[LaoTzu]

	Originally Posted by Arcanist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'd like an explantion from the naysayers, as to why they want to see these people fail. If they go off and do this, statists will do everything do undermine them. God forbid they succeed because statists will do everything to destroy them. This attitude speaks volumes.

Not a naysayer. I just don't give a shit.
Fuck 'em. Don't care what happens either way. Don't want to hear about it. Makes me want to find a remote location someplace, where I don't have to hear people like this actually exist.

The most annoying thing of it is they're just talking.
Go do it.
Be done with it.
Don't care.
GO already.
Why are they still here?


Now, IMHO: It's dumb. Petty. Small minded. They're building a commune; and don't even have the intellect to realize it.
It will fail; whether naysayers hope for it to fail, if people support it, or if they ignore it.

I don't have issue with them experimenting; and I don't mind people telling the world to go fuck itself. But ... Me? I'd just do it. I wouldn't be talking shit. I'd just go. Talking shit is for people begging for one kind of support or another; and they already said they don't need anyone. So, again.... just go!

[Persona]

I know where to build it. I'm on my phone atm but look up the TED talks for how algorithms shape reality.

[annaelizabeth]

Being a naysayer doesn't mean that I want it to fail. I just think that it will. With loose regulations and laws, the worst traits of humanity will rear their ugly head. I thought we all had a better understanding of humanity by now to understand why we need regulations in place. Without them, people will continue to fuck one another over. This is why I am not a libertarian. They look out for the most powerful who would be doing the fucking and don't care about the less fortunate who are being fucked.

[MasterM1nd]

I'm not saying to build this for libertarian, I'm saying that this might be a good idea, and why couldn't we design a system(city) in international waters with good laws, good protection, good education, good jobs, good social activities (for both E and I), self-sufficient, equal rights, transparent leadership, free internet connection etc etc
Just saying, if somebody could design a system like this that actually works, it would probably be us INTJs although we do need other types for actually realizing it.

And about the saying but not doing, yeah that is common... I think they are just looking for validation, don't you think?

[IotaNull]

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	*waits for the reality TV series based on anarchy* May the biggest thugs win on this tax haven island. You can bet that people will become citizens of this island but not necessarily live there, in order to shelter their income.

That's pretty much the entire point, as far as I can tell. But they're going to have problems when existing governments simply reject the legitimacy of whatever they use as currency. They have no way to produce resources, so they'll just run out of useful goods to trade eventually, and anything without intrinsic value will become absolutely worthless as long as it's deemed so by governments.

[Abgrund]

Originally Posted by yoginimama To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If I were a PR person, and I had to sell that, I'd slit my wrists. "Freedom City: Here, you get to fight for your lives and the lives of your children whenever pirates attack!! Isn't that exciting? Knowing you could be tortured and raped if you surrendered, you still might be killed in crossfire even if you just tried to hide, and god only knows what'll happen if you fight and lose? C'mon, that's way better than sitting at home watching Netflix!"

I could sell the fuck out of that all day long. Hell, I'd be fighting off applicants with a broomstick.

To hell with pirates, they won't waste their time with these chumps; you can bet any real wealth is going to be safely stashed in the Caymans. The problem is the workers.

Wait one year. The jackasses that buy into this scheme aren't going to do any work with their own chubby white hands. They'll need servants. And people to catch fish, clean the streets, suck their dicks, and man the airstrip that serves charter flights to the Caymans. Pretty soon, 98% of the population will be imported slaves. Whom they can rape, torture, and murder at will.

When stories get out about the Filipino housemaid being gangraped, the Indian cook who got his face branded for insubordination, the Haitian dishwasher who was gutshot and thrown to the sharks... how long before troops land?

[MasterM1nd]

@Iota Null
your problem to solve: how to make it able to be self-sufficient?
my contribution: energy can be gathered from nearby lava flows (heat/cold can be turned to energy) and the underwaterflows... (sorry don't know the English word for that)
food: fish (fish farms)
It might seem impossible, but so was flying and walking on the moon... Don't be so negative, find solutions to the problems, should be easy enough... Don't just say it wont work because of this and that but also say some possible solutions...

added:
Yeah that could be a problem, so good that we know that before it is realized, now we can prevent it, no?

