Your Ideal SeaStead Community
October 19, 2009 at 6:55 pm #8383
Cats should have the right to be citizens of any sensible seastead.
Especially Laser Cats.October 20, 2009 at 3:32 am #8387
Ken SimsKey MasterCarl wrote:
Cats should have the right to be citizens of any sensible seastead.
Especially Laser Cats.
Well, there’s our seastead defensive force right there!October 20, 2009 at 4:01 pm #8392
Laser cats also have the ability to reduce any argument to “Awesome! Laser cats!!”. God, I love Laser cats!
- NickOctober 28, 2009 at 2:15 pm #8465Michael wrote:
Well, I certainly wouldn’t call it well-administrated by any stretch of the imagination, but of course I’m talking about the U.S.
Isn’t that the case in every authoritarian regime? As is it’s corollary, that the people in charge never recognize that their regime is not well-administrated.
Heck, that’s the whole problem.October 28, 2009 at 2:46 pm #8466Carl wrote:
There shall be no restrictions on freedom of travel, aside from minimal regulations on vehicles to ensure the safety of others.
This will destroy the market for competing private certification agencies in the transport sector. Responsible people should only travel with people they trust or with vehicles certified by a private agency with a good record.[/quote]
And how does this protect these responsible people from the irresponsible other who runs them over?Carl wrote:
Government regulations are almost never on the right level. Half the time they are excessive, making vehicles more expensive for no benefit, and half the time they are inadequate, killing the people who put their lives in the hands of a central planner.
Agreed, but that doesn’t mean that there should be no regulations. Let’s not forget that almost all the car makers strenuously resisted installing seat belts in cars – just for starters.Carl wrote:
Unless the seastead is invaded or is under imminent threat of invasion or extinction, taxation can never exceed ten percent of earnings.
A seastead where the people isn’t interested in voluntarily contributing to defense is not worth defending.[/quote]
The historical examples for why taxation isn’t completely voluntary are compelling. Mainly, there’s the free rider problem, and no one wanting to contribute in a timely manner when they are concerned that their neighbors aren’t going to do their part and they will be impoverishing themselves for no purpose. I consider defense to be too important to be run as a charity – so as far as I’m concerned, the voluntary part of contributing to the mutual defense would occur when someone decided to live on the seastead.Carl wrote:
The government of the seastead may facilitate education by making the means available to students, but may never require any adult to attend school, or require any child to attend more than 2000 hours of formal instruction, nor require more than 7 hours instruction in any one day. The government may not provide educational services itself.
Making the government educate children sounds noble enough in theory, but what it really does is eliminate the market for private alternatives. So children will be educated in a centrally planned system lacking most of the competition that drives progress in free markets.
Having the government buy the education from private schools is a bit better than government schools for sure, but it is still a severely crippled market.
Let parents keep their money instead and they will be able to send their children to private schools.[/quote]
Perhaps this is a linguistic issue: “To facilitate” means “to make something easy”, which is not the same thing as doing it.
Thus, the government of the seastead would have a role in making it easy for children to be educated – say, by making sure that any child that wanted it could get an education – without actually doing the educating itself (which is too easily abused) or requiring a child to be educated beyond a bare minimum.
That bare minimum – 2000 hours – amounts to about two normal school years or less. The purpose of such a requirement would be to protect children from tyrannical parents by giving them some exposure to the outside world and giving them enough education that they could choose for themselves whether they wanted to continue their education or go directly into some other field. 2000 hours should be more than enough to teach a child to read and do basic math, along with some basic lessons on how society works and what their rights are. Of course, students could be given an automatic right to education up until their nth birthday if they so choose, but by making everything beyond 2000 hours completely voluntary students can choose what is best for them rather than what is best for bureaucrats in the Department of Education.
