The title of this post comes from Ilkka Kokkarinen’s idea of “synergessays“, although perhaps it doesn’t count when they come from the same source.
The first is Patri Friedman’s talk at Cato on Seasteading, which roughly coincides with his initiation of this month’s Cato Unbound on the same subject. I’ve said before and I’ll say again (even contra Patri) that his is the only viable plan for libertarianism, though it would also help other ideologies achieve their country (to possibly misuse a phrase of Rorty’s). It could best off the ground quickly if there were a very profitable industry which would have a large advantage in operating from a seastead. Unfortunately, Patri notes that governments will likely reach out and crush any “libertopia” that goes full scale into legalizing anonymous banking and the manufacture/exporting of large quantities of illegal drugs, leaving more mundane law-skirting like medical tourism. As someone not especially socially liberal, I’m fine with settling for (if I could get in and obtain a good job) Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Singapore, Hong Kong & Dubai rather than insisting on combining them with the Netherlands or Sweden. However, just as we all gain consumer surplus from the penny-pinchers at the supermarket (to that spillover isn’t contained by coupons) I think the effect of competition and innovation on the rest of the world will outweigh the importance of any particular policy regime on a single seastead.
Though on a different subject, similar constraints popped up in Glenn Greenwald’s talk on drug decriminalization in Portugal. Tim Lynch introduces it with some background on the policies before 2001 with the quote “The U.S’ drug policy is the world’s drug policy” (or something along those lines). Portugal went farther than the Netherlands in that it applies to all drugs and the decriminalization laws are on the books rather than merely unenforced (citations have in fact increased over time, as there is less paperwork police need for mere misdimeanors). The commission that ended up recommending that change in the law convened with the starting constraint that full legalization was off the table (so trafficking is still a criminal offense) due to international treaty obligations. While seasteads do not start out with treaties in the first place, the experience of countries like Portugal (and I would add many tax havens, included landlocked ones like Liechtenstein) shows how far a small nation may go without incurring the wrath of other countries. We may need policy libertarians to retard the response of the U.S to those places pushing the envelope. Peter Reuter began his talk by noting that he doesn’t normally receive such large audiences when the subject is drug policy, though money laundering is another story as people are simply more interested in money. I think the people on the internet who were recommending policies for Obama to discuss were disproportionately drawn from those interested in marijuana, and money is where the real money is (obvious, I know) when it comes to starting up seasteads.
Finally, in a completely unrelated video, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita gives a TED talk on predicting the outcome of complex negotiations, and more specifically the Iranian nuclear program.
April 12, 2009 at 4:21 pm
I agree with you about Seasteading. His essay was pretty epic – made all other libertarians look like fools. If he is right, it would seem that Cato, IHS, and other libertarian organizations might as well be flushing their money down the toilet. Zing.
April 12, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Oh, and I got Patri to come give a talk at my (and Dain’s) school tomorrow. Should be great.
April 12, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Are you bored by life in general and by the countless insipid and inane blogs you encounter while trying to find something amusing, stimulating and interesting? Do you yearn for intelligent and thought provoking chit-chat instead of the mindless, dull and semi-coherent drivel spewed out by the countless feeble minds that infest the blogosphere? Are you tired of communicating only with people who talk the way you do and think the way you do? Do you crave an adventure of the mind and are not afraid to brave the unknown landscape at the border of lunacy to find it? Well then, pack up your intellectual gear and start out bravely for I am waiting for YOU at http://theyeshivabucher.blogspot.com
Shalom and zei gezunt until then!
April 12, 2009 at 9:07 pm
That’s San Jose, right? You lucky devils.
April 12, 2009 at 9:38 pm
“As someone not especially socially liberal, I’m fine with settling for (if I could get in and obtain a good job) Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Singapore, Hong Kong & Dubai rather than insisting on combining them with the Netherlands or Sweden.”
