Building an Opt-In Society

An anonymous reader writes "In a talk at Y Combinator's startup school event, Stanford lecturer Balaji Srinivasan explained his vision for governing systems of the future. The idea is to find space to set up a new 'opt-in' society outside existing governments, and design it to take full advantage of technology to keep people in control of their own lives. That means embracing tech that subverts existing industries and rejecting regulation on new ways of doing things. '[N]ew industries are simultaneously disrupting existing ones while also exiting the system entirely, he says. With 3D printing, regulation is being turned into DRM. With quantified self, medicine is going mobile. With Bitcoin, capital control becomes packet filtering. All of these examples, Srinivasan says, are ways in which technology is allowing people to exit current systems like physical product production and distribution; personal health; and finance in favor of spaces of their own creation.' Srinivasan's ideas are a natural extension of a few proposals already in the works — Peter Thiel has been trying to build a small tech incubator city that floats in international waters, outside of government control. Elon Musk wants to have a Mars colony, and Larry Page has wished for a tech-centric Burning man that's free from government regulation. 'The best part is this,' Srinivasan said. 'The people who think this is weird, the people who sneer at the frontier, who hate technology, won't follow you there.'"

Comments

Power abhors a vacuum.

[devman]

Power abhors a vacuum. There will always be a government analog (even if it just your local warlord) wherever you go as long as there are other people. This is also the reason why weakening governments simply allows corporate power grabs, I'm sure there are some who'd love to return to the days of the East India Trading Company private armies and all.

Re:Power abhors a vacuum.

[diamondmagic]

Aww, and here I was thinking that we had to have a perfect society. But no, I guess we have to throw in the towel and give up on even trying.

Re:Power abhors a vacuum.

[Anonymous Coward]

And people are not social animals, despite the evidence of thousands of years of people being social. And also the earth is infinite. And it's not a problem that only some tiny fraction of 1 percent of people will be able to sustain this vision of the future. Oh, and it's all about me me me me me and my autonomy. Can't we just fucking get along?

Re:Power abhors a vacuum.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not with assholes like you walking around.

Re:Power abhors a vacuum.

[0123456]

The good news is that, once we're off this planet, most of those grand old sociopathic power dreams become impossible. There'll never be a Galactic Empire, because you can't boss people around when your orders take thousands of years to reach them. There will probably never even be a Solar Empire, because the odds are high that your 'private army' can't travel at more than 10% of the speed of light, and the Oort Cloud is far enough away for even that to be very hard to control.

Re:Power abhors a vacuum.

[fisted]

The bad news is, we likely won't even reach those places, due to the vast distance. If we do, we maybe found a way to take 'shortcuts', but then, orders can be sent through those shortcuts, too.

Re:Power abhors a vacuum.

[0123456]

The bad news is, we likely won't even reach those places, due to the vast distance. If we do, we maybe found a way to take 'shortcuts', but then, orders can be sent through those shortcuts, too.

There's no known technical reason why we can't travel at around 10% of the speed of light. At that rate we can expand across the entire galaxy in a million years or so.

Re:Power abhors a vacuum.

[jythie]

Which in a way is the point. These are generally people who feel they deserve more power then they have and it is the government's fault they are not doing better in life, thus if they break away THEY get to run things instead. There is a reason these types of projects tend to attract narcissistic people, it takes a certain amount of self centered confidence to believe that in such a shakeup they will come out on top rather then simply ending up worse then before since some new group of powerful people will simply have even more control over them.

Re:Power abhors a vacuum.

[NoMaster]

Ah, colonising space ... the techno-utopianist version of Homer Simpson's "Under The Sea".

Re:Power abhors a vacuum.

[rasmusbr]

Corporations don't really want to be the government analog, corporations just want peace in their primary business areas so that they can do business and make money. If the incumbent government leaves corporations will ally themselves with whoever is ready to fill its place, be it private security companies, or druglords, or motorcycle gangs.

Re:Power abhors a vacuum.

[ridgecritter]

Yeah. One wonders what dreams these people have that are being blocked by the government.

Mr. Musk is doing good work in establishing commercial access to space and giving us a new choice in cars. SpaceX has a $1+Billion ISS supply contract from NASA (Government), and Tesla accepted and paid back a roughly half-billion dollar loan *from the government* that was extremely helpful in establishing the company's manufacturing operations. Seems to me that in Mr. Musk's case, the government has been a facilitator of his dreams.

I'm less familiar with Messrs. Thiel and Page's histories, but it would not surprise me to learn that government made a direct contribution to each of their businesses at some point along the way. It certainly contributed indirectly through providing infrastructure like commercial laws and the courts to enforce them, facilitating an educated and healthy population from which they could recruit workers, and on and on.

Re:Power abhors a vacuum.

[Wycliffe]

The good news is that, once we're off this planet, most of those grand old sociopathic power dreams become impossible. There'll never be a Galactic Empire, because you can't boss people around when your orders take thousands of years to reach them. There will probably never even be a Solar Empire, because the odds are high that your 'private army' can't travel at more than 10% of the speed of light, and the Oort Cloud is far enough away for even that to be very hard to control.

There is an inverse to this too though. Once the average person can travel the galaxy with ease there is no way to stop someone from
capturing and enslaving people on their private ships or planets and doing all sorts of inhumane things. Pirates and mercenaries would
permanently come back, people could disappear forever, blowing up or even threatening to blow up a planet would become a viable
option and a host of other very negative things as with access to a single ship you could go your own way and write your own rules
without consequences from anyone.

Re:Power abhors a vacuum.

[rtb61]

Your assumptions that the vacuum of space also includes a vacuum of existing political power and regulation seems rather childish and wishful thinking. Along the lines of the crazy logic, that because 100% of the planets that we have investigate in the surface water zone, the rest of the galaxy is uninhabited. When humanity has investigated say 100 planets in this zone and found them to lack life, get back to me.

As for intelligent life, as an intelligent species advances so it life span increase, eventually substantively this enforces social stability. Think of all your grand parents, great grandparents, great great grandparents, great great great grandparents (ps not backward peasants but those born of technologically advanced societies) not only being alive but socially and politically active. Once they get passed the self destructive hump (both individuals and society), they are likely to last a very, very, very long time.

Re:Power abhors a vacuum.

[bzipitidoo]

The problem isn't government per se, it's concentration of power. There are always those who want to abuse power. Government is a concentration of power that is all too easy for such people to abuse. A few bribes in the right places can pay all kinds of dividends, such as favorable regulation, cushy jobs for close relatives, and troubles for competitors.

When you're the one suffering over a favor handed out to someone else, it's very easy to blame the government. If we can create a society that works, and governs itself without concentrating power, then we wouldn't have this problem any more. Is that even possible? One way to find out is to try.

Re:Power abhors a vacuum.

[gl4ss]

british empire controlled, in some ways, places which took years to reach if you just left from london.

it doesn't matter how long it takes to reach the places as long as you have something they want(cargo! be it cocaine, morphine, new games or carrots) - or if you're willing to wait a while till your troops get there eventually.

but this build an offshore society exempt from .. exempt exactly from what? well exempt from car laws probably since you'd do shit all nothing with them there. the only viable economic reason I see is tax avoidance from growing drugs and in that case the war on drugs would arrive shortly on their artificial shore by fuckwits anyways

it's nice and all but I don't really see the use scenario. plenty of places where you can go and build your private society without it being offshore(there's dozens of closed christian communities in usa alone).

but for it to happen you better find the few people to put in the 10 billion dollars you need for it and willing to pay to keep the place running while the place not producing really anything, it's not like anyone would let you experiment on people with chemical warfare or do any of the shit they don't allow you to do on land.

or you could just go scientology way and buy an used cruise ship. cheaper. does the same thing.

Re:Power abhors a vacuum.

[bbsalem]

The good news is that, once we're off this planet, most of those grand old sociopathic power dreams become impossible. There'll never be a Galactic Empire, because you can't boss people around when your orders take thousands of years to reach them. There will probably never even be a Solar Empire, because the odds are high that your 'private army' can't travel at more than 10% of the speed of light, and the Oort Cloud is far enough away for even that to be very hard to control.

Except of course sociopathy is a built-in human that is likely to appear in gatherings of maybe around 30 people. And some societies, such as America, produce the trait at a much higher rate than others, so putting a colony on Mars will only reveal that power needs an override. Isolating groups of humans further only brings out tribal instincts more. The structure of society is determined by communication and response, seeking to solve problems with current power structures by a diaspora only send people back in time WRT social institutions. SciFi should be full of which hunts, not Libertarian utopias.

Lest you think I take a dim view of human prospects, just consider that for 99% of the time Mankind has existed that his population density has been very low, which is why we have public hair, so we can be sniffed out miles away. Mankind cannot adapt fast enough to the present high density situation where cooperation and empathy matter far more than competition and personal power cult. Maybe a human diaspora could save Mankind but on Earth the species could easily go extinct.

Re:Power abhors a vacuum.

