In a few weeks, I’m heading to Ephemerisle — the Seasteading Institute’s first annual anarcho-capitalist convocation on the high seas. Call it a fact-finding expedition. A few words of explanation:
While I’m probably the most libertarian of the PoMoConners, I’m not that libertarian, so what gives? The important thing to understand is that the goal of TSI is not to create a floating An/Cap utopia, but rather to create a meta-system in which alternative political systems can be tried out with minimal barriers to entry and switching such that Darwinian mechanisms can produce that society most conducive to human flourishing in the judgment of… well, the kinds of people who are into seasteading.
I had the pleasure of inviting Patri Friedman, the founder of TSI, to give a lecture at Yale last year. I made sure that a number of friends with exquisitely sensitive BS-detectors were there to probe Friedman on the economics/engineering implementation details. All were impressed. I’m reasonably confident that the project will be a practical success at least in the short to medium-term. Hence, the questions I’m seeking answers to at Ephemerisle will be a little more philosophical:
- Do the participants in the project consider it to be an escape from politics or a return to politics properly understood?
- The seasteaders claim to be receptive to seasteads composed of individuals with a shared political vision of the good that differs from anarchism in substantive aspects. How true is this? In other words, is the true focus on the meta-system or on the desired outcome of the meta-system?
- Have the seasteaders considered the possibility that the kinds of societies that succeed in a “free market of civilizations” may not be those most conducive to flourishing? Have they considered the possibility that people don’t know what’s good for them?
I hope to write up a full account of my experiences when I get back. You all can help me by providing suggestions of things to look out for, questions to ask, and theories to test. The landlubber with the best suggestion gets a commemorative pirate flag.
September 10th, 2009 | 11:47 am
I’m glad you’ll be attending. Any event that includes presentations on applied political theory by masked speakers is bound to be some kind of great.
September 10th, 2009 | 2:41 pm
[...] Wilson is embarking on what sounds like the coolest road trip ever: a visit to a convention of libertarian seasteaders [...]
September 10th, 2009 | 3:25 pm
My bid for the novelty pirate flag:
http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/09/my-questions-for-the-seasteading-road-trip/
September 10th, 2009 | 5:19 pm
Will money be replaced by cigarettes like in Waterworld?
September 11th, 2009 | 6:32 pm
Have they considered the possibility that people don’t know what’s good for them?
We’re not talking about low IQ people here.
The people involved in the seasteading concept tend to be dynamic entrepreneurial types, generally with a technical background. Some of them, like myself, have lived as expats for a significant portion of our adults lives. They have both the intelligence and the broad range of personal experience to have proper perspective in life.
Given the above, it should be obvious that they know very well what is best for them.
Intelligence + life experience (AKA perspective) = knowing what is best for oneself.
September 11th, 2009 | 8:07 pm
Kurt,
I meant on a societal level. I.e., is it possible that a dynamic market process at the level of states or statelets could lead to poor outcomes?
September 13th, 2009 | 9:28 pm
I meant on a societal level. I.e., is it possible that a dynamic market process at the level of states or statelets could lead to poor outcomes?
It will lead to better outcomes for two reasons. One, the dynamism resulting from the competition will result in greater effectivity of results. Two, people will have more choices about what kind of societies they can opt to live in (greens and libertarians can live in different societies).
The problem with current governments and states is the lack of competitive pressure that would force governments and political elites to treat people as assets rather than as cannon fodder. This is precisely why something like seasteading is so obviously necessary.
Also, humanity needs a physical frontier. First, the oceans, later space. A physical frontier allows the “free spirits” to go out onto their own and create new ideas and new societies free from the interference of bureaucracy and cultural inertia. This is especially the reason why transhumanists need their own city-state (if they can get their act together to make it happen).
The people who seek freedom and openness, those who seek to live by and for their productive efforts and minds, have a fundamental right to be free of those who do not. This, more any anything, is the moral imperative for seasteading.
September 13th, 2009 | 11:24 pm
Hmm … well … sounds pretty cool. But history is littered with such efforts. Sometimes they work out well, the United States being one example. But what they all have in common are the unpleasant discoveries that the outside world will not leave them alone and that some minimum amount of government, and thus politics, is necessary. I wish I could remember who said this, but I can’t: If men were angels they would not need government. If men were governed by angels they would not not need to fear government. But since neither is the case, men both need government and need to fear it. I look forward to hearing from the future.
September 14th, 2009 | 5:49 pm
The problem with a non-competitive system is that it allows for a parasite class of rent-seekers (the political/financial class) to come into existence and to shut down all productive achievement. This, along with the fact that bureaucracy is inherently resistant to innovation of any kind, means that meaningful change can only occur from outside the system. Hence, a competitive meta-system on the level of political entities becomes necessary in order to free the productive from the rent-seekers.
The fitness of any society is directly proportional to its dynamism and its ability to innovate. A competitive meta-system of governments will lead to the development of societies of greater fitness.
September 17th, 2009 | 7:11 pm
That sounds truly awesome; were I not currently wrapped in the tendrils of the ivory tower, I’d eagerly accompany you. I’d be curious to know how interaction between “societies” is going to be structured. Will meta-societal structures, like banks that facilitate inter-societal interactions emerge whose presence might facilitate a subtle process of homogenization as they would give “plugged in” societies and advantage over those who don’t adopt the “killer app”. I will be following this! So cool!
September 18th, 2009 | 2:14 pm
Competition at any level of human social organization is good because it forces people to engage in productive accomplishment (which, by its very nature is positive sum) rather than to engage in zero-sum social games that are often used to suppress innovation and human accomplishment. It seems to be an inherent trait of human nature to engage in bureaucratic behavior (e.g. create and participate in hierarchical social structures), which inevitably degenerate into parasitism. History suggests that competition is the only effective method at curbing such behavior. This is why I think efforts such a seasteading may, indeed, be necessary for the future of humanity.
September 24th, 2009 | 9:34 am
I’m sorry to see that the conference side of the event got a lot less interesting with the loss of Paul Romer and masked blogger “Mencius Moldbug.”
October 7th, 2009 | 3:05 am
[...] follows is more like a post-mortem that includes things that surprised me, things that answer the questions I had before setting out, and things that the readers of this blog might find interesting. As more ideas come to me, others [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact