Should libertarians be forced to move to artificial libertarian islands
Pay Pal founder and early Facebook investor Peter Thiel has given $1.25 million to an initiative to create floating libertarian countries in international waters, according to a profile of the billionaire in Details magazine.
Thiel has been a big backer of the Seasteading Institute, which seeks to build sovereign nations on oil rig-like platforms to occupy waters beyond the reach of law-of-the-sea treaties. The idea is for these countries to start from scratch--free from the laws, regulations, and moral codes of any existing place. Details says the experiment would be "a kind of floating petri dish for implementing policies that libertarians, stymied by indifference at the voting booths, have been unable to advance: no welfare, looser building codes, no minimum wage, and few restrictions on weapons."
True
Side Score: 10
|
 |
Wait..., what? No!
Side Score: 12
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
|
I was really excited when I first heard about this. Ended up being in a long ass debate with two friends (who are liberals) on Facebook. The whole point of the Libertarian Islands is to take away force. So forcing someone to live there is counter to the idea. I think that if this project works out, overtime it will end up having a decent population. Of course, many people do not support something like this, but I believe that to be a natural selection. Those who support Libertarianism will make this place greatly efficient. If we have a bunch of Liberals (asking for entitlements) and Conservatives (questioning the morality) we'll end up having a big bureaucratic mess. At least since it will be privately owned that turds won't really be able to take away the liberties of the citizens. Side: Wait..., What? No!
1
point
I'm against forcing them. It would be interesting to laugh at how many laws the liberatarians had on their island though. Like, they'll basically just come up with new names of taxes and the like, but be situated exactly the same as most democracies today. Of course they won't get the joke, but the rest of us will have a good laugh. Side: good for a laugh
2
points
The biggest laugh is your incompetence on what a libertarian society really is, there would be no democracy, so there is no situating exactly like other democracies. Democracy implies the rule of the majority, democracy is the tyranny of majority. Democracy implies government. Basically, you are saying that the way the world is now, it is the absolute best that it can be. Side: True
That's what checks and balances in government are for. Which libertarians would eventually figure out, and try to come up with ways of implementing, all the while becoming more and more like the governments they think are so horrible. Then I'll laugh even harder. Side: good for a laugh
1
point
|