[intermodal]

The thing is, it's not a power vacuum. Take, for example, the Kurds. They have no land, but are a nation unto themselves. And they get pissed all over by the governments that control the land they live on. There are leaders, and there is power, but it has been pretty lousy for the Kurds themselves in outcome. I hope these anarcho-capitalists fare better than their Kurdish counterparts.

no thanks

[Trepidity]

As a resident of a prosperous northern-European country with working infrastructure, a working healthcare system, relatively low poverty and homelessness levels, and generally a decent civil society that we all pay our share towards, I'll take the universal welfare state over some kind of ridiculous experiment in anarcho-capitalism. That's about as likely to work as any other anarchist experiment has worked. I guess America can have fun with it, though.

Re:no thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess America can have fun with it, though.

Somalia is having fun with it right now. I don't think this is what even the craziest teabaggers want.
Fortunately with Obamacare, America is realizing that there needs to be some kind of social security. In the long run, there's no way around it if you want to keep exploiting people and keep them relatively peaceful at the same time.

Re: no thanks

[gl4ss]

I love it when someone mentions Somalia and gives entirely uninformed opinions. This gives me the opportunity to debunk your statement with a single link: http://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf

2007. 2013 now and 1/3rd of somalians suffer from depression and the common cure is to chain them up.

Re:no thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

In all likelihood, your "northern-European country" has low indigenous birthrates, which means you have more grandparents than grandchildren and you're importing labor to help pay those taxes that prop up your welfare state. In about 2-3 generations, your welfare state will be gone, and so will your entire culture. Probably replaced by something that doesn't hold the same values as you do today.

If you're looking for an investment, start a women's clothing store that carries burqas.

Re: no thanks

[cyber-vandal]

LMAO that's your argument? Because the Barre government were abusive scumbags the Somali people are better off under the warlords and Islamists? Funnily enough all the Somalis that have fled their country disagree.

Re: no thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

And the best part: Every day is talk like a pirate day in Somaliarrrrgh.

But seriously, you're as misguided as a communist in 1980 praising the USSR as a workers paradise. Ears closed, mouth open.

Re:no thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Northern European countries have low birthrates and new people joining from countries where burqas (or cowboy hats) are worn is a reality. It is equally easy to import just the product of that foreign labor in the same way that the local product is traded with other people from Europe and beyond. As long as the social security system is managed carefully (something that anti-socialism people dislike) it will be possible to funnel more or less funds towards "working infrastructure, a working healthcare system, relatively low poverty and homelessness levels, and generally a decent civil society". Perhaps the people who really dislike the "we all pay our share" bit should secede and go live according to the free market faith they preach so often. It would be more productive than spreading the rumors that social security is unsustainable and we should privatise everything under the sun. I've been hearing it for over 30 years.

Re:no thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

As a resident of a prosperous northern-European country with working infrastructure, a working healthcare system, relatively low poverty and homelessness levels, and generally a decent civil society that we all pay our share towards, I'll take the universal welfare state over some kind of ridiculous experiment in anarcho-capitalism. That's about as likely to work as any other anarchist experiment has worked. I guess America can have fun with it, though.

If you're not going to tell us what country you're talking about I'm just going to call bullshit. Making vague claims of grandness while intentionally failing to provide specifics is simply a smokescreen to hide the fact you can't support your claims.

The fact of the matter is that most of Europe's "welfare States" have massive problems, and kicking out anybody who isn't the same skin color and religion is a bullshit method of dealing with poverty and homelessness. I have not seen a single country which claims prosperity like you do which is NOT essentially playing a "shell game" with your problems. You benefit from the economic and military strength of your neighbors, which are the only things that make your alleged Utopia even possible, and then try to pretend like it's something you've done all on your own.

Re:no thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree with your reservations, your countries economy is built of consumption and capitalism yes? Then it's doomed, Just like mine and everyone else s. It was the natural step to take as society changed. However, It's weakness and end game are now spelled out clearly for anyone how cares to look.

This form of social system is not maintainable and promotes the end our our species. I'm not seeing this other idea is better, but the general starting point is accurate. there are only two way to change this world. Slowly, or all at once.

The knuckle draggers that populate most of this planet can't deal with everything at once, so for now, starting small and allowing people to see the differences is the most effective thing on the table.

Re:no thanks

[CRCulver]

If you're looking for an investment, start a women's clothing store that carries burqas.

Immigration from Afghanistan and Pashto areas of Pakistan (the only places where burqas are commonly worn) to northern Europe is negligible.

Re:no thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact of the matter is that most of Europe's "welfare States" have massive problems, and kicking out anybody who isn't the same skin color and religion is a bullshit method of dealing with poverty and homelessness.

Can you please cite instances of when northern European countries, in the recent decades which have seen welfare states, have kicked people out on the grounds of them following a different religion?

You benefit from the economic ... strength of your neighbors, which are the only things that make your alleged Utopia even possible,

Finland chose not to join NATO during the Cold War and provide for its own defense, with the understanding that the West would not come to its defence in the event of invasion. It nonetheless managed to run a welfare state comparable to any of its Nordic neighbours.

Re:no thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

You're generally shielded from the burden of unskilled migration by your geographical location, shielded from invasion by your southern and eastern neighbors who recently joined NATO, you are far out enough in the periphery of world affairs to not attract the ire of regional powers, but near enough that everyone wants to woo you to their side. You have few people, yet have a claim to large swathes of ocean energy and mineral resources. While you have some exposure to the world and to racial diversity, you still remain one of the most ethnically homogeneous regions in the West, sparing you much of the social strife that other countries experience. Plus, most people have forgotten your country's contributions to murder, slavery, rape, and pillage, or they'd rather focus on someone else's.

Pretty comfortable place to be. Though, not quite a place from which to judge.

Re:no thanks

[thedonger]

I agree that this sounds like a ridiculous experiment. Of course, it can work while shielded within another system guaranteeing the security of those within as they ponder their quantified selves and hope the power doesn't go out or the network down, leaving them without a form of payment, data to tell them to eat more or less of a certain food, or a machine to make stuff for them. On a grand scale, however, it sounds like a voluntary prison. I feel the same way about your universal welfare state. For the record, the problem with the United States' form of government is that we failed to run it as intended. We the people - the many - turned over power to the few, and they abused the hell out of it. At least Walmart can't force me to buy their products. Well, not yet.

Re:no thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

As a citizen of a relatively, but not quite as properous EU country (Germany), I can see your point. However, there seems to be an amount of 'superfluous structure' and just corruption forming in any government of any larger size. And the E.U. as a whole seems to be very unstable now, as it is growing and growing and growing in unsustainable and crazy ways, and effective citizen oversight seems to be missing. Also, it looks like there is a certain amount of decadence now in a place like Sweden, and the immigration policies seem to be successfull at importing people but not such much as integrating them - as the narrative seems to be that any kind of expectations would be 'brutal'. Notwithstanding the fact that a civil war or general violence resulting from racial tensions will be even more brutal.
I do not know whether anarchy is the answer to any of this but it seems that Europe (and the west in general) lost its ability to renew itself. And I think this is because of a huge amount of -in the end- unsustainable structures and bureaucracies that form over time and are almost impossible to get rid of when they have outlived their purpose.
I think there is at least the need for a very strong decentralisation in the structure of European governments soon.

Re:no thanks

[Kjella]

You're generally shielded from the burden of unskilled migration by your geographical location, shielded from invasion by your southern and eastern neighbors who recently joined NATO, you are far out enough in the periphery of world affairs to not attract the ire of regional powers, but near enough that everyone wants to woo you to their side. You have few people, yet have a claim to large swathes of ocean energy and mineral resources. While you have some exposure to the world and to racial diversity, you still remain one of the most ethnically homogeneous regions in the West, sparing you much of the social strife that other countries experience. Plus, most people have forgotten your country's contributions to murder, slavery, rape, and pillage, or they'd rather focus on someone else's. Pretty comfortable place to be. Though, not quite a place from which to judge.

Quite a lot of fair points there, though I'd disagree on the last one. While the people who lived through WWII is quickly dwindling, we're very aware of our not-so-distant history when most of northern Europe was in flames and we considered ourselves all but ethnically homogeneous with über- and untermenschen. An awfully lot has happened since then though and we've probably done more to mend our wounds in the last 70 years than many other conflicts that have gone on for centuries. But I think I speak for most of Europe when I say we don't want to become a United States of Europe, the English want to be English, the French French, the Germans German and so on. We've found a peaceful way to coexist with "the other side" ceasing to exist and if it sounds a bit like we're saying "we did it, you can do it too" then that's probably true.

Re: no thanks

[DAldredge]

"© 2007 Association for Comparative Economic Studies. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved" :)

Re: no thanks

[girlintraining]

2007. 2013 now and 1/3rd of somalians suffer from depression and the common cure is to chain them up.

