Hacker News Reader

Comment by philk | Hacker News Reader

A number of reasons:

1) Starting their own country wouldn't offer them much they don't already have.

2) There's no unclaimed land. That means you either need to build your own land (which is really expensive) or take it off someone else, which probably makes you a criminal around the world and might ruin your life already.

3) Once you've got the land, you've got to defend it, and mercs[1] + military hardware gets expensive really fast.

4) Even then, the nasty things you'd have to do to establish a country and get it recognized around the world will probably cripple your commercial activities.

5) They don't necessarily have much ability for governing/retaining power.

[1] No-one is going to die for Gatestan out of patriotism.

View on HN

http://seasteading.org/

1) The seasteading.org folks aren't rich, though they can get resources from rich people who like their program.

2) They have a well thought-out program for making their own land.

3) The land they have is very small, and it's perched on top of tall towers, therefore easy to defend. Private security and agreements with local governments should suffice for their needs.

4) The seasteading folks plan to use flags of convenience, or plan to just not be noticed. The platforms will most likely be mobile, so if they don't like their neighbors, they'll just move.

5) Since each unit is relatively small, they can use the same legal framework that captains aboard oceangoing vessels use.

[1] The seasteading folks seem to be about Libertarian ideals of freedom. I understand that there are indeed some folks willing to die for those ideals. I am not saying if this this is a good idea or not.

Disclosure: I am not a member of seasteading.org. I just think they have neat engineering ideas.

TSI is a great project, but the main function is to get noticed and spread ancap ideas IMO.

Reason: There will never be new country on the ocean in a world full of nation states.

The reason there are lawless international waters 13 miles offshore is because there is no threat to incumbent nations there.

The moment Seasteads start floating around, the UN will abolish the concept of international waters thus rendering the entire project worthless.

I think TSI/Seasteading as a technology could be successful, I just don't think the Seastead as Sovereign State thing is going to be viable in the next 20-50 years.

Putting a Seastead in someone's 200 mile EEZ, with that country's blessing, to run a private marine park, offshore free trade zone, etc. seems quite viable. By being physically separate and potentially mobile, a host country would have a lot less ability or desire to regulate beyond basic things. There are also some inherent advantages to an offshore platform in a marine environment (there are some concrete platforms floating in the Great Barrier Reef of Australia to support scuba diving operations already).

TSI does a decent job of splitting the technical (difficult, but reasonably feasible, and predictable) from the political, compared to most free-state projects in the past.

I had the pleasure of working for one of the board members of TSI. I'm very excited about this project. Great to see it mentioned here!

Easy to defend? Rubbish. One intercontinental ballistic missile would decimate their floating platform "settlements".

They are sitting ducks, one well armed rogue pirate ship could finish them.

Well planning for an ICBM is really overkill - most micro-nations would be wiped-out by a single nuclear-tipped ICBM (which are really the only kind since everyone assumes doomsday when one is launched). You're probably referring to tactical missiles a la Tomahawks, or even large anti-ship ones like an Exocet.

Technology that can be used for defense is progressing rapidly. The US military already uses unmanned flying sniper planes and Google already has surveillance helicopter robots. I expect that it won't be too much longer before it will be affordable to use robots and other high tech to defend a floating city against pirates and other enemies with conventional weapons.

North Korea has shown that the easiest way to defend against invasion by the US is to have a number of nukes. This seems to be Iran's strategy too. Until they have nukes, they are vulnerable. After they have nukes, they are much less likely to be attacked themselves.

If North Korea, Pakistan, and (soon) Iran have managed to get nukes, I don't see why small groups of rich, smart, western businessmen won't be able to.

A floating settlement armed with robotic drones and nuclear missiles would be pretty secure I think.

Nothing protects small country better than enabled dual citizenship with heavy-weight countries. Who would want to attack a country if majority of its population have dual citizenship with the US or UK or any other well-developed country?

They are sitting ducks, one well armed rogue pirate ship could finish them.

Why would an armed rogue ship want to do that? Seastead platforms would only have value as a floating platform. It's not as if you could easily fence the thing.

The platforms could also be hosting things of value, like a casino. A casino would probably be able to afford really good security, and its owners might well have enough political pull to get the assistance of land-nation's militaries. It would have to be a really organized and well equipped rogue pirate ship. I'm not sure these exist. The closest analogues are small open boats of armed Somalis and actual military ships.

