Dan Amira, a writer for New York Magazine, apparently picked up on the Washington Times angle to seasteading, featuring our mission alongside plans for four other so-called conservative utopias. While the label of conservative can be fairly applied to a concept like “The Citadel,” which explicitly discourages liberals from applying to their walled-compound-with-mandatory-militia-training, we wish to reiterate what differentiates seasteading from conservative or even avowedly libertarian efforts that populate the rest of Amira’s list.
Most importantly, while other movements exposit a single ideology or set of rules for improving society, our stance is that the ideal form of governance in a rapidly changing world cannot be known a priori. However, we know that current systems are not delivering sufficient solutions to major issues such as financial stability, regulation of advanced medical technologies, and environmental sustainability. To find something better, we have to try many new ideas, and observe what works, i.e., what attracts the most citizens through innovative political and social systems.
Amira comes closer to the truth than many authors in recognizing that we seek to enable experimentation with a wide variety of political ideas, but still can’t resist applying labels that mischaracterize the seasteading movement. Finally, even though we see serious problems with the state of governance on land, our vision is not rooted in escapism, but instead in finding solutions that will improve government’s functionality on land and at sea, through the demonstration of best-practices and innovations.
We’re curious to know what our community thinks – is seasteading libertarian? And what does it mean to be inspired by libertarian ideals? Leave a comment on this post, or on Amira’s article.