A few things. First, no country on the planet has 1/3rd of its population suffering from depression. The highest year over year incidence rate has been reported at .8%, with a lifetime incidence of 8-10%, if you're unfortunate enough to be a woman in that country. And that country is not Somalia. Somalia rated 153 out of 192 this past year on per capita depression. You'll never guess who got number one. And Somalia also rated pretty low on incarceration rates. Guess who got number one again?

How should I put my reply to your "debunk" as succinctly as possible.... AMEEEEERICA FUCK YA! I bet they're so jealous of all that freedom we got, eh? -_- Both of you are wrong; Both for "defending" the 3rd world, and for "attacking" it. Somalia is doing just fine; Worry about your own damn country.

Re:no thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

but... but... they can have guns! so much fun!

Re: no thanks

[cyber-vandal]

If Somalia is fine why are so many of them leaving?

Re: no thanks

[Desler]

Then move to Somalia and stop trying to turn this country into it.

Re:no thanks

[AlphaWolf_HK]

But I think I speak for most of Europe when I say we don't want to become a United States of Europe

So then what is the purpose of the EU? And why does it grow more and more powerful and centralized (e.g. the adoption of the euro) as time progresses?

Re: no thanks

[ttucker]

I don't think fact and rational thought are major driving forces in this discussion.

Re:no thanks

[ttucker]

where burqas (or cowboy hats) are worn is a reality.

Which country is supplying cowboy hat wearing low wage immigrant labor in Northern Europe?

Re: no thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

a bit late, the USA is closer to somalia, than you may think:
bat-shit insane religious moral minority ruling
a corrupt-as-fuck political system
failing economy
falling standards of living
stratospheric (and rising) debt spent 'protecting your freedoms' witch actually erode them
the only way to be safe is to be armed better than everyone else
balloning social problems

etc, etc.

if you want to know america's future a cantonese dictionary might prove useful

*spoiler*
as Arcangel Gabriel said to John Constatine

"You're Fucked"
*/spoiler*

Re:no thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to read more euro news. Anti-immigrant sentiment is a huge problem (and has been for years). Economies are suffering and the people are (in some sense, correctly) blaming the coupling of europe's open borders and free-for-all socialist benefits. Germany, England, Italy, France, Greece, Belgium, etc.. they're all facing variations on the same problem. They see their economy hurting, and they see hordes of [Muslim, Romani, Turkish, African ... name your favorite EU immigrant minority flavor of the month/subregion] sucking up the free welfare benefits, and that's where the blame goes. In some of these countries we're still in the early days: minor political support for "immigration reform", requiring more documentation and/or citizenship for benefits (which the immigrants won't be able to acquire reasonably), etc. In a few countries (notably France, Greece) things are already getting much earlier. Golden Dawn (Neo-Nazi party) is actually winning a significant chunk of the parliament elections over there. So yes, the EU welfare states are hurting, and yes, they're going after minorities/immigrants in an attempt to kick out the leeches on the system. It's not going to work, it's just going to create a huge underclass of homeless/poor immigrants who are still there.

Re:no thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

where burqas (or cowboy hats) are worn is a reality.

Which country is supplying cowboy hat wearing low wage immigrant labor in Northern Europe?

Haven't you heard about Polish Cowboy Hat?

Re:no thanks

[khallow]

Fortunately with Obamacare, America is realizing that there needs to be some kind of social security. In the long run, there's no way around it if you want to keep exploiting people and keep them relatively peaceful at the same time.

You have to have a society in order to have social security. While some level of extravagant promises can be kept, these obligations just keep growing. For example, Obamacare's trade off is to offer cheap health insurance in exchange for the violation of law, degradation and grow in cost of health care, and a weakening of society. That's a terrible trade.

What's the point of social security if basic infrastructure stops working? I can live without a safety net better than I can live without clean water or law enforcement.

At some point, you have diminishing returns and I think the US well past that point.

Re:no thanks

[0123456]

Yes, Comrade! The only hope for the world is The Glorious Workers' Revolution!

Of course, if you really are one of the few remaining unrepentant Commies, you should be celebrating technology like the 3D printer that allows workers to own the means of production.

Except what most Commies really want is to control those workers, not set them free.

Re:no thanks

[Kjella]

So then what is the purpose of the EU? And why does it grow more and more powerful and centralized (e.g. the adoption of the euro) as time progresses?

Mostly equal access to markets, capital, labor and resources. The main reason to start a war (outside racial/religious wars) is because the other side has something you want and can't have. If you can run the same business in the same market under the same rules from Germany as you can from France, what's there to have a war about? While there's quite a few intra-EU foreign workers when you look at it from a grand picture most people want to stay where they are if the job market and wages are decent there. Despite the freedom to travel and take jobs elsewhere most want to stay in their own country.

When I talked about a US of Europe I thought mainly about culture, language and identity. I'm sure there's differences between California and New York but they're nothing compared to Portugal and Bulgaria. Totally different people but if you want to sell Portuguese goods in Bulgaria or Bulgarian goods in Portugal the same inner market rules apply. As for the euro, the idea was to lower trade barriers because if you live somewhere like in the BeNeLux countries you have like five countries inside an hour's drive. No currency exchange means cross-border trade and shopping is easy as pie. The downside is that it was like having a joint checking account without ever agreeing on the rules for using it.

Yes, there's a lot of proverbial saber rattling but in the grand scheme of things it's very far from actual saber rattling. Worst case I think the EU will have to shed a few countries down south that have mismanaged their economy too horribly from the euro, but I think the union would stand and they'd return to a position like the UK, Denmark and Sweden which are in the EU and outside the euro. The rest is a lot of scare mongering to make them realize the seriousness of the situation, they both stand to lose on a collapse and as long as they don't play chicken on who takes the bill there will be a solution.

Re:no thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

You're generally shielded from the burden of unskilled migration by your geographical location, shielded from invasion by your southern and eastern neighbors who recently joined NATO, you are far out enough in the periphery of world affairs to not attract the ire of regional powers, but near enough that everyone wants to woo you to their side. You have few people, yet have a claim to large swathes of ocean energy and mineral resources. While you have some exposure to the world and to racial diversity, you still remain one of the most ethnically homogeneous regions in the West, sparing you much of the social strife that other countries experience. Plus, most people have forgotten your country's contributions to murder, slavery, rape, and pillage, or they'd rather focus on someone else's.

Mars. Too far away for the unskilled to emigrate en masse, invade, or govern from Earth. Few people. Lots of solar energy and rocks. Ethnically homogeneous - the first colonists will see themselves as "Martians" because it's tough enough to live there that any social strife will be a counter-survival value for the colony.

The biggest difference is that there's nobody there to murder, enslave, rape, or pillage. It's not a very comfortable place to be, but it could be a wonderful place from which to judge.

Mars sounds a lot like the New World. Whether it turns out to be like the New World at the time of the Vikings (too early, supply lines too long, colonies failed) or the Spanish (perfect timing) remains to be seen. One way or another, we're coming, K'Breel, and you can't stop us.

Re:no thanks

[0123456]

No wonder Europe is doomed, if so many there can't even see that the EU is, and always was, intended to create a 'United States Of Europe'.

Re:no thanks

[khallow]

While I agree with your reservations, your countries economy is built of consumption and capitalism yes? Then it's doomed,

Thanks for warning us that this post would be full of bullshit.

Just like mine and everyone else s. It was the natural step to take as society changed. However, It's weakness and end game are now spelled out clearly for anyone how cares to look.

Capitalism works and makes sense. Let us recall that the definition of capitalism is merely private ownership of capital. Experience has shown when people own something they take better care of it. They have an interest in making it work better. They make new capital on their own initiative.

Now, you allege a bunch of bad things about capitalism. My experience in the past has been that such people aren't really speaking of capitalism nor have any idea for a system that would work better for the dysfunctionality they are thinking of. We'll see if that is the case here as well.

It's worth noting, for example, that the "universal welfare state" mentioned in the grandparent is also a consumption and capitalism system since a) the welfare is oriented around providing for the consumption of basic needs, and b) people and private businesses are still allowed to own capital.

This form of social system is not maintainable and promotes the end our our species.

Evidence has shown that capitalism creates infrastructure for the survival of the human race and a great deal of cooperation. That doesn't promote the "end" of our species.

there are only two way to change this world. Slowly, or all at once.

I take it you've never done a complex, lengthy project before. All at once is just a recipe for failure since there will be so many details that you just don't understand when you start the project. Starting small is not just for knuckle draggers.

And starting small just makes sense. Figure out what works or doesn't work and scale up from there.

Re:no thanks

[rmstar]

Obamacare's trade off is to offer cheap health insurance in exchange for the violation of law, degradation and grow in cost of health care, and a weakening of society.

How does it weaken society? By reducing suffering?

Re: no thanks

[IamTheRealMike]

That's your debunking? That Somalia was (according to some guy who wrote a paper) a shithole before anarchy, and is marginally less of a shithole afterwards, therefore anarchy is good?

This is why the ultra-hard libertarian arguments always come across as so flaky. There aren't any examples of places that are both nice to live and stateless.