[yoginimama]

	Originally Posted by Abgrund To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Wait one year. The jackasses that buy into this scheme aren't going to do any work with their own chubby white hands. They'll need servants. And people to catch fish, clean the streets, suck their dicks, and man the airstrip that serves charter flights to the Caymans. Pretty soon, 98% of the population will be imported slaves. Whom they can rape, torture, and murder at will.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Of course! I keep forgetting that these people are going to be bringing their money with them. I keep taking at face value the idea that they really are going to be "building a new society from scratch" or whatever they claim.

	Originally Posted by Abgrund To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	When stories get out about the Filipino housemaid being gangraped, the Indian cook who got his face branded for insubordination, the Haitian dishwasher who was gutshot and thrown to the sharks... how long before troops land?

I'd give it seven minutes, especially since--as blueback mentioned above--a ship flying no flag is subject to being investigated and boarded by anyone.

They may be able to abuse slaves/servants in places like Dubai, where abusers can hide behind laws ("No, they HAVE to give up their passports, yes, they HAVE to work as many hours as their employers tell them to") and a country like UAE can put pressure on countries like Bangladesh, the Philippines and Burkina Faso to stay quiet about all the complaints of their expat domestic workers.

But accusations against the owner/occupants of a ship flying no flag? Those are accusations against mere individuals who are without protection and recourse. I foresee HEAVY use of the Caymans airstrip and long vacations there.

And the interesting thing is, that's not even the only way that the servants issue might play out. It could easily prove to be the case that, after 6-8 months, the owners are just...not available anymore. They're...traveling. No, we don't know why their cellphones are inoperative. No, we don't know why they didn't inform you before they left. Goodbye now.

After all, the Philippine maids, Indian cooks and Haitian dishwashers of Libertarianworld would be allowed to carry weapons without restriction. They'd be pretty much crazy not to butcher their employers in the night and start living off the money.

Which brings up a question I've been wanting to ask forum libertarians for a long time: What happens when the NAP meets life with armed subordinates?

Here's what happens: it goes straight out the window, because no advantaged person in their right mind would live with or among disadvantaged people that carry Glocks and knives. With the playing field so even--you've got guns, they've got guns--then it becomes a numbers game. The more-comfortable will quickly see that they are vastly outnumbered by the less-comfortable, and that this is ungood for their safety.

So the first thing they'd do would be to tell their servants and delivery people: you can't be armed on the job. You have to store your weapons in a locker at the gate.

And the next thing would be: we need to make SURE you really are storing your weapons before you come on the property. We'll need to look in your purse, take your shoes, and prod your crotch a couple of times.

And the next: We've thought about it, and we no longer think it's a good idea for you all to carry your weapons into the grocery store or tavern or other business. You see, we like to frequent those places too. And we do not want to run the risk of an angry servant, dis-armed in our household, getting her Mace and butcher knife all up in our faces on neutral territory. That's just so unpleasant. We'll set up gates and lockers like in front of our homes. --What? What's that? No, we are not denying you the right to bear arms! You have the right to as many weapons as you want, and you can carry them absolutely everywhere! Except into your workplaces and public businesses. No, that's not hypocritical. Going to work and shop is a CHOICE. If you don't like the trade-off, don't make the choice.

And the next: Okay, all this checking for weapons is causing long lines. You all have to leave your weapons at home. Hey! Don't yell at us! You made a choice to come here. If you don't like it, you can leave.

And the next: If you were a good person, with nothing to hide, you would not OWN seventeen firearms, three crossbows and a grenade.

Next stop: Ancient Rome. And everything old is new again.

[LaoTzu]

I think it'll turn out like Vegas on the water.

Libertarians will be disappointed, but entertained.

