Monthly Archives: August 2011

Seasteading—homesteading in international waters—is the original, non-coercive acquisition of a place and means to actualize the socio-political and economic systems under which a particular seastead’s inhabitants desire to live, even if those systems are minimalist. It is to truly live under your own roof. Establishing permanent, autonomous ocean communities—independent political entities—will promote innovation of new political and social systems, and over time may result in genuinely new cultural identities and groups. While willingness or desire to permanently take to, rather than across, the sea may seem a curious notion, there are any number of compelling reasons to do so that differ little from what has long stirred humankind to venture abroad.

The impetus to seastead may be a classical frontier spirit accepting of the risks accompanying the adventure and opportunity Seasteading provides. Or it could be frustration with governments and the sectors they control. Many of Earth’s ostensibly successful and moral nations are fiscally unsustainable, and worse, distinguished by a zeal for collectivizing, generally fleecing, and controlling their inhabitants by directing and proscribing their actions, intending to benefit controlling interests and ideologies. Existing governments, in other words, are presiding over the diminishment of their citizens’ natural liberty, rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding. Thus for some, all that avails is the sea.

Yet another motivation for Seasteading is progress, which comes only by way of experiment. To create something better often requires something new be tried. Seasteads provide unique platforms on which to innovate better legal and banking systems, medical procedures, and regulations that facilitate, not retard, innovation. Perhaps most importantly, Seasteading represents the development of new political systems to compete head-to-head with existing nation-states for human and financial capital. Such competition is constructive and necessary for the advancement of the human condition.

Dwelling on the ocean requires seasteaders to grapple with complex challenges, each requiring innovative solutions. In addition to providing energy, fresh water, food, and real-time communications, seasteads must guard from the natural and often unpredictable dangers of the ocean. Though the ocean is a formidable frontier, an increasing number of individuals worldwide are committing their time, creative talents, and capital resources to realizing the Seasteading vision of autonomous ocean communities.

Most importantly, and unlike virtually every prior episode of human exploration and acquisition of resources, Seasteading neither hurts nor takes from anyone, and yet will benefit many. That humans may settle new territory peacefully, consistent with the principle of non-coercion to which all should aspire, is a remarkable development in the human experience.

The grand experiment that is Seasteading will soon commence. Two very different Seasteading projects are underway. Both projects reflect the incrementalist philosophy—start small and build up over time—championed by the Seasteading Institute, the non-profit, Seasteading support organization blazing the path to the ocean frontier through advocacy of the Seasteading vision and providing logistical, legal, and educational support to independent Seasteading projects. Given that not all of the challenges posed by the ocean’s inhospitable environment can be at once solved (or even foreseen), the Seasteading Institute’s incrementalist, step-by-step approach is logical, necessary, and sound.

Blueseed is a seastead project planning to house a visa-free knowledge incubator on an ocean vessel in international waters west of Silicon Valley, California. Information technology workers unable to obtain the visa necessary to work in the United States will be just a ferry ride away, rather than across the world, from their employers. Thus Blueseed will provide a creative solution to the work-visa related regulatory obstacles facing foreign-born, information technology entrepreneurs and workers. It may also have the distinction of being the first seastead.

Details about the second seastead in progress have not yet been made public, though it is believed to be a competitive government project. What is known, however, is that Patri Friedman, formerly the Executive Director of the Seasteading Institute (and currently the Institute’s chairman of the board), is leading the project. It is safe to say that any seastead Mr. Friedman is leading will greatly contribute to the Seasteading movement and provide a laboratory for new forms of business, government, and social organization.

Seasteading’s potential and possibilities are only beginning to be unlocked, and the incremental process of peacefully establishing permanent, autonomous ocean communities is ongoing. Anyone may contribute, whether by increasing public awareness and building a core Seasteading community, or by researching the critical engineering, legal, and business challenges Seasteading presents. All who contribute may take satisfaction in having assisted with peacefully redefining what lies abroad.

Enjoy this peaceful protest of the unequal treatment women receive in Saudi Arabia.

Fricking sweet music in this one too.

IntelNews:

As I write these lines, celebratory gunfire is being heard all across Tripoli and the rebel National Transitional Council is appointing civilians to replace the crumbling administration of longtime Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi. But a handful of news outlets discreetly remind us that the rebels’ claim to victory rests on vital covert assistance provided by several Western intelligence services. British daily The Independent notes that the victorious rebels were assisted on all levels by “an army of [British] diplomats, spooks, military advisers and former members of the special forces”, all of whom allowed “London to influence events in Libya beyond the activities of warplanes and naval vessels”….Eventually, notes The Independent, the British government decided to prompt the rebel National Transitional Council to use British funds to hire teams of former special forces operatives working for private security firms.

But wait I thought private security–mercenaries–was evil. It’s so hard to keep up with who and what is evil these days.

