Who's online
Recent user registrations
Registered Users
An island of sin and vice?
Thu, 05/08/2008 - 16:37 — jurisimprudent
Free society is great, but my fear is that, being the only island of freedom in a "sea" of governments that repress victimless vice, the seasteaders will inevitably find themselves in a society of perverts and unsavory characters.
I predict that industries that will thrive on seasteads will be those that modern governments have regulated out of existence, or nearly so. Presuming a seastead society would be more or less libertarian in its legal framework (a near certainty given the ease of secession), the industries that would really have a competitive advantage in seastead-opia might include
- private banking (read: tax evasion)
- prostitution
- other adult industries (pornography, dancing, etc.)
- gambling
- abortion clinics
- drug dens
- baseball games cruelly using only kittens as the equipment
- okay, probably not that last one
. . . and so on.
Admittedly, most libertarians would say that we prefer to live in a society where such activities are permitted than one in which government is powerful enough to stop them (with the exception of the kitten baseball thing – I think I'd convene a citizens' militia to stop that.)
But most would also probably prefer not to live in a society where every street in every neighborhood is lined with shops pedlling vice - like the Las Vegas strip but much, much smuttier. But given the huge world demand for such activities and the extremely limited outlets for them, I believe that there's a very strong chance this is what you'd see in the seastead colony.
And two more things just occurred to me: One is that mobsters already know how to do this stuff pretty well, so you may expect them to join up once it appears that your society will work. They may remain peaceful, but – hey – you’d be living right next door to those who were mass murderers in a former life (and may become so again the instant they get back on shore). And two: governments are going to absolutely hate you. Take the U.S.: we spend tons every year helping Colombia combat their cocaine cartels. Is there any chance we wouldn’t take at least a passing interest in a floating island that just happens to have become a haven (if not a headquarters) for drug operations?
So in summation: (1) a free society but one completely overrun with sin and vice, and (2) the U.S. may bomb you as a matter of principle.
Can somebody point out a flaw in this logic?
"Free society is great, but
"Free society is great, but my fear is that, being the only island of freedom in a "sea" of governments that repress victimless vice, the seasteaders will inevitably find themselves in a society of perverts and unsavory characters."
A careful study of past and current societies points to the opposite: more vice arises when people have more power over their peers, not the opposite.
"Can somebody point out a flaw in this logic?"
Well, it seems you start your reasoning from a purely unsubstantiated assumption which is later reinforced by the reasoning. This is called a petitio principii sort of logical fallacy.
Question: how exactly do you
Question: how exactly do you envision a 'street' in a seasteading community?
Each and every bit of 'land' will be created out of thin water, and have a well defined owner. Just because i might happen to run a drug resort, doesnt imply i would allow my clients to set a foot on the platform i live on. The same applies to most of the potential issues you mention.
As long as no drugs are being exported from there, i do not see much reason why anyone would take offence. Nor do i see any advantage in trafficking through a seastead.
Defs, please.
The "US bombing on principle" question is more interesting, for the US has a track record of bombing or shooting people, abroad, for funding organized crime in the US (be it terrorism or drug turf wars). As far as I know the US never bombed or shot people abroad for comitting victimless "crimes".
I can't see any reason for seasteads to end up hosting such a funding of large-scale crime. People engaging in these activities are much better off choosing a location that is not easily sunk by a few well-placed rockets and is a little harder to spot from an observation satellite.
As for the question of "vice" and "sin", please provide objective definitions of "vice", "sin" and "moral", or else I can't see this discussion going anywhere.
Now look . . .
Fellas -
You guys are a whole lot of fun, so I'll bite:
I'm familiar with the "begging the question" fallacy, there Jesrad. But just to be more clear, my basic point is twofold:
1.
(major premise) "victimless vice" is less costly in a location where government does not devote vast amounts of money and coercive power to preventing it
(minor premise) a seastead colony would probably be such a place
(conclusion) victimless vice will probably be less costly in a seastead colony
2.