[MasterM1nd]

no offence but you guys don't see my point... What if WE make artificial islands with good rules, good social structure, good leadership, good education... etc etc ? As if they can do it, so can we... if they can't do it, well why couldn't we the systembuilders do this?
If we can think of what could possibly go wrong, we can solve those problems in advance... And yes there need to be rules considering weapons, we can't have neighbors killing eachother because one of them hurted the other one's feelings in last discussion and accidentally blowing up one or more of those ''islands''

[LaoTzu]

	Originally Posted by MasterM1nd To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	no offence but you guys don't see my point... What if WE make artificial islands with good rules, good social structure, good leadership, good education... etc etc ? As if they can do it, so can we... if they can't do it, well why couldn't we the systembuilders do this?

As I see it, we already have built an effective society.

When you have 100's of millions of competing interests... there will be problems to be dealt with in trying to make a one-size fits all organization.
And there will always be whiners, on both ends of the social spectrum.
To say it's all shit, and check out? ... Silly.


Returning to year 0, and rehashing arguments that have been borne out historically is a waste of time.

[MasterM1nd]

	As I see it, we already have built an effective society.

effective? one example: loss of manpower and resources because of war, is that effective?

	When you have 100's of millions of competing interests... there will be problems to be dealt with in trying to make a one-size fits all organization. And there will always be whiners, on both ends of the social spectrum.

Didn't said that and there will always be a need to compromise.

	To say it's all shit, and check out? ...

Didn't said that...

	Returning to year 0, and rehashing arguments that have been borne out historically is a waste of time.

Again, didn't said that...

So I guess I misunderstood what you were saying or you didn't got your arguments straight, so please explain.

[LaoTzu]

	Originally Posted by MasterM1nd To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	effective? one example: loss of manpower and resources because of war, is that effective? Didn't said that and there will always be a need to compromise. Didn't said that... Again, didn't said that... So I guess I misunderstood what you were saying or you didn't got your arguments straight, so please explain.

I wasn't speaking directly to you, but in essence you're saying every faction should have their own island experiment. I think each nation has already done this, over the course of history.

This is represented by where the world is now. If you want to solve for world-peace; try ending all violence in your local school first. It likely cannot be done to perfection. There will always be fighting of one form or another.



Libertardians simply want to create a new nation by, of , and for , themselves. It's a waste of time, and resources; and a rejection of around 5000 years of human history. But hey, they're so smart and capable; it's bound to work out totally great ..... right?


This experiment has the requisite amount of hubris to become a really cool disaster movie.
So, more power to them.

[MasterM1nd]

Ah ok, already thought I misunderstood it.
No not every faction, I'm saying that what we have is kind of a mess,
Rich ++ can do everything
Average + can survive
Poor +- can survive based on charity but depends on country
the average in 3th world countries - can survive if lucky
the poor in 3th world countries... -- if they survive long enough they will be used

wars everywhere, unnecessarily deaths because of incapable of getting food/medicines/other needs, bad education (creativity gets worked out of your system pretty fast, prepares you for working in factories etc), nontransparent authority, corruption, money is everything, I I I and others can die etc etc
I agree there are some good things, especially for some people but my opinion (yes I say opinion) is that it could be done better and that one example could be done on such an island, although it does need to be worked out ... I'm not saying that every faction should start something of their own again, as that is impossible (and to be honest, these factions are called countries, states, cities, villages and they already have had their own land experiment)

	Libertardians simply want to create a new nation by, of , and for , themselves. It's a waste of time, and resources; and a rejection of around 5000 years of human history. But hey, they're so smart and capable; it's bound to work out totally great ..... right?

+1 for the sarcasm... and yeah then it would be turning into (and taught to their children) Libertarians are better than everyone which will lead to...

I'm saying that this idea could go well, if worked out well... And not because they want to earn money but because they want to improve humansociety

	This is represented by where the world is now. If you want to solve for world-peace; try ending all violence in your local school first. It likely cannot be done to perfection. There will always be fighting of one form or another.