Re:no thanks

[IamTheRealMike]

In 2-3 generations the cost of providing welfare will have plummeted far below what it is today. That's rather the nature of progress.

However, for now, "importing labour" a.k.a. allowing immigration doesn't seem like a terrible way to raise the tax base, now does it? Especially as most northern European countries are getting immigration from eastern European countries where the dominant religions do not involve burqas.

Re:no thanks

[pla]

I'll take the universal welfare state over some kind of ridiculous experiment in anarcho-capitalism.

The problem here involves the sheer number of people we have on the planet. Human life has basically no value anymore - We have 7000 "one in a million" geniuses on the planet at any given time.

I like the idea of a societal safety net. I honestly do. But really, we as a species don't need it - In fact, we as a species would do better if we let our weak and unproductive members die rather than drag them along for the ride.

generally a decent civil society that we all pay our share towards

We call that a work ethic in the US. Over 2/3rds of the population provably doesn't have one (based on the real employment rate of able-bodied adults - As opposed to the sham published "unemployment" rate, which only measures the small fraction of people both recently out of a job and actually looking for a new one). Any suggestion that depends on the majority of our species to "do the right thing" against their own self-interest will fail.

As a resident of a prosperous northern-European country with working infrastructure, a working healthcare system, relatively low poverty and homelessness levels, and generally a decent civil society

Translation: A racially, culturally, religiously homogenous nation that has historically had the luxury of ignoring national defense and which has weeded out those who would reject its core socialist values. Yup, a group of like-minded people can accomplish great things. Now secure your own sources of energy. Develop your own technologies. Defend your own borders. Deal with half your population hating the other half. Whoops, not so rosy now?

Re:no thanks

[IamTheRealMike]

Have you actually been to northern Europe? Do you know anything about intra-EU migration, especially from places like Poland, Romania or Bulgaria?

Re:no thanks

[khallow]

In another story, someone was yacking about it being a "trade agreement". I didn't buy that then. I think it's an out of control bureaucracy with too much power and the ability to barter to gain more power in trade for positions in the EU government.

Re:no thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely. On the other hand, I like the idea that all anarcho-capitalists try their ideas out somewhere. There would be no better cure to this stupidity.

What I am wondering about though: Why not just go to a place without a functioning goverment? There are quite a few. It is too dangerous there and standards of living is low? Oh wait...

Re:no thanks

[SuperAwesomeDude]

A community’s quality of life is a reflection of the values and character of the people who live in that community. Race and culture matter more than government policy. Sweden is wonderful because it’s full of Swedes. Somalia is horrible it’s full of Somalians. If you abolished the welfare state in Sweden and built an extensive welfare state in Somalia, Sweden would still be a more desirable place to live. I hate to burst bubbles, but equality is a myth. Individuals and groups differ from each other in many ways. These differences play a major role in socioeconomic outcomes.

Re: no thanks

[SteveFoerster]

You don't have to be clinically depressed to believe that you'd be better off somewhere else than where you are now. For example, the small island nation of Dominica scored near the top of the world happiness index a few years ago, yet young people emigrate from there in droves in search of high paying jobs in wealthier countries.

Re: no thanks

[SteveFoerster]

Did you seriously say Cantonese?

Re:no thanks

[jythie]

Ah, but you forget, they way these projects are structured they never have to give up all those things since they talk about building right next to well established countries. They do not want to give up all the advantages of a strong government and economy, they just do not want to help pay for it or be constrained by the same rules.

Re:no thanks

[khallow]

How does it weaken society? By reducing suffering?

Reduce suffering? You really don't get the problems with the law do you?

First, it's a misallocation of public funding and a large inefficiency in the economy. Rather than spend a lot of money to make medical care more expensive (via the large health insurance subsidies plus those mandates on insurers), wouldn't it be better used to pay for federal level law enforcement and disaster response? Roads? National defense? The more you spend on feel good stuff the less you have for the things that actually matter and the things that the federal government is actually tasked to do.

Second, it creates several perverse incentives such as an employer shift to part time employment and reducing personal income to meet subsidy requirements.

These are part of why this is remarkably bad law even by Washington, DC. The US can handle some level of bad law, but it keeps piling up year after year.

Re:no thanks

[sjames]

If you mean we should just forget the insurance and socialize medicine, I'll agree. Don't even try to claim it will make it more expensive since every country that has done it has cheaper healthcare than we do. I'm with you on the infrastructure repairs.c We can pay for them by no longer playing world police and dropping the failed war on drugs.

Re:no thanks

[khallow]

If you mean we should just forget the insurance and socialize medicine, I'll agree.

I don't.

Don't even try to claim it will make it more expensive since every country that has done it has cheaper healthcare than we do.

Obamacare is what the single payer people got when they had the votes to do something. Of course, it will be ludicrously expensive just like everything else the federal government does!

We can pay for them by no longer playing world police and dropping the failed war on drugs.

I'm cool with that.

Re: no thanks

[Roachie]

Yea, the old 'better teach your kids Chinese' line... allow me to explain.

It a common wet dream among, I suspect - liberals, many that the US will soon be dominated by Asians.

I believe this stems from the inaccurate beliefs that:

1) China is the largest owner of US debt
2) That treasury debt bestows any power to creditor( other than to collect interest or sell the debt )

However, given that it is the UK/City of London that actually holds the majority of US debt it seems more likely that, if the sale of treasury debt to foreign powers is a risk to a national sovereignty... well we should be learning... British English. But those people are, largely Caucasian, and dont fit well into the western people defeated by clever non-western people trope.

Glad I cold clear things up.

Re:no thanks

[Trepidity]

Even total Muslim immigration is quite low. It's less than 5% of the population here. Most immigrants come from such exotic places as... Lithuania or Romania.

Re: no thanks

[SteveFoerster]

Right, I meant Cantonese as opposed to Mandarin.

Re:no thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

No, by reducing crime.

Re: no thanks

[Roachie]

Cantonese, Mandarin, its all Greek to me.

Re:no thanks

[cpt kangarooski]

Obamacare is what the single payer people got when they had the votes to do something.

Not precisely. The Democrats have moved very far left over recent decades, and are now functionally the same as 60s-70s Republicans. Obama's further right still. Plus in most instances, he's proven to be a terrible negotiator. He didn't even use single payer as a bargaining chip for something in the middle, much less as a dream program; he gave it away in exchange for nothing, right out of the gate. Assuming he ever wanted it.

What we got isn't single payer, so please don't act like it is.

Re:no thanks

[Guy Harris]

Not precisely. The Democrats have moved very far left over recent decades, and are now functionally the same as 60s-70s Republicans. Obama's further right still.

Presumably you meant "very far right over recent decades" (see, for example, this Democratic president's 1949 State Of The Union speech).

Re:no thanks

[rmstar]

Rather than spend a lot of money to make medical care more expensive (via the large health insurance subsidies plus those mandates on insurers)

Serious numbers on this speak a different language. Health care will be a lot cheaper (and better) for the vast majority of people, and only a little bit more expensive for those well off. The right is just making shit up. I don't really understand the motives - perhaps they like it when other people suffer? Perhaps they are just crazy? Most likely both.

Re: no thanks

[cyber-vandal]

Somalia is doing just fine; Worry about your own damn country.

No it isn't.

Re:no thanks

[sjames]

Obamacare is Romneycare re-packaged and is nothing like single payer and absolutely unlike nationalized healthcare.

We really needed to go that extra distance to get a healthcare system with a proven track record.

Re:no thanks

[khallow]

Obamacare is Romneycare re-packaged and is nothing like single payer and absolutely unlike nationalized healthcare.

I favor the theory that this law is intended to destroy insurance-based health care. Create an exploitable emergency to generate political will for single payer.

Re:no thanks

[cpt kangarooski]

Presumably you meant "very far right over recent decades"

Wow, yes. I guess that will teach me to post when I'm tired.

Re:no thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

While the people who lived through WWII is quickly dwindling, we're very aware of our not-so-distant history when most of northern Europe was in flames and we considered ourselves all but ethnically homogeneous with über- and untermenschen.

Wait... what?? i thought the country of europe was Always Utterly Peaceful.

Re: no thanks

[cornjones]

... it is the UK/City of London that actually holds the majority of US debt

citation needed. Pretty sure it is china and then japan.
yup
Hell, even belgium seems to hold more US treasuries than UK. Unless you mean that somehow City of London has high volume and Japan is buying those treasuries through London banks, which is possible but completely unrelated to who owns them.

The sale of treasury debt is a risk in a few ways. It gives the holder of that debt power to call the debt (rather than rolling it over) which could bring you up short. It is also a sign that you are living beyond your means and your creditors are in a better position to buy your assets than you may be to hold on to them.

Pipe dreams

[Anonymous Coward]

The people who think this is weird, the people who sneer at the frontier, who hate technology, won't follow you there.

Until you have something worth seizing.