(major premise) there is a huge demand for victimless vice the world over
(minor premise) a seastead colony will initially be quite small in size relative to the demand
(conclusion) people will flock to the colony in numbers disproportionate to its size, making vice-related industries the most valuable use of the available space
The "bombing" thing was really just hyperbole for the sake of emphasis. On a more serious note (seems to be the general tenor on this discussion ), I'd say a seastead colony would face a lot of interest and potentially intervention from the US and other nations interested in stamping out the drug and skin trades. My argument for this is mostly based on the example of US intervention in Colombia and other nations. The danger, of course, is that other nations may un-libertarian the seastead colony at the point of a gun as soon as it starts to take steam.
Finally, I think the best way to assail my arguments is probably with Eelco's rejoinder that you could just sail away from the sin if it didn't appeal to you (or close your window curtains or whatever - it's your private property after all). I would say his argument pretty much carries the day if by "seasteading" we're not talking about the forming of a relatively large (1000+ people, say) libertarian society. But my fear is that, in that society - the larger one that the Christian fundamentalists have already floated away from - you'd be surrounded by vice.
To this, the libertine should well answer “who cares?” but not necessarily the libertarian.
P.S. Jesrad - your challenge to please define sin is an excellent philosophical question. But I'm going to leave it be, respectfully. I think it should be clear - in broad terms - what I'm talking about.
Finally, I think the best
Finally, I think the best way to assail my arguments is probably with Eelco's rejoinder that you could just sail away from the sin if it didn't appeal to you (or close your window curtains or whatever - it's your private property after all). I would say his argument pretty much carries the day if by "seasteading" we're not talking about the forming of a relatively large (1000+ people, say) libertarian society. But my fear is that, in that society - the larger one that the Christian fundamentalists have already floated away from - you'd be surrounded by vice.
Redefining 'society' is in large part what this is all about for me, so that deserves discussion in some more detail.
The way i see this: Say you have a one-family seastead, which is your property in the same sense that a house is typically regarded. It is connected to a bunch of seasteads of people that you share a lot of values and ideals with, and feel like associating with, voluntarily. Probably there wil be some 'public' property within this community, where people get together to drink coffee and discuss their local politics. But this property will be equally 'public' to anyone not in this community as my house is: you dont get in without being let in.
Similarly, these small 'tribes' would probably feel like floating around near similar minded tribes, whom are perhaps not such close friends that you feel a need to be able to walk to their door, but whom you still would like to associate with on some level. On such a level you could also have as much public property as is mutually agreed upon, although i personally see the utility of public property rapidly decreasing around this point: i doubt there would be much. But id imagne forming a union that explicitly recognizes the property claims of its members, and a defensive pact. Rules for dealing with criminality between tribes, that sort of thing. Again, any common property this union would have would be entirely private to said union.
I imagine most commercial activity would happen in a more anarcho-capitalistic sphere. I could imagine setting up a coffee shop on tribal ground, but youd have a limited clientelle, so there wont be room for wallmarts there. Drug resorts seem unlikely too. In what legal sphere a business would like to set up shop is up to them: they could choose the stability and credibility a union or super-union might have to offer by subjecting themselves to their laws, or if it proves viable, go completely ancap and carve out their own rights.
The point being: society will be what you choose it to be. You might run into drug tourists in the wall-mart, but they probably will take some effort in making and enforcing rules that will make different kinds of people get along in their shop (probably to the detriment of the druggies). And this is the 21th century: you can always order online.
With regard to professional criminals i should say: their comparative advantage probably lies mostly in their ability to subvert the law, so they lose their strongest card by moving to a seastead.
Eelco's vision of a
Eelco's vision of a heirarchy of organized physical spaces matches with my vision as well. I don't want to live near a drug exporting platform - because it's going to get attacked by the US. I think most people will feel the same. So regardless of whether seasteads in general attract this sort of attention, I can assure you that the seasteads that most of us live on will not. Because we will band together with like-minded people, and those groups of like-minded people will band together, and one of the reasons we will be banding together (besides the pleasure of company) will be to enforce rules keeping out people who are unpleasant to be around, or dangerous to our existence.