There will always be fighting, why not start by following the rule thought to children: Don't fight, talk things out as ''adults''. (I'm still wondering why nearly every adult forgot this rule, well I'm not, but just saying)
I'd prefer a verbal fight (I might even enjoy some) over a physical fight were I can get injured...
And perfection can never be reached so why not create the most efficient human system that is possible? And war(violence) is one of the diplomatic strategies, but the most inefficient one...

[Lonpone]

	Originally Posted by LaoTzu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The most annoying thing of it is they're just talking.

This reminds me of an observation noticed by a researcher studying the macaque, an ape native to Japan. One of the macaque dropped it's yam into sea water, and, after picking it up, took a bite. It then began dipping it's yam into the water before it took more bites, and soon the rest of that particular family group began doing as that macaque had done. Humans are exactly like those macaques, in that we too are chattering apes. All it just takes one, eccentric, chattering human to do something successful before it becomes fashionable.

Originally Posted by annaelizabeth To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Being a naysayer doesn't mean that I want it to fail. I just think that it will. With loose regulations and laws, the worst traits of humanity will rear their ugly head. I thought we all had a better understanding of humanity by now to understand why we need regulations in place. Without them, people will continue to fuck one another over. This is why I am not a libertarian. They look out for the most powerful who would be doing the fucking and don't care about the less fortunate who are being fucked.

Just because there is an absence of official law, does not instantly mean anarchy and violence. There have been many societies in human history and tribal societies in the present who lack an official government, but, cultural traditions and belief frame their lives. Assuming that libertarians could figure out a way to splinter off and form their own society, I think they could manage themselves just fine as long as the people there developed a code of conduct, sense of honor and taught their children and themselves to respect those ways.

	Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That's pretty much the entire point, as far as I can tell. But they're going to have problems when existing governments simply reject the legitimacy of whatever they use as currency. They have no way to produce resources, so they'll just run out of useful goods to trade eventually, and anything without intrinsic value will become absolutely worthless as long as it's deemed so by governments.

If you live on an oil rig, drill for oil? The sea isn't some barren wasteland, rather, it's a rather difficult terrain that hasn't been fully conquered yet. There's minerals and metals on the sea floor, and nations have already set claims on these elements within their maritime boundaries in the event that technology finally allows those nations to successfully harvest those elements. Forsaking that, there is always gambling, tourism, research and a heavy service based economy.

	Originally Posted by yoginimama To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	They may be able to abuse slaves/servants in places like Dubai....

I have an issue with the reasoning in that entire response, not just the part I quoted. First of all, every society has slaves and coerced labor and having law does not always deter it. Human traffickers love to prey on people by offering them good paying and interesting jobs in foreign countries, and as soon as that person takes the bait, suddenly they're chained up in a factory or working in the sex trade. A person outside of their society is easy prey and even people within their own society can be easy prey for such decrepit people, especially if that country has civil rights that protect against searches and seizures without probable cause.

The whole argument about servants carrying weapons and killing their libertarian employer, it could happen, but just because it can doesn't mean that it will. A good governor, employer, or leader who treats his people well will get treated well in return and those who are corrupt, will have people biting back. If a society were sufficiently free enough, then those distraught laborers could leave in search of greener pastures or return from whence they came.

	Originally Posted by LaoTzu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Libertardians simply want to create a new nation by, of , and for , themselves. It's a waste of time, and resources; and a rejection of around 5000 years of human history. But hey, they're so smart and capable; it's bound to work out totally great ..... right?

Does that imply that any populace that revolted against the standard order of things is inherently wasting their time and resources to bring about change? I suddenly agree. Stupid populace uprisings. We'd all be better off under kings granted divinity by the gods, for it is only through their divine grace and appointment, that the rains fall, the crops grow, and our heads do not randomly explode.

=====================

The negativity in this thread is not against the concept of seasteading, but rather the criteria of groups of libertarians building an independent society that would reflect their own values, for that sole criteria, in their eyes, makes it a truly unworkable idea. Rather than even attempt to understand how such a thing could work or even humor the idea that such a society could be built, it is written off and they see the preassembled engine serving it's one function, without exploring the nuts, bolts, and fluids and figuring out how to alter that engine's capabilities to serve another similar purpose.