Did they have to work 3D printing in there?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? REALLY? What does that have to do with anything? 99.9% of the 3D printing I've seen is nothing more than performance art.

Re:Did they have to work 3D printing in there?

[xtal]

Once you can print 3D metal cheap, that changes a lot of things.

Plastic, less so.

Re:Did they have to work 3D printing in there?

[Anonymous Coward]

What does it change? Can you explain what happened in your life in the last year where you went "gee I wish I had a piece of metal to solve this problem" and you coudn't find the part already on eBay or simply solve your problem with mass-produced items ?

And tell me, you think most people out there have the materials science knowledge, the engineering skills and the patience to diddle around with this stuff?

And where does your metal come from in the first place? I know you probably think 3D printing is like a Star Trek replicator, but without a very large world-wide "luddite" infrastructure to supply you with raw materials, what are you going to do?

What will change politically and economically? It's nothing more than a hobby, and how many people do you know that have a fully-equipped CNC shop at home, and what did it change for them politically or economically?

Why doesn't everyone have a CNC shop at home then?

Human nature hasn't changed.

Re:Did they have to work 3D printing in there?

[Anonymous Coward]

What else are you going to spend your bitcoin on other then 3D printed trash.

Re:Did they have to work 3D printing in there?

[Anonymous Coward]

Guns.

Re:Did they have to work 3D printing in there?

[Anonymous Coward]

No one has 3D printed anything remotely looking or behaving like a gun. But I like how you think guns have anything to do with this story: delightfully primitive!

Re:Did they have to work 3D printing in there?

[Anonymous Coward]

"These 'automobiles' of yours only run half as fast as a galloping horse, I know you probably think the horseless carriage is like a magic carpet, but without a large world-wide 'luddite' infrastructure to supply you with gasoline, what are you going to do? It's nothing more than a hobby, and how many people do you know that have a fully equipped mechanic shop at home?"

Re:Did they have to work 3D printing in there?

[next_ghost]

And tell me, you think most people out there have the materials science knowledge, the engineering skills and the patience to diddle around with this stuff?

The main advantage of 3D printing is that it's significantly simpler and easier to use than CNC machines.

What will change politically and economically? It's nothing more than a hobby, and how many people do you know that have a fully-equipped CNC shop at home, and what did it change for them politically or economically?

So were personal computers in 1980s. As expertise requirements go down, adoption by the general public goes up.

Re:Did they have to work 3D printing in there?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The main advantage of 3D printing is that it's significantly simpler and easier to use than CNC machines."

Can you show where a significantly cheaper and easier printer made something even remotely comparable to a CNC setup?

"So were personal computers in 1980s. As expertise requirements go down, adoption by the general public goes up."

Computers deal in information. Do you think maybe that's a specious comparison? How many people now own a 747?

Re:Did they have to work 3D printing in there?

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe they thought the pizza printer would be perfected so they could dispense with the poor slobs who bake them and just sit their on their unregulated island heaven and say "computer, make me a thin curst with basil and anchovies."

Re:Did they have to work 3D printing in there?

[Desler]

So were personal computers in 1980s.

They were? So that's how normal office secretaries were using them just fine?

Re:Did they have to work 3D printing in there?

[Anonymous Coward]

Transportation is an immediately obvious and universal need.

"how many people do you know that have a fully equipped mechanic shop at home"

Exactly. Very few people do, so we have factories that build cars and garages that service them because most people don't or can't care.

Re:Did they have to work 3D printing in there?

[Kjella]

I doubt DIY metal working will ever come down to the prices of mass production, it'll be like how you could print our own book on your own ink printer but why would you do that? There's no money in it, it only matters the law says you can't have it. Which means guns and.... well, what's the rest really? Make my own knives, forks, spoons, door handles, belt buckles and so on? I think most people here too easily confuse the real world with the digital world where bits are perfectly duplicated at home with only fractions of a cent in electricity. If it exists at your local hardware store it'll be way cheaper to get it from there, just like Amazon can ship you any dead tree book you like for less than it costs to print it yourself. And if you want to talk self-sufficiency then depending on an advanced 3D printing robot manufacturer isn't really it.

Re:Did they have to work 3D printing in there?

[AlphaWolf_HK]

You could print your own books, but the materials would cost more than just buying it. 3D printing is likely to remove that particular rule for everyday items/tools, especially if you could 3D print steel and/or aluminum.

http://slashdot.org/story/13/08/01/0019259/study-finds-3d-printers-pay-for-themselves-in-under-a-year

Re:Did they have to work 3D printing in there?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoah, a realist on slashdot? How did you keep your karma positive??? :)

Re:Did they have to work 3D printing in there?

[Anonymous Coward]

Books are a great example. You're right that it doesn't make sense to print out your own books for most people. Self publishers can use a host of print-on-demand services, though, that will do just that for them. 3D printing will be the same. You'll contract out to some company to print (and probably design) the items you need. It'll be reasonably expensive at first until mature libraries of pre-designed things are well established and then prices will drop.

Still, I don't see most people having one at home unless the prices and reliability drop to the point where, like traditional printers, where they are cheap enough to just replace rather than repair.

Honestly, while I want the use of a 3D printer, I don't really want to own one. Hell, when my last real printer died I just started using the Fed-Ex online printing thing for my limited printing needs (which are much larger than my 3D printing needs) and swing by to pick up my documents at my leisure. Well before we see a 3D printer 'in every home' we'll store's setting up where you can submit your design (or have them design for you) online and either just have them mail it to you or pick up the item when completed.

Re:Did they have to work 3D printing in there?

[Anonymous Coward]

Guns.

... useless without broad resupply with ammo, except for occasional murder. For day to day struggle and hunting, you need munitions industry and it needs regulation

Re:Did they have to work 3D printing in there?

[Guy Harris]

maybe they thought the pizza printer would be perfected so they could dispense with the poor slobs who bake them and just sit their on their unregulated island heaven and say "computer, make me a thin curst with basil and anchovies."

And then, because they didn't think about where the crust, basil, or anchovies came from, they get PC LOAD THIN rather than a pizza, and take the pizza printer out and smash it.

only works at a small scale

[Anonymous Coward]

At small scales, when everybody is on board with it, this can work great.

But it only takes a few asshats to ruin it for everybody. The tragedy of the commons bites you in the ass.

It would be fantastic if it could scale, but it comes up against human nature, and loses.

opt-out?

[Anonymous Coward]

So if you decide to opt-out, do they toss you overboard?

Re:opt-out?

[Trepidity]

If the opt-in frontier societies of the American West are a precedent, there is no opt out. Once you're in the company town, you're there for your term of service.

Re:opt-out?

[westlake]

So if you decide to opt-out, do they toss you overboard?

The Puritans in Massachusetts exiled its first dissidents.

But it is isolation and fear --- fear of everything that lies beyond the walls of the world you've built --- that breeds the paranoia which ends in the burning of witches.

combinatorial explosion

[StripedCow]

So let's say there are N choices you can "opt-in" for. Does this mean there will be 2^N societies to choose from?

Re:combinatorial explosion

[Anonymous Coward]

There only needs to be one society. You don't need to opt-in to everything or nothing of this society, that's the entire point.

Re:combinatorial explosion

[StripedCow]

There only needs to be one society.

I'm not sure you used the word "needs" correctly.

Let's say I hate intellectual property, so I want to opt-in to a IP-free society. But, I'm afraid new biotech equipment (3d-printing of viruses) could destroy the world, so I would like to not opt-in to a 3d-printing-everything society. How is having one opt-in society going to help me?!?

Not so sure I buy it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Regardless of whatever this guy says, as long as power systems exist that seek to provide the service structures we use, you'll still be using systems we keep trying to circumvent. It's a snake eating the tail situation.

No Bioshock reference yet?

[xarragon]

I am disappointed, why has none made a reference to Bioshock yet, seeing how a city at sea was mentioned?

only works on the cattle

[Anonymous Coward]

People with money make more of it by opting you into programs which allow them to make more money from you or your information.

Refuse to do business with people who pull this shit. Have the courage to stand up for what is right despite what everyone else does.

i would like to opt-out

[Gravis Zero]

With 3D printing, regulation is being turned into DRM. With quantified self, medicine is going mobile. With Bitcoin, capital control becomes packet filtering. All of these examples, Srinivasan says, are ways in which technology is allowing people to exit current systems like physical product production and distribution; personal health; and finance in favor of spaces of their own creation.
"The best part is this, the people who think this is weird, the people who sneer at the frontier, who hate technology, won't follow you there," he said. "We need to run the experiment, to show what a society run by Silicon Valley looks like without affecting anyone who wants to live under the Paper Belt," he added, using the term "paper belt" to refer to the environments currently governed by pre-existing systems like the US government.

good luck with those opt-in surgeons.

just sayin

Re:i would like to opt-out

[Gravis Zero]

good luck with those opt-in surgeons.

robotic surgeons could do a better job then any human if they would only let us develop the technology!

