the manor are not going to force them to stay on. This would only use up some of the extremely expensive and limited space on their platform which could be used for something more productive. A drugs factory for example.

If it works then these rich folk sinking their money into spar platforms will lead to smaller cheaper platforms that more ordinary people could afford. Just as with every technology, first it is for the rich and intrepid then prices fall as the numbers grow and the technology matures. Eventually you could see sea steads at a price that ordinary people could afford, and then things would get really interesting with fast evolving societies on archipelagoes out at sea which anybody is free to join simply by turning up with their own portable island.

Brands can only be trusted if they embody values and the confusion over the branding of this site is an important example of how this effects political campaigning.

How is it possible to build a coalition between people if one group of the proposed alliance feels unrepresented? How is it possible to remain a cohesive force if the philosophy promoted is at odds with the means of doing so?

I suggest either you expand your limited personal conception of what ‘liberal’ means or adjust the brand to more honestly reflect the fact you really want this to be a campaigning hub for left-liberalism.

No, I think you are missing the point, like Bishop Hill.

The point of this piece seems to be that liberty, as espoused by libertarians, is usually a pipe dream that doesn’t take into account the fact that its only a few rich people who can take advantage of that liberty. The rest are forced to deal with even worse situations.

It is the classic liberal v left antagonism, and I think the article does a good job of illustrating it.

Liberty without opportunity is a fantasy, and should be exposed as such at every opportunity, especially when rich people try and couch it as something ordinary people can attain.

And I have to keep repeating this every time because certain people haven’t yet read the about us page or understood it well: this site encompassed liberals and lefties, as well as liberal-lefties. There are certain tensions between the different positions and we want to explore that. This article is part of that. Other times we run something very anti-statist. Just coming here and assuming we’ll only take one position…. and highlighting our name is getting rather tedious. It’s a brand name - get over it.

Just another whinge about rich people.