In other words, your critique is fundamentally missing the way that mobility and the resulting consensuality of geographic relationships changes things. It's a hard thing to get one's head around, just like anarcho-capitalism, because we tend to think in more "fixed" terms. But if we design modular, mobile structures, the rules will be totally different. No one will have to live with anyone they don't want to - certainly not with anyone they hate or who threatens their sovereignty.
A seastead will only be full
A seastead will only be full of "vice" and "sin" (or anything) if most people on the seastead prefer this. And if they do, what is the problem? If they don´t there will be no market for it and it will go away. If you happen to be the last of the puritans in a haven of sin, move elsewhere. Things that are universally accepted as evil (like kitten baseball) have a very small audience and kitten baseball seasteaders will have to consider if it´s really worth the risk of aggravating everyone else (in the world) to play their favorite game.
replied with a post
I liked this discussion enough to reply with a blog post.
My basic assumption was indeed wrong
In his blog post, (very courteously worded, I might add - thank you) Patri rightly points out that my basic assumption was wrong.
I had been thinking that an eventual aim was to have a long-term, floating, libertarian “city" of some size. (I am sure that there are posters to this forum who still speak in such terms.)
This is probably why the restraints that accompany permanent settlement factored into my thinking.
What Patri and Eelco (probably correctly) envision is more like a game of Tetris with the gravity turned off - many little communities that may or may not link together to form larger societies for a significant amount of time.
But I hope it will not be beating a dead horse to propose that, if ever there were a floating “settlement” of some 10,000+ people (though I’m flexible on that number), it will either
1.Not be truly libertarian (e.g., they may banish any large crack cocaine consortium that tries to link up and start operations);
2.Not hold together very long; OR
3.Be deemed a “rogue” city-state by the U.S. and others and be subject to the possibility of intervention by on-shore sovereigns.
What it means to be libertarian
Regarding 1. : A true libertarian society is one in which rules are unanimously consented to. You can have a truely libertarian floating city where drugs, abortions, and even extramarital sex are banned entirely. The basic tenet of human interaction becomes "no obligation nor interdiction": a "floating drughouse" couldn't forcefully link up, and neither could the city sink it or push it any further than its incorporated territory. There's nothing un-libertarian about that.
Now, I can't really argue about 2, except note that people make mostly rational choices about their daily lives, that labor division is a very rational reason to open up and tolerate the other, and that insisting on a fixed configuration of society is missing the point of dynamic geography: only a dynamic equilibrium sort of society-forming is required, not a static one. In other words, it matters little if Seastead1 and Seastead2 disjoin after a lively relationship of a decade if they are (statistically ?) bound to link up again elsewhere, or if the link is very likely to be replaced by another between other seasteads.
3. is a very real threat, but not, IMO, for the reasons you have given. The highest threat I think is that nation-states "insist" upon "providing their protection" to all those "poor stranded 'discivilised' float-people who don't even have a nationality anymore". I can't think of any government sending troops abroad just to bomb a "den of sin", however I can propose Waco and many many other examples of people trying to dismiss the state they live under and ending up getting shot. It's all a matter of sovereignty and not morality: any significant population without a form of national sovereignty (a nation-state sort of government) imposed onto them will attract the attention of such nation-states who will see it as an opportunity to increase the breadth of their sovereignty. That's what happened between Minerva and Tonga, IIRC. All nation-states also have a deep interest at suppressing individually-sovereign people, because they'd be a living advertisement in favor of such individual sovereignty. They can't have that happen if they can avoid it. Nationalism is still very alive and well, if it was reason enough to cause World Wars it'll be cause enough to squash our dreams regardless of the blood and lives and costs.
I actually agree
For what it's worth, I think you make excellent points here. 3. is especially interesting. I just don't think you're arguing "against" my premises to the extent you're probably trying to.
scattershot
Oh, err, I'm not specifically arguing against, instead I'm casting in every direction in the hopes of catching something.