Re:i would like to opt-out

[Gravis Zero]

good luck with those opt-in surgeons.

robotic surgeons could do a better job then any human if they would only let us develop the technology!

and what exactly is stopping you?

Re:i would like to opt-out

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the worst troll ever. And yet I'm fairly sure it will have at least some success. So I've changed my mind. Nice troll!

Re:i would like to opt-out

[Anonymous Coward]

and what exactly is stopping you?

My multiple-personalities disorder.

Re:i would like to opt-out

[Anonymous Coward]

see your friendly neighborhood robotic surgeon to have your extra personalities amputated today! no appointment needed

Re:i would like to opt-out

[Anonymous Coward]

try something easier: grow a brain cell in a congressman

Wall-builders

[macraig]

'The best part is this,' Srinivasan said. 'The people who think this is weird, the people who sneer at the frontier, who hate technology, won't follow you there.'"

Nope, instead they'll be the ones who build a thick high wall around your new "space" to make sure you stay put and don't infect everything outside of it. Your space will become a prison like Waco, Texas, etc. Eventually they'll decide to reclaim the space you Occupy, and then it's game-over.

Re:Wall-builders

[geirlk]

Nope, instead they'll be the ones who build a thick high wall around your new "space" to make sure you stay put and don't infect everything outside of it. Your space will become a prison like Waco, Texas, etc. Eventually they'll decide to reclaim the space you Occupy, and then it's game-over.

If your society doesn't manage to snuff itself out before that.

Re:Wall-builders

[dunkelfalke]

Why reclaim? This would be the perfect place to send all the antisocial elements.

Good Luck with that.

[CrimsonAvenger]

I think that when those "existing governments" want to collect taxes on your opt-in society, you'll find out just how easy it is to be "outside existing governments".

Re:Good Luck with that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Due to enforcement costs, tax collection relies on willing participation; lots of people just don't pay, while suckers dutifully send in checks.

Re:Good Luck with that.

[Anonymous Coward]

and when you don't pay your taxes, your house mysteriously burns down for no apparent reason.

what about a week later?

[raymorris]

He wants to build a society with built-in mechanisms that subvert existing businesses and institutions, while promoting new ones. Okay, that's fine on day one.

A week later, the "new" institutions are "existing", so those mechanisms subvert them. His plan then, is quite literally to build a society that subverts itself -where anything built is destroyed.

troll story

[green is the enemy]

build a small tech incubator city that floats in international waters, outside of government control

Are these people planning to operate outside the law of an existing country? This seems beyond impossible. Not even worth discussing.

The Mars colony is more interesting for the technology required to to this than the society that might spring up on Mars.

Re:troll story

[thedonger]

Yeah, I dug deeper and it turns out the main backer is NAMBLA.

what's he going to eat?

[Anonymous Coward]

who is going to make his clothes?

how will he power his machines?

Re:what's he going to eat?

[Guy Harris]

who is going to make his clothes?

how will he power his machines?

The young Alexander conquered India. Was he alone?

The geek in Rapture.

[westlake]

I am disappointed, why has none made a reference to Bioshock yet, seeing how a city at sea was mentioned?

Irrational Games specializes in exquisitely crafted game worlds that brilliantly expose the flaws in the geek's anarchic-libertarian ideals --- which exist on the same plane as those of the Tea Party Republican.

As for myself, if I chose to make my home on an island, it would be Manhattan.

...And we'll call it Galt's Gulch.

[technosaurus]

A fitting tribute to Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.

Re:...And we'll call it Galt's Gulch.

[Anonymous Coward]

ugh! I knew someone had to dredge up her name from the gutter. Now I have to go shower

Re:...And we'll call it Galt's Gulch.

[SteveFoerster]

Except that she wasn't an anarcho-capitalist, so she'd probably have found a way to call this sort of thing "anti-life" or something.

Re:...And we'll call it Galt's Gulch.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? You jack-off in the shower?

This is basically "argumentum ad novitatem"

[denzacar]

...made into life-governing philosophy.
Everything new is great and should not be controlled or regulated.

I.e. Had human society chosen such a way of living 100 or so years ago we'd be having our rejuvenating dose of radium with our cornflakes every morning.

Re: This is basically "argumentum ad novitatem"

[Anonymous Coward]

You're trotting out that link, I suppose, to imply that a benevolent nanny-state is the only protection against quackery, but I think the market has a way of sorting such things out.

Re: This is basically "argumentum ad novitatem"

[Guy Harris]

You're trotting out that link, I suppose, to imply that a benevolent nanny-state is the only protection against quackery, but I think the market has a way of sorting such things out.

So, based on history, which ways of sorting such things out work better at preventing such things before people get sick or die?

Re: This is basically "argumentum ad novitatem"

[Anonymous Coward]

no fucking kidding. only a couple of people at most would die before theyd be pulled from the market. free markets work very efficiently!

Re: This is basically "argumentum ad novitatem"

[anyGould]

I mean, just look at cigarettes. The instant someone figured out that second hand smoke was causing cancer, the free market pulled them *right* off the shelves...

Old joke: who cleans the shitters in Galt's Gulch?

[Anonymous Coward]

To dust off an old joke: who cleans the shitters in Galt's Gulch? Who "opts-in" to be a janitor?

Remember, the toolbags who are coming up with this are the same ones who think BART employees get paid "too much", so don't count on financial incentives to make somebody sign up.

The Australia Project

[Anonymous Coward]

seems like a really great idea until robots tap into your spinal implant and force you to obey Rule #7: Obey The Rules

Bitcoin

[Anonymous Coward]

"With Bitcoin, capital control becomes packet filtering."

No it does not. Capital control becomes a distributed consensus algorithm based on proof of work, with no authority. If you want to deny a transaction, you will have to convince the miners (exactly every last one of them) to never include it in a block, or a majority of them to never work on blocks chains that include it. Good luck convincing a large number of anonymous people to turn down a transaction fee. If you want to increase the currency in circulation, you to hard fork the currency. I don't think you understand how bitcoin works.

Also, if you want any sort of control, you wouldn't use bitcoin, you would want a separate currency (bitcoin has a vast amount of users and miners which you will never overcome to effect accomplish anything)

Packet filtering has basically nothing to do with bitcoin. I'm not going to opt in to a society build by people who don't understand what they are building with.

So, who maintains the extra hospital capacity in-case of major disease outbreaks? Who maintains the island? Who regulates the food, medicine, doctors etc? I'm not choosing my doctor based on the number of likes on some crypto based decentralized approval system (if you manage even that), when there is no system in place to prevent you from claiming to be 10k different residents happy with your own services.

I like my government run water supply, and electric utility too.

Who is going to provide internet access to a place without copyright law?

As much as I like the idea, I've spent long hours trying to design governmental systems, electoral systems etc. Its non trivial. You can't just claim crypto and tech solve all problems. I know crypto and tech, and I have tons of problems! If you opt out of census authorities, its pretty much impossibly to reliably differentiate one person from a million, which leads to tons of problems. I'd expect an article like this to spend most of its space on how to bootstrap a web of trust for the purpose of regulation (you know, digital mod rule based regulation, direct democracy style, because thats so much freeer).

If you have a large scale economy on this place (which it would need to be able to import supplies and pay for things like internet), someone (outside or inside) with try and exploit it. I'd like to see such a system hold up to insider trading (thats a "new" way to do stuff, so don't regulate against it): if you allow people to make massive profits by destroying their own companies, well, oops.

Making a country might not be too hard, but making one where anyone would want to live and contribute back to is pretty darn hard to do at scale.

Don't look at it thinking burning man shows this can work. The fact that burning man does not run continuously all year suggests that maybe this won't work? It is still under a government too, which provides lots of services (like jails, regulation of food supplies and firearms, regulations of which wavelengths are used for what etc), and most of the stuff there is imported from areas that have pretty strong consumer protection laws.

Re:Bitcoin

[Anonymous Coward]

The United States was designed by very smart men, and required only that the citizenry stay involved. The one confounding factor to all attempts to create a perfect society - or even a more perfect one - is people. In the case of the U.S., we chose leisure time and let the wolves run the hen house. People blame it on "anarcho-capitalism" or lobbyists wielding too much power in D.C., but those are merely symptoms, a rash that indicates a systemic imbalance.

Re:Bitcoin

[kermidge]

"and required only that the citizenry stay involved"

Oh, yeah, that. At first blush you wouldn't think it would be such a hard thing to do, would you?

I think a large factor was the shift from local self-made entertainments - a festival dance, church social, a shared meal after a barn raising (notice there's a rural bias to some of these) - to other-manufactured ones - motion pictures, concerts (but at least some socializing entre actes), TV, then the socializing more and more stopped, with some exception for the bar and bowling alley, and for some still, church-related things. With less talk, less time for topics to roll around from crops or production line to taxes and politics. Less discussion -> less involvement. Add in the game on TV and a sixer, that's all she wrote.