The proliferation of more places similar to these, perhaps with widely varying cultural themes, is the only kind of libertarianism that could ever work, or has any real precedent. That’s why I tend to think something like Kirk Sale’s anarcho-communalism or national-anarchism is a more realistic outlook than orthodox libertarianism. I’ve got a new post about that here:
http://attackthesystem.com/2009/04/why-i-am-an-anarcho-pluralist/
April 13, 2009 at 12:44 pm
At least Friedman recognizes that democracy is BAD for libertarians.
I have my doubts about seasteading. Who ever heard of a libertarian paradise aboard a ship? Ships are always dictatorships, and for good reasons.
April 13, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Right on, Keith. In your post you might want to point out Jacob Levy’s “Liberalism’s Divide”.
Tarl, it’s sort of like a ship but also like an oil-rig in that it is mostly supposed to stand in place for long-term habitation. Also, it is supposed to be modular so that anybody who gets fed up can just remove their own property from it. Regarding the constant of naval dictatorship, you might want to check out Peter Leeson’s work on pirate constitutions.
moshe rabeynu’s comment was flagged as spam, and his previous one probably should have been but I’m leaving it up because I like his moxy.
April 13, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Yep. It was a great talk. Seemed like he even converted some people, too.
When you say that you aren’t particularly socially liberal, in what way do you mean that? Do you mean that you simply aren’t planning on marrying a dude or having an abortion anytime soon, or that you would have problems with others doing these types of things?
April 13, 2009 at 10:48 pm
I’m mostly indifferent to social issues. By nature I’m a thoroughly square example of the derided bourgeousie. I think it was Murray Rothbard who introduced the term “culturally conservative” to fit people like him and Szasz who were opposed to conservative social policy but not quite social liberals either, and that might describe me. I have consciously arrived at a radically pro-choice position, but it’s not a major concern of mine (not a big change from when I thought of myself as anti-abortion). I am more interested in a fairly radical departure from current foreign policy that mainstream conservatives abhor, but like I’ve said even there I’m only anti-war in my head rather than gut and foreign policy is separate from domestic social policy. Will Wilkinson once acknowledged that religion may contribute to support for free markets, and in that case he feels a tension between promoting secularism and economic liberalism. I don’t have the slightest bit of Rawlsianism or secular liberalism in me, so there’s no tension. I personally don’t believe in God but I have no interest in promoting unbelief in others. In Narveson’s terms, I’m an extremely thin libertarian while those who want to tie libertarianism with social progressivism are “thick” (here oddly enough I agree with Will Wilkinson that libertarianism is a purely political doctrine, though he would consider me a proponent of “fake libertarian clarity”). Dain has been pointed out at the Distributed Republic that a lot of thin libertarians are deontologists while consequentialists may be more likely to be thick and concerned with positive liberty, making me the odd man out. It is the case that the Rothbardian Walter Block has promoted “plumb-line libertarianism” against left or right heresies, but that’s just a riff on the “plum-line anarchism” of Benjamin Tucker, a Stirnerite. I want to have as few “side-constraints” as possible in order to maximize the probability of a workable system.
April 14, 2009 at 11:08 am
I fail to see how anyone can attempt to set up an alternative to existing governments without trying to become independent of them.
July 15, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Check out the Federation of Damanhur, then. 1,000 people.
April 14, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Trade can occur between private individuals, so that doesn’t mean being directly dependent on other governments.
April 14, 2009 at 7:24 pm
TGGP: I agree with that. I suppose I’m pretty thin also. But I don’t think I’m that opposed “speaking to particular group benefits” (from the linked post by Dain), unless it would be disingenuous.
April 15, 2009 at 5:55 pm
So if the particular group in your post was “the poor” you would have had no problem?
April 15, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Right. Though if someone else made that type of argument, it probably wouldn’t sway me too much.
April 17, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Private individuals’ trading actions are subject to their governments. See also: Cuba.
Ocean luxury cruises can survive primarily because every place they go is eager to have them visit, if only because of the tourism income. A mobile seastead that focused on unpopular practices would likely have a hard time finding trade partners.
April 17, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Patri gave the example of pirate radio stations in his talk at Cato. They lasted a long time despite most European governments hostility to them and prohibitions on trade, because Denmark was the single exception.
March 29, 2010 at 9:06 pm
[…] Previously in synergy. […]