I still think a strong national feeling is both our worst enemy and best ally against invasion: lack of it will attract unwanted attention, too much of it might ruin the experiment from within.
nice
Now that's a thought provoking comment.
I'd add this observation : most people in landed countries have historically felt the opposite way: too much nationalism could provoke other nations, while too little could cause a country to crumble internally.
Given the track record of static, landed countries at controlling nationalism, maybe it speaks well of a seascape-nation that the perils are reversed.
Reversed outcomes
There is little wonder the situations are reversed regarding nationalisme, because nation-states and free societies do not measure "success" the same way at all: I think we want to avoid, and not condone, the successful creation of a centralized authority with monopoly of violence.
Sigh
I suppose if you believe I'm using the word "libertarian" wrong then my argument's pretty easy to assail.
Ummm....
Did anyone see the news of the Austrian guy with his daughter in the cellar for much of her life, bearing him a number of children? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7371959.stm
Doesn't the free-floating, largely self-sustaining, intensely private nature of a seastead lend itself to such horrors? If he could disconnect from any society that had the right to investigate people's homes when children go missing. then how could this type of abuse ever come to light?
I understand that a Libertarian society in a seastead community is highly unlikely to condone child abuse, and mechanisms to enforce collectively accepted rules would be put in place- but in that case the offender could just sail away....
If you want to engage in
If you want to engage in such practices, there are much easier ways than completely disconnect yourself from society. Most of the worlds surface area is lawless enough to get away with that kind of stuff.
People are not just being raped, but even dying right this instant. And what are you or i doing about it? Right.
Just because people live in the same type of dwelling as you do, doesnt mean you are somehow more responsible for them than (for) anyone else. In my opinion, at least.
Err, what ?
So... the daughter disappeared and the government's monopoly protection failed her so the father could molest her for years on undisturbed, and that's somehow a case against libertarian seasteads ? Sorry, I don't get your point.
International "laws"
International "laws" (conventions) against human trafficking (slavery) on the high seas would apply. The naval vessels of developed nations tend to board by force and investigate if they think something like that is going on. Sadly these sorts of things have been and will continue to happen.
There are "laws" decreed out
There are "laws" decreed out of pure authority and "make do" delusion by "people in charge", and there are laws, that emerge from the spontaneous interaction of people. In a situation of dynamic geography, the latter are more likely to apply than the former. I mentioned "Liberty and the Law" by Bruno Leoni above, a book which docments this distinction between "laws" and laws, and I shall repeat that reading recommendation here too.
Our only disagreement is
Our only disagreement is that i feel all laws are actually 'laws'. What does 'spontaneous', or 'natural' for that matter, mean? Arnt those 'rather' subjective terms? The only meaningfull distinction that i can see is 'laws' that i like, and 'laws' that i dont like. And thats all the distinction i need, really. Sure, i can distill some patterns out of the laws i like or dislike, and i can do likewise for the general population. But isnt that mere curve-fitting?
Sure, i can see the appeal in striving for the holy grail of universal righteousness, but i havnt seen anyone be able to do it without sacrificing their intellectual integrity, whether its socialists, libertarians or whomever.
"Sure, i can distill some
"Sure, i can distill some patterns out of the laws i like or dislike"
These patterns are called "emergent" in systemic analysis. The basic teaching of systemics (and cybernetics) is that the properties of a system determine its outcomes to some extent. In the case of human society as a system, it means the laws of physics, of the universe we exist in, have a significant impact on ethics and justice. Of course it it is far sufficient in practice to just agree or disagree with specific rules. There is a lot more to this, but I don't think it's the right place to discuss it. The only point I wanted to make here is that there are other ways than legislation for coming up with laws. Ways that have been in use in many civilisations for centuries.
I dont disagree with any of
I dont disagree with any of that.
But you can go so many ways with it. Social behavior is an emergent property in all creatures with the cognetive abilities to sustain it. Does that mean we should embrace the inevitable international socialist revolution?