Re:Old joke: who cleans the shitters in Galt's Gul

[Anonymous Coward]

Believe it or not, there exist people who enjoy cleaning and also dislike using dirty bathrooms. Such people are naturally motivated to volunteer to clean the shitters. The problem is that society demotivates them through prejudice against janitorial work. So don't be a toolbag! Janitors do valuable work.

This has happened before

[mjwalshe]

The USA has a history of wacky religious/millennial utopian society's none of them lasted more than a few years and some ended really badly and does Mr Srinivasan expect there will be a place for colored people in this brave new world other than as navvies as is currently the practice in the middle east.

Re:This has happened before

[khallow]

and does Mr Srinivasan expect there will be a place for colored people in this brave new world

Let me guess, you're one of those people who thinks Western civilization disappears when the colored people are left to their own devices?

Re:This has happened before

[mjwalshe]

Are you really that stupid? The point I was making that a lot of the rich libertarians who want their own state will not have a place for non whites except as servants (Deltas as brave new world has it) - no matter if they all good BJP voting high caste boys and girls.

Does not president Obamas treatment not clue you in to some of the "issues" the USA still has over race

Re:This has happened before

[khallow]

Does not president Obamas treatment not clue you in to some of the "issues" the USA still has over race

No, it doesn't because the man was elected and reelected president and the political differences are all over obvious issues not the color of his skin.

There are racist ideas still around, for example, your assertions that colored people wouldn't be able to cut it in a libertarian society, but they no longer have the impact on US society that they did prior to the 1950s.

Re:This has happened before

[mjwalshe]

No I was saying that hat the libertarian socialites would be run by and for the WASP's with no place for Sons of Abraham and BME people

Re:This has happened before

[khallow]

I get that, hence, why I wrote what I did. Those poor people just won't ever be able to figure out how to work with elitist, libertarian WASPs.

I do find it delicious that your libelous accusations of ethnic exclusivity are themselves racist and discriminatory. That's classic hypocrisy of our times.

Deregulation

[EdZ]

'The best part is this,' Srinivasan said. 'The people who think this is weird, the people who sneer at the frontier, who hate technology, won't follow you there.'

But people who will be quite happy to exploit your deregulated society will be right there with you!

Complain all you want about 'big banks' unethical behavior (really, keep complaining, write to your local MP/senator/whathaveyou, make sure the issue doesn't get dropped) but government regulation of banking means that if you put your money in a bank, you can be sure (at least up to £85,000 per Bank in the UK) that you will always have access to that money. Without regulation, then you have situations like with Paypal where the holder of you money can just up and decide "Nope, you can't have it anymore. It's ours for at least the next 9 months. Oh, you want an explanation? Too bad!".
Or how about enforcing standards, like power supply? You want a situation where not only does every device have it's own plug, but your house may not even supply the same voltage or frequency as the neighbourhood a mile away? 'No government at all' works fantastically when all your actors are rational and honest. That is also true to Communism. Finding this mythical group of rational and honest actors (and keeping out even a single bad egg) is the hard part.

Re:Deregulation

[Animats]

But people who will be quite happy to exploit your deregulated society will be right there with you!

Right. Look at Bitcoin. Most of the standard financial scams have been replicated in the Bitcoin world. Ponzi schemes, fake stocks, fake stock markets, brokers who took the money and ran, crooked escrow services, "online wallet" services that stole customer funds - that's Bitcoin. In the US banking crisis, depositors didn't lose their money. Even Madoff's customers are slowly getting about half their money back, as the liquidator sues everybody who made a big profit.

Scamming is such a big part of the Bitcoin economy that almost nobody is using it for anything legitimate. The latest thing seems to be a big run-up caused by the use of Bitcoin to get around China's tight exchange controls. That will probably be shut down by the People's Bank of China, so there seems to be a rush to turn yuan into dollars and euros.

Re:Deregulation

[0123456]

Scamming is such a big part of the Bitcoin economy because almost nobody is using it for anything legitimate. There's no real advantage for legitimate use over fiat currency at this time, and significant disadvantages. So long as we pay for our groceries in dollars, most people would much rather have dollars than some bits that have no established support.

Re:Deregulation

[Anonymous Coward]

Even with conventional banks, once you give them money, it is legally theirs. They issue you an IOU which may be worth the paper it is printed on and you become a creditor at the back of a long list of other higher priority creditors..

Re:Deregulation

[IamTheRealMike]

Not that I'm a fan of anarcho-capitalism (at all), but your points would have fairly ready responses from the crowd that is - obviously, their envisioned utopia doesn't have banks or PayPal equivalents, rather all money is in the form of Bitcoin which cannot be arbitrarily seized like that.

Also, re: power supplies, it often isn't necessary for governments to impose particular technical standards. For instance the internet has developed all kinds of protocols and standards without any government mandates.

I think if you want a fundamental, theoretical justification for the state, the right place to start is fighting of crime.

Re:Deregulation

[khallow]

So what you're saying is that BitCoin might not be the best investment choice for your life savings. Who would have thought that?

I don't get why people care so much about the illegal activity going on in BitCoin. If you don't like it, then don't get mixed up in it. No one is forcing you to invest in BitCoin Ponzi schemes.

Re:Deregulation

[IamTheRealMike]

Right. Look at Bitcoin. Most of the standard financial scams have been replicated in the Bitcoin world. Ponzi schemes, fake stocks, fake stock markets, brokers who took the money and ran, crooked escrow services, "online wallet" services that stole customer funds - that's Bitcoin.

Actually, no. That is, as you said, "standard financial scams" which usually rely on convincing people to give up control of their money. The whole point of Bitcoin is you don't have to give your money to random untrustworthy third parties. The fact that P2P financial technology is in its infancy and some holders of that currency choose to do so anyway, says more about the importance of decentralising all aspects of finance than it does about Bitcoin itself.

For instance, online wallet services - again, the whole point of Bitcoin is you don't have to give your money to a bank. Some idiots do so anyway, because, well, they can't be bothered downloading a wallet app and using it themselves. Or maybe they're just so used to the idea of giving their money to someone else for safe keeping they can't quite let go. Who knows? Lots of people who use Bitcoin managed to avoid all such scams by the simple expedient of understanding the goal of the project and keeping their own money.

Crooked escrow providers? The protocol allows for dispute mediators that can't steal your money, all they can do is decide whether a payment should clear through to the merchant or be refunded. It doesn't get used today because P2P financial technology is hard, and the code needed to do this kind of low-trust dispute mediation isn't finished. Give it a few years and I'm sure it will be.

In the US banking crisis, depositors didn't lose their money.

Directly? No, as is also the case for most other banking crises. Indirectly, yes of course they lost money as did many other people. Banks cannot misallocate vast quantities of resources and there be no impact of that. The losses were merely socialised through other means.

Scamming is such a big part of the Bitcoin economy that almost nobody is using it for anything legitimate.

Says you. By the way, I like how you use the word legitimate and then immediately imply that people trying to escape capital controls is up there with ponzi schemes.

Re:Deregulation

[Anonymous Coward]

A potential reason for concern is if it "bleeds" out into the their world. Let's say their child buys drugs from Silk Road 5.0 reincarnated, or the local government official is bribed. Then bitcoin will hurt you even if you take no part.

Re:Deregulation

[khallow]

So it's just peachy for a child to buy illegal drugs or a politician to accept bribes with real money but not with BitCoins? I just don't see the "bleed" here.

libertarian wet dreams SHOULD be built at sea.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Libertarian wet dream" came to mind by the end of the 2nd sentence...the rest of the post confirmed. Yes, we would all like to run away from the incompetence of our neighbors, our government and the lameness of our present order. Sorry. Elitism can never run away from the class of poor jerks whose dumb choices we hate to support but whose labor bakes our pizza, delivers our coke and unclogs our toilets.

An island might be the only place where all the winners of this scenario could live long enough unburdened by hungry dimwits and regulators to discover they too need that vast potion of humanity they despise....but you might as well propose a colony on mars, a place where this hideously selfish and incomplete notion of what human communities are would rapidly prove fatal.

Re:libertarian wet dreams SHOULD be built at sea.

[museumpeace]

for a minute there I thought you were going to equate all teh people who do not make it on to Thiels Island to the "Left Behind" Thinking your own daydream of the ideal world is so compelling that anyone not convinced is undeserving of salvation is very commmon.

Yeah, right.

[Animats]

Not seeing any concrete plans here. Some of the ideas are silly, such as Blueseed, the scheme to have a ship just outside of US waters full of programmers. That's just a tax shelter. Of course, they want the U.S. Coast Guard to help them if they get in trouble, as their prospectus says. And they want a large ferry dock and a freighter doc in San Mateo County's Pillar Point small-boat harbor. And they want ICE to make that small-boat harbor a US entry point, so people don't have to go up to San Francisco on a boat to visit the US. They also wanted to set up a microwave link at the USAF radar station at Pillar Point. But they don't want to pay for any of this.