Of course, it is expected that most children will naturally want to stay with their families, and that parents will have a lot of influence with their children unless they do things so badly that they probably shouldn’t have influence with their children. Furthermore, most parents will want to see their children succeed, so I don’t expect that society would radically alter overnight. Most students would still go to school, but schools would need to compete to be appealing to both parents and students. Government would be allowed to facilitate education – for example, by offering vouchers at qualified institutions – but would not be allowed to implement it themselves. Parents or others could also purchase additional educational resources for students, allowing a good amount of buy-in without neglecting those with limited means. Of course, even such a system could be abused, but no system can withstand the assault of a determined majority that wishes to abuse it (witness the United States). The chief thing would be to provide legal protections to prevent the worst abuses, in the hopes that a determined minority could rally around those strong points.November 4, 2009 at 1:45 pm #8521
Ever thought about how communities and governments were first founded? How people (early species of humankind) went through the process of living individually or despotically in packs to living in tribes and towns? I see government’s reason of existance in a different way than liberterians i guess. For me first communities and governments were founded so that its citizens who were too weak to survive ‘with laws of/in’ nature could survive. We are subject to laws of nature just like any other animal but instead of perishing when confronted by stronger, when we were confronted by nature itself, we forced our way of thinking to evolve and we’ve founded communities, tribes to endure and fight against them and governments to administer our lifes so that we can survive and prosper. The word government is the opposite of anarchy in my dictionary. And there is no such thing like ‘a bit anarchic’ ‘a little anarchic government’ in neither my terminology nor any other terminology. Though there are things like ‘strict government’ or ‘benign government’. While asking a government to protect their existance from outside effects(like other people perhaps?) to survive how come citizens also ask for freedom to harm themselves? I don’t know, i just can’t get it :S From my point of view we humans are no different than any other animal, yes we are smarter i know that but still, we do what we see and learn, things we think we want to do are things what we’ve seen or learnt to do. By creating a society, we are destroying freedom to begin with in society younger individuals who haven’t completed their mental growth will see and learn what others do, and they do the same(admiration) or the opposite(hatred) of what they ve learnt from others in the future, their freedom is limited by older generations course of actions. (even in scientific reasoning exceptions exist but that doesnt change the facts) Or do you guys really think society has no effect on individual’s mental growth? Freedom is something you can experience if you choose to be alone in my opinion, because a free man’s freedom destroys the rights of others around him..(rights and freedom has completely different meaning, one is given by society other is claimed by individual him/herself) In my opinion anyone who claims to be free to do whatever he/she likes with his existance is an enemy of state he/she lives in. We are not only individuals if we choose to live in society, we are citizens and examples, examples for future generations, because humans has a habit of emitating others while they grow.November 4, 2009 at 1:50 pm #8522
By the way, thank you Alan for explaining your ideal seastead administration briefly, This is the point of the topic
And for your ideals, we are almost totally different in ideals i guess, though i do believe freedom is viable when citizens are responsible and well educated, but i think it will worsen with every generation after the 1st.
My ideals and myself are totally different though so i think i’d like to come and see how that society works…November 5, 2009 at 4:01 pm #8529
Shouri, your ideas really seem to scream of “utopian dystopia” and I would never want to live on your seastead. However, if you chose to respect the right of other seasteads to exist and followed the non-aggression principle (NAP), then I wouldn’t have a problem with you running your seastead the way you see fit as long as you also respected the NAP toward your own citizens and allowed them to leave if they desired.
The ideal seastead community for me is one that follows the practices of voluntaryism, where things are spelled out front, where everyone agrees to the principles of restraint against force, fraud, and theft, where there are no sets of “rulers” to oversee all, where decisions and transactions are done through voluntary exchange and human action, and where there is always the right to disassociate and move to another seastead if things aren’t working out or if you simply don’t agree with the society or your neighbours.November 8, 2009 at 1:39 am #8560
. . . then when I hit “submit”, this damnable wireless access point I’m using redirected me to their page so I could log in again, and that message was irretrievably lost.
Well, suffice it to say that individualism does not imply that one should not act socially, merely that the core unit of society is the individual, and that society exists for the sake of individuals, not individuals for the sake of society.
That said, it is still generally beneficial for individuals to work together and to form social bonds for the betterment of both themselves and society. This necessarily curtails some freedoms, but it is the choice of each individual to make that trade. It is not the right of any society to force such trade-offs on individuals, beyond the bare minimum required to prevent harm to its members.
The difference between someone who freely makes a sacrifice for the benefit of others and someone who is required to make a sacrifice for the benefit of others is the difference between a patron and a slave. That is why this tends to get any decent man’s dander up.November 11, 2009 at 7:20 pm #8627
>Let’s not forget that almost all the car makers strenuously resisted installing seat belts in cars – just for starters.
And then they just did the minimum to get by. And the gov’t regulations convinced most people that it was enough, which short-circuited any competition on safety between car manufacturers. Further, there was nothing preventing anyone from putting in their own (or having a dealer install) seatbelts. If I ever get a car I intend to install a roll bar and 4-point harnesses; that will cost me a bit, but it will be much cheaper than medical care (not to mention less painful than getting creamed). I don’t believe in “Safety First”, but it is an important subsidiary value, and you should always keep it somewhat in mind.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Posted on at
Written by Shouri