But you are right, this is not the place to discuss it. We wont settle this here, and its a matter of little practical relevance that we should not allow to get in between our common goals.
Natural law
Natural law has a specific meaning. A natural law is a physical principle. The law of gravity is fair and immutable- it applies equally to everyone. Violate it at your peril.
semantics, again
Legal and moral philosophers mean something else by "natural law." It's not the same as "a law of nature." Debate whether the legal philosophers are right if you will, but it's no use telling everyone they're wrong just because you understand "natural law" to mean mere physical properties of the universe.
I also disagree on a minor point - the law of gravity is completely unfair.
It has changed frighteningly
It has changed frighteningly often to be so immutable. Unless of course you refer specifically to Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, which is itself outdated an inaccurate with several flaws. I suppose when we play semantics on people, we ought expect them in return. Nein?
Wild Wild West
For a new society to work you will need some forms of entertainment for both the high class, middle class and support class ( sounds better than lower class ) Proven entertainment is drugs, prostitution and alcohol. Now there are ways to regulate and tax these items and they should be. Taxes from these items should be used to upkeep the seastead they are located on, used to help with drug rehabilitation, STD testing and awareness for prostitution. Having these items will help build your community and regulation will help keep it clean. You can not leave these items to go unchecked or you will end up with a seeder side of the industry.
Point is simple, vices are needed to grow a society but strict guidelines and regulations should be required.
De-virtual
"But most would also probably prefer not to live in a society where every street in every neighborhood is lined with shops pedlling vice - like the Las Vegas strip but much, much smuttier. "
Not a big fan of Second Life either, I'm guessing...
;-)
Proven entertainment?
Non-pornographic (in the legal sense) movies make far more than the porn industry. what does the average porn star make? A few thousand for a movie. A hollywood star will make hundreds of thousands to millions for a movie. The budget and return are magnitudes higher. Books are proven entertainment. Sports are proven entertainment. Myriad hobbies, relationships, families, the Internet, gaming, there are far more forms of entertainment and they all compete with each other. Gambling, prostitution and recreational drugs will not form a solid basis of a sustainable society. I have no problems with more relaxed atitudes towards all of these things, but none of them produce anything that will advance the human race.
The porn industry, though
The porn industry, though you are correct in stating that it is smaller (around half the size, roughly, in terms of revenue) in size than the Surface Film Industry, has quite a bit of sway. For instance it is said that the porn industry was a major deciding factor in the decision of VHS vs Betamax and the decision between Blu-ray vs HD.
If the difference in size of
If the difference in size of the porn industry were due to regulation, that would make it even more profitable, no? The libertarian argument against prohibition is that it doesn't work and it drives up prices. If prositution and porn were completely legal in all places, the selection and range of quality offerings of each would probably go up, and the prices for amateur stuff be such that it would be difficult to give it away. Just like any other art.
I'll re-iterate that I REALLY don't think that porn, prostitution, and gambling are a basis on which to form a society. Even taxes are not. Liberty in general is a good reason to move from one society to another, but even libertarians have to eat, have to have some semblence of normal lives.
Au Natural Sea Steading
Living Au Natural at Sea?
No one to bother U at Sea vs into the harbors.
See clothesfree.com
Select Islands can have windscreens & shelters to deter pervs from shore.
Guests sign up at shore beach station for ferry to Island with Pre screening ID system.
Can OK members from
Clothesfree.com
AANR
TNS
FKK
INA
See above websites.
All & Au Natural at Sea.
Locales: HI, Caribbean, Med Sea, Greece, off Australia, PNG, Java, Philppines, Fiji, Mexico.
Most latitudes have far more
Most latitudes have far more practical reasons for clothing than modesty. A dedicated nudist colony also needn't go that far afield. It's pretty cheap to buy an isolated farm somewhere and build facilities on it. For that matter, most nudists that I'm aware aren't all THAT worried about gawkers. Sauvie Island in the Columbia River near my home has a nude beach. One thing about budists, they're not body-shy.