Then there was CITE, a small city to be built in New Mexico. No people - it was supposed to be just for testing "new technologies". The company behind it turns out to be basically one guy without much money and a lot of clip art. Got a lot of press, and even some political support, then the vaporware project went away. The business model made no sense.

Further back, there was the high-tech Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow, which Walt Disney was going to build. Disney World has EPCOT today, but it's a theme park; nobody lives there. Disney did eventually build Celebration, FL, which is a retro-looking subdivision.

Some very top-down countries have done things like this: Tsukuba Science City, Guangzhou Science City, King Khalid Military City, and Brasilia. Those are all Government projects. The US private sector has a long history of "company towns", most of it not too good.

Umm...

[Anonymous Coward]

While these hypothetical/dreamy Opt-In societies are free of existing government, they will be under the regulations/rules of Thiel/Musk/Page government. The American government isn't perfect to it's not so broke I would be willing to submit myself to these alternatives.

Indian reservation

[Anonymous Coward]

Why live on a boat. Start something on the Indian reservation.

Re:Indian reservation

[Anonymous Coward]

Hm, you no indian, paleface.

The US western frontier

[slew]

The US western frontier was often sold to the easterners as a place you could go to free yourselves from the stranglehold of modern society and make a clean start.

Sadly, most of the folks that made the trek were ill prepared for the radical self reliance required of early settlers in that territory. Many simply returned (some died on the way out or back), and a vanishing few found their dream lives. Of course their attempts paved the way for those that followed.

What made it possible, the lure of course was the exploitation of natural resource made it possible to generate enough wealth to bootstrap the society. Not to mention the heavy incentives (homestead land) doled out by the US government in attempt to build a critical population mass there before other competing political powers were able to manipulate the situation. It would take pretty deep pockets to do something similar in todays world (a couple billion from a single dot-com billionaire wouldn't likely be enough)...

The short story, it is likely most of those that make the attempt to build it will not achieve their goal in their lifetime, but it might make it possible for those that follow. Still want to opt-in?

Yes they will

[Anonymous Coward]

"'The people who think this is weird, the people who sneer at the frontier, who hate technology, won't follow you there.'"

Yes they will. They will follow you there, eventually, and with guns. Maybe not at first, but as soon as this new society starts having any noticeable impact on the US or the rest of the world--either though producing disruptive technology that threatens established, complacent businesses or by draining countries of intelligent, productive tax payers--expect the new society to be branded a terrorist enclave and to be a targeted by every (il)legal and ballistic weapon the politicians of the "old world" can muster.

Re:Yes they will

[0123456]

Yes they will. They will follow you there, eventually, and with guns.

How do you plan to boss me around when I'm living on a comet in the Oort Cloud? Or just blasting out into deep space in a self-contained ship?

Re:Yes they will

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes they will. They will follow you there, eventually, and with guns.

How do you plan to boss me around when I'm living on a comet in the Oort Cloud? Or just blasting out into deep space in a self-contained ship?

How do you plan on constructing said ship (long-term, high-cost project) without attracting government attention, then making launching the ship before being arrested or shot, then making out of Earth orbit before being shot down?

Re:Yes they will

[0123456]

How do you plan on constructing said ship (long-term, high-cost project) without attracting government attention, then making launching the ship before being arrested or shot, then making out of Earth orbit before being shot down?

Uh, no-one would be building it in Earth orbit.

Besides which, Big Government is on the verge of collapse world-wide, and will be a distant memory by the time such a ship is technologically possible.

Re:Old joke: who cleans the shitters in Galt's Gul

[khallow]

To dust off an old joke: who cleans the shitters in Galt's Gulch? Who "opts-in" to be a janitor?

No idea since the book didn't say, but I bet it was a profitable business since you had all these rich guys, paying in gold, who probably didn't know and didn't want to know how to clean a toilet.

I must admit to being puzzled why this is even considered a joke. It's a pretty obvious and very long ago solved problem.

We've been here before many times.

[Mozai]

Didn't we already do this? A new nation that subverts the existing structures, even has a system built-in for making sure we don't have stagnant hierarchical power structures? I believe it was called "the United States of America."

Don't kid yourself into thinking you're "special" and "not like those guys." Please learn from previous generations and previous attempts. "Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it" is not just a clever bon mot to be dismissed.

Re:We've been here before many times.

[IamTheRealMike]

What makes you think they aren't going to learn from previous attempts?

Re:We've been here before many times.

[thedonger]

Didn't we already do this? A new nation that subverts the existing structures, even has a system built-in for making sure we don't have stagnant hierarchical power structures? I believe it was called "the United States of America."

Don't kid yourself into thinking you're "special" and "not like those guys." Please learn from previous generations and previous attempts. "Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it" is not just a clever bon mot to be dismissed.

Yes, and we did a fabulous job of corrupting it by turning over the power to the few so we could have more leisure time. And now when talk of "Utopianism" comes up the ignorant think it is the same as Libertarianism, and they go on blissfully thinking that there is no way their socialist welfare states could ever turn against them. Worse, they think that what works on the scale of Sweden can work on the scale of the United States. Maybe on a given state.

Somalia, Somaliland, Statelessness, and Vampires

[SteveFoerster]

Somalia doesn't have statelessness, it has an overlapping collection of theocracies and despotisms. The main exception is Somaliland in the north, where there's been a functional breakaway republic for years and there's a noteworthy level of prosperity. Somaliland has been completely unable to secure any kind of foreign recognition, largely because if it gets it, it ruins the claim that the vampires at the IMF have to shakedown the Somali people to repay the loans made to the Barre regime. The upside of this lack of recognition, however, is that the Somaliland government hasn't been able to get foreign aid, which, as it turns out, suppresses development rather than fostering it. But condemning foreign aid to governments of low income countries is about the only conclusion one can reasonably draw from the twenty-first century Somali experience, it doesn't speak to the efficacy of statelessness at all (either way).

Ah, Utopianism comes back yet again!

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that there's nothing new about it, and every attempt in history to try it lasted, ooh not very long..

However, as always there is some novelly expressed gibberish in this half baked set of ideas:

"embracing tech that subverts existing industries and rejecting regulation on new ways of doing things". So existing industries like the IT industry, the oil indestry and the phamaceutical industry? Love to see what alternatives to the tried and tested you actually have in mind here....

"With quantified self, medicine is going mobile". Nope, read it 20 times and it still means nothing.

So Elon Musk wants to have a Mars Colony? Well, I want to have a personal space fighter ship with lasers and swimming pool and like, everything, but at least I am intelligent enough to realise why this isn't going to happen (economics and limits of current technology basically).

Let's run the experiment

[SteveFoerster]

That's true. On the other hand, there's nowhere that's shitty and stateless either, unless you count Antarctica. I say we let hardcore libertarians have a ten mile square stateless area and see what happens.

Re:Let's run the experiment

[Roachie]

The statists will come to envy the prosperous 10 square mile multicultural utopia with drooling envy.

Re:Let's run the experiment

[sjames]

The one non-shitty part of Somalia has an (unrecognized thus far) state. Of it's 3 politil parties, 2 are left of center and I have no idea how the third leans.

The rest may be better off stateless than what they had before, but that's hardly the same thing. I would be better off having my leg sawed off than having my leg sawed off and being branded with a hot poker, but I would be better off still if neither was happening.

libertarian dream but...

[jinchoung]

being outside of government laws also puts you outside of government protection. the problem with libertarian/anarchist societies is that they are ripe to be taken over and subjugated by all the societies that are not like it.

should any of these really take off and become prosperous, it will be targeted by every OTHER government under the sun... and with the less scrupulous ones, it will come in the form of military might.

Re:Somalia, Somaliland, Statelessness, and Vampire

[kermidge]

Somaliland the unknown. Thanks for that.

Thing that's long bothered me, being un-knowledgeable in how this stuff works (IMF, e.g.), is that from source to destination, even if the intent is to help, by the time it gets on the ground, it's twisted - what doesn't get siphoned off into a few bank accounts or turned into off-the-books weaponry. Conundrums that are over my head, mostly.

I guess it's the old story, money and power look out for themselves, everyone else shifts lower on the teats, until those most needy get hindmost.

It's maybe terribly naive of me but I have to wonder if that's all there is, forever, as an axiom of humanity, or, if there are other ways of self-organizing, if they would just be shifting to other equally regressive parameters (might be wrong word choice, there) in their own right. And, if there is indeed a different way (more "enlightened") if it would improve long term species survival or not. Maybe the current system is what will breed enough individuals to handle whatever the Universe holds, do we get that far.

Galtdom vs Sortocracy

[Baldrson]

These guys envision Galtdom rather than Sortocracy*, for the obvious reason that Sortocracy would result in better social science and that's the one thing they truly fear most because it will show that the measure of a man isn't money.

*Sorting proponents of social theories into governments that test them.

pieces already available???

[DriveDog]

Seems to me some of the pieces for a platform are already available... just need a critical mass of users. Mesh networks + Freenet... wouldn't that accomplish a lot of the goals?