This, according to the paper, accounts for the “small groups of [...] Caucasian males, many with British accents [and] equipped with sunglasses [editor's note: LOL], 4×4 vehicles and locally acquired weaponry, who [were] seen regularly by reporters in the vanguard of the rebels’ haphazard journey [...] towards Tripoli”. The Associated Press points out that many of these covert teams “from France, Britain and some East European states provided critical assistance” and advised the rebel leadership on how to successfully conduct their final assault against the Libyan capital. The news agency adds that the teams of European operatives included “logisticians, security advisers and forward air controllers for the rebel army, as well as intelligence operatives”, many of whom were Americans. The latter operated “separately from the NATO command structure”, which was restricted by a United Nations mandate to protecting civilians.

Here’s the kicker:

As for why these European countries and America went to all that trouble, The Independent simply notes that “the prize of being seen as a ‘friend’ in a stable, oil-rich Libya is considerable”.

In other words, a war for oil. Also, a further reminder to despots that the best way to keep America and its European sidekicks off of your ass is to acquire and keep nuclear weapons. Just ask Gaddafi.

Dear Felonious Munk,

You should check out Gary Johnson. As he puts it, “We went to the moon, we can balance a budget.”

Sincerely,

El DuelingBarstool

ps: You’re the man.

Dr. Miron is on Gary Johnson’s economic advisory team.

by Alex Fidel

Get a first peek at the interview I did with Gov. Gary Johnson that I did for a GJ Grassroots Podcast I hosted that has yet to be released by the campaign, on my radio show-turned-podcast Freethought. Click here to download the podcast. This would be the third time Gov. Johnson has appeared on my program, the first time talking to him since he announced his presidential bid.

Because governments are so terrible the ocean has become the greener pasture.

Best YouTube comment: “I’m a dirty fucking commie, but i’d vote for this guy based on the chill bass in this ad alone.”

All links via the indispensable GoodShit.

• The Labyrinth: Medieval Studies Resources (Georgetown University)
• Amazing Places Around the World (See pic below)
• From the Chronicle Review, An Era in Ideas. Essays on 13 subjects ranging from Terrorism (Steven Pinker) to Courage (Victor Davis Hanson) and Language (Marjorie Perloff), each written to mark the 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks. Excerpt from VDH’s essay below:

In this regard, Pericles had much advice for the citizens of Athens, who were distraught over their losses in the Peloponnesian War. But the central theme of his funeral oration, as recorded by Thucydides, was the classical qualities of courage—specifically his definition of martial bravery as a mental as well as physical virtue. For Pericles, true courage in wartime had to meet three criteria. It was not the act of the desperate, whose wretched material circumstances made the thought of dying not so unwelcome. Nor was courage the dividend of unthinking, ingrained militarism—as he hinted was the case with the Spartan army. And courage was not the product of impulse or recklessness. Rather, it arose through reflection. Only the man in a liberal society who has the most to lose—and who then willingly risks all on behalf of his comrades and country—is the truly courageous citizen.

“I’m the only [GOP candidate]… who doesn’t believe in the social conservative agenda. I believe if Republicans lead with that agenda, they will find themselves out of office.” (Source)

He’s right.

Consistent with my decision to ceaselessly remind the world about Gary Johnson’s candidacy, here is an excellent article by Daniel Hannan:

Alright, you might be saying, so he’s a libertarian. So are thousands of Ayn Rand-reading students around the world. No one holding these views ever gets elected to anything important.

That’s where you’d be wrong. Gary Johnson was elected on precisely such a manifesto in the swing state of New Mexico, and promptly set about putting his beliefs into practice. He took the view that there should be as few laws as possible, and vetoed more legislation during his term than the other 49 state governors put together. He cut taxes 14 times and never raised them once. Result? A budget surplus and an economic boom. During Gary Johnson’s gubernatorial term, 1,200 state jobs were axed, but 20,000 private sector jobs were created. And here’s the best bit: he was handsomely re-elected, despite a two-to-one Democrat majority.

The fragility of the US economy is perhaps the gravest threat to world prosperity. Heaven knows the White House needs someone who can balance the books. Well, my American friends, if you’re looking for a president with the gimcrack charisma of a Blair or a Clinton, stick to the incumbent. But if you’re looking for someone who has shown that he can cut government spending, ecce homo.

“A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.” – Saul Bellow

W. James Antle III has a fricking doozy of an article up at American Conservative Magazine that profiles Gary Johnson and Ron Paul and compares their differing Libertarian approaches. Excerpt below, but read the whole thing:

Paul’s emphasis on ending foreign wars and abolishing the Fed is also pure Rothbard. As an economist and a political theorist, Rothbard hated the central bank and its fiat money. He hated militarism even more. Rothbard once wrote, “my ideological and political activism has been focused on opposition to America’s wars” both because he “believed our waging them to be unjust” and because he agreed with essayist Randolph Bourne that “war is the health of the state.”