Most likely, the platforms would be of little value to a pirate. The few that are going to be worth hitting will probably be too hard to hit.

Since when do pirate ships have ICBMs? Have you seen pictures of the Somali pirates? It's like 5 guys w/ AK-47s in a speedboat: http://patdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/somali-pirates1.jpg. Easy to defend against.

The only well-armed ships are navies. Yes, a navy or an ICBM could easily destroy a seastead. They could also easily destroy Monaco, Vanuatu, Dominica, or any other small country. The world is full of sitting ducks, yet we don't see them "finished" very often, because there is little profit in it for a government and it is politically unpopular.

In the 1970s a Las Vegas millionaire tried to claim his own nation when he discovered a coral reef that was exposed to the air at low tide, so he decided to build his own island:

http://articles.privateislandsonline.com/island-industry/rep...

Didn't turn out too well.

In short: new countries give citizens of existing countries more options to vote with their feet. Existing countries will use violence to prevent this.

Very interesting story. Didn't he try to ask for foreign help to defend from the intervention?

Actually there is still some unclaimed land: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Byrd_Land

I'm sure at least one of these guys might enjoy the challenge of making it hospitable :)

Interesting. I'd wage a guess that making it hospitable would at least be easier than colonizing Mars.

There is a reason nobody wants it: "Byrd Station provided a template for the doomed Antarctic base in the horror movie John Carpenter's The Thing."

If you actually wanted to build a base on Marie Byrd Land, I'm sure it could be done relatively cheaply, in the tens-of-millions-of-dollars range. Then quite a few more million dollars a year to keep it supplied and running. Certainly well within the capabilities of any multi-billionaire.

It's still not clear why you'd want to, though. I doubt you could avoid much in taxes, and it's really unpleasantly cold down there. On the upside you'd probably be safe from pirates.

edit: A nice yacht is probably cheaper per square foot than an Antarctic base, and tends to have much better weather.

Doesn't matter. Article IV of the Antarctica Treaty says "no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force;", Signatories include pretty much everyone and it dates back to 1959. You can claim anything you want, but it won't matter unless everyone else recognizes and respects your claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System

Yeah, but I didn't sign it :-) If I renounce my citizenship here, and move to Antarctica, who could tax me?

Maybe there would be no tax, but the cost of getting internet, energy and food supplied there would be very taxing. (What good is a year's worth of ramen if you have no fire to cook it on?)

It's worth noting that the only tax you're avoiding is tax on income actually earned within Antarctica -- ie. whatever trade you can manage with your fellow Byrdlanders.

You'll still get taxed on your income generated in other countries.

An undefended claim is no claim at all :P

If they ever do start acknowledging claims, Russia or China or the USA will claim whatever you squat on, and what will you do to prevent them from that? If they wanted to build a giant monument their awesomeness, how would you stop them from building?

Pseudo-kingdoms need soldiers, or at the very least, advanced automated weaponry.

Is it possible to buy out an island from an existing country to start your own?

I'd say that depends completely on that existing country's willingness to give up part of its territory. As it is, pretty much all of them don't like that idea at all.

I wouldn't bet on it, but I think some of around 200 countries might want to give up a small part of its territory for an appropriate sum of money.

I heard Greece could use some money

Germany actually suggested that Greece sell some island to pay their debt - more of snub than a real comment though I think

Even though, they'll still belong to Greece, it's the same as buying any other property. Just a bit more expensive.

The only countries who might be willing to do that (tinpot little dictatorships, presumably) are also the ones who are likely to claim it back after a couple of years. ("What? We never sold you this island!")

Better not bet on it :) There's a big difference between selling the legal ownership to land and giving up all sovereign rights to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bir_Tawil

2,060 km2 (795 sq mi) of unclaimed land next to Egypt.

I doubt you need to defend it right away... if you get more powerful - yes, why should anyone want to attack your micronation? They rather do it in diplomatical way so other countries don't recognize your sovereignty.

An American billionaire or (billionaires) sitting on a completely undefended island somewhere...

Don't you think that would be a magnet to just about every terrorist organization in the world? Not to mention if it is anywhere near East Africa I would image a few boat loads of real pirates turning up pretty quickly - even in a lot of what would look like safer neighborhoods I would expect you would start getting a lot of attention from organized crime and other very scary people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com