Johnson is a less systematic political thinker who seems to be driven by the observation that—with apologies to the Dick Armey-led Tea Party group—freedom works. He favors the consequentialist arguments preferred by policy wonks of the Chicago School of economics, such as the late Milton Friedman. He is less inclined to denounce government interventions as unjust. He’s more likely to argue that they are unaffordable or simply don’t work. Johnson has said, “decisions should be made based on cost-benefit analysis rather than strict ideology.” Even on drug legalization, one of his main issues, he normally employs practical rather than ethical arguments. His campaign website talks about “winning the war against drug abuse.”

Thus Johnson’s supporters tend to be those attracted to libertarianism because they think freedom advances human happiness rather than those primarily concerned about the depredations of the state.

I’m squarely in that camp.

These libertarians admire the innovations the market makes possible more than they fear government. For them, sexual self-expression is as integral to individual freedom as matters of war and peace. Their libertarianism is the “dynamism” described by author Virginia Postrel and the hedonism decried by Lew Rockwell—a former Paul congressional aide and Rothbard disciple—in a 1990 Liberty essay lamenting the “Woodstockian flavor” of the libertarian movement.

While the differences between these two schools of libertarianism are important, they can be overstated. Most libertarians make both consequentialist and morally absolute arguments. For all his sweeping moral claims against American foreign policy, Paul is also quick to say interventionism doesn’t deliver the intended results and the country cannot afford to pay for it.

Reason editor Jesse Walker contended that the May 5 Republican debate demonstrated how the two perspectives can complement one another. “When Paul’s hardline libertarian moral defense of drug decriminalization was followed immediately by Johnson’s consequentialist approach, the benefits of the Paul/Johnson duo became clear,” Walker wrote. “Each guy got to make the arguments that the other one didn’t, and the audience got to hear a broader case for a controversial position than the format allowed either man to offer by himself.”

Screed has a characteristically insightful and lengthy post up rightly decrying the miserable state of national politics as reflected by the recent debt ceiling charade. But Screed is dead wrong on this:

[T]here aren’t any candidates on the horizon who can or will address these problems in a meaningful way.

Meet Gary Johnson, Screed. (That sound you hear is frequent commenter Dain Curse rolling his eyes.)

Governor Johnson, who has been referred to as the ‘most fiscally conservative Governor’ in the country, was the Republican Governor of New Mexico from 1994-2003.

A successful businessman before running for office in 1994, Gov. Johnson started a door-to-door handyman business to help pay his way through college. Twenty years later, he had grown the firm into one of the largest construction companies in New Mexico with over 1,000 employees. Not surprisingly, Governor Johnson brings a distinctly business-like mentality to governing, believing that decisions should be made based on cost-benefit analysis rather than strict ideology.

Gary Johnson believes in a common sense, business approach to Constitutionally limited, fiscally responsible government. Period.

Johnson is best known for his veto record, which includes over 750 vetoes during his time in office, more than all other governors combined and his use of the veto pen has since earned him the nickname “Governor Veto.”

In other words, Gary Johnson vetoes politics–including Republican politics. A third of the bills he vetoed were championed by his own (minority) party.

He cut taxes 14 times while never raising them when he left office, New Mexico was one of only four states in the country with a balanced budget.

Term-limited, Johnson retired from public office in 2003. An avid skier, adventurer, and bicyclist, he has currently reached four of the highest peaks on all seven continents, including Mt. Everest.

In 2009, after becoming increasingly concerned with the country’s out-of-control national debt and precarious financial situation, the Governor formed the OUR America Initiative, a 501c(4) non-profit that promotes fiscal responsibility, civil liberties, and rational public policy. He traveled to more than 30 states and spoke to over 150 conservative and libertarian groups during his time as Honorary Chairman.

He spoke to liberal groups as well when he had the occasion to do so. For instance, he addressed the San Diego City Club (San Diego’s JFK styled democrats), delivering the same message as he did the previous day at the San Diego Libertarian Party’s monthly supper club. At the City Club event, Johnson took half an hours worth of cross examination from an intelligent crowd largely opposed to many of his policies, and acquitted himself well.

Gary Johnson doesn’t sugarcoat anything for anyone, regardless of whether they’ll like it or boo him. (Read here about a substantial portion of a major Tea Party rally booing him for his longstanding opposition to the war on drugs.)

Here’s where Gary Johnson stands on the issues. Check him out Screed.

Ron Paul for the win (emphasis added below):

One might think that the recent drama over the debt ceiling involves one side wanting to increase or maintain spending with the other side wanting to drastically cut spending, but that is far from the truth.  In spite of the rhetoric being thrown around, the real debate is over how much government spending will increase.

No plan under serious consideration cuts spending in the way you and I think about it.  Instead, the “cuts” being discussed are illusory, and are not cuts from current amounts being spent, but cuts in projected spending increases.  This is akin to a family “saving” $100,000 in expenses by deciding not to buy a Lamborghini, and instead getting a fully loaded Mercedes, when really their budget dictates that they need to stick with their perfectly serviceable Honda.  But this is the type of math Washington uses to mask the incriminating truth about their unrepentant plundering of the American people.