[MasterM1nd]

The negativity in this thread is not against the concept of floating islands and independent cities and city-states nor is the question of engineering, survival or the concept of seasteading, but rather with the criteria of groups of libertarians building an independent society that would reflect their own values, for that sole criteria, in their eyes, makes it a truly unworkable idea. Rather than even attempt to understand how such a thing could work or even humor the idea that such a society could be built, it is written off and they see the preassembled engine serving it's one function, without exploring the nuts, bolts, and fluids and figuring out how to alter that engine's capabilities to serve another, but similar purpose.

I second that, come on people, this idea has some possibilities but because the libertarians thought of it, it's a stupid/impossible/impractical idea?

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That's pretty much the entire point, as far as I can tell. But they're going to have problems when existing governments simply reject the legitimacy of whatever they use as currency. They have no way to produce resources, so they'll just run out of useful goods to trade eventually, and anything without intrinsic value will become absolutely worthless as long as it's deemed so by governments.

True but more likely, they'll adopt the reserve currency and allow the usage of precious metals like gold and silver since the gold standard appears to be the libertarian holy grail.

Overall, I do hope these experiments fail and badly. My reasoning is that there has to be some form of economic return for the monies that are vampired out of countries. I sincerely hope that if these floating countries choose not to participate in money laundering agreements, particularly with organised crime and terrorist organisations, that countries will start to embargo them.

[yoginimama]

	Originally Posted by Lonpone To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The whole argument about servants carrying weapons and killing their libertarian employer, it could happen, but just because it can doesn't mean that it will.

Actually I think human history has pretty much disproven that assertion. Find me a society in which the small band of "haves" did not employ extensive measures against their own "have-not" servants--disarming everyone but the guards; creating elaborate personnel rotations among the guards to make it harder for the guards to hatch plots; employing food tasters to check for poison at every meal. All that crap is a real bother. I highly doubt our forefathers would have gone to such effort unless they felt they really needed to.

	Originally Posted by Lonpone To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A good governor, employer, or leader who treats his people well will get treated well in return

Okay, think about your boss or supervisor. Does everyone on your team have the same opinion about him/her? Do they ALL like h/h, and ALL for the same reasons? Do they ALL dislike h/h, and ALL for the same reasons? Has s/he NEVER had to make a tough decision? An ambivalent decision? Has s/he NEVER pissed anyone off or done anything which someone could blame h/h for?

Powerful people acquire enemies. They just do. It has nothing to do with how "good" they are. It's because of the competitive nature of achievement--everyone who doesn't get the achievements Person X did will be resentful. It's because of the nature of the decisions powerful people have to make--hiring, firing, etc.

	Originally Posted by Lonpone To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	and those who are corrupt, will have people biting back.

Are you imagining that the corrupt boss/leader has no friends? The people biting back may get bitten back themselves. Before you know it, you're living in a medieval Italian city-state nightmare of ongoing feuds and vendettas.

	Originally Posted by Lonpone To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The negativity in this thread is not against the concept of seasteading, but rather the criteria of groups of libertarians building an independent society that would reflect their own values, for that sole criteria, in their eyes, makes it a truly unworkable idea.

No, you're conflating two separate strains of argument. We're questioning it on two fronts: (1) how practical is the idea in general--how is the rig going to withstand weather, attacks, illness, etc; how will it build an economy; what will it use for currency; etc.

Replies to Category 1 questions have mostly consisted of declaring that the phenomenon in question (attack, poverty, perfect storms) either won't happen or won't be a problem if it does. This being a forum with a lot of "J" types, that's not going over too well.

Then (2) are the problems specific to the libertarian nature of the group.

The libertarian mentality tends to imagine a frontier--I've got my homestead and guns, you've got your homestead and guns, and we meet once a month to trade honey for leather.

But on a sea-stead, the population will be more compacted and transportation will not be a simple matter of just walking away with whatever you can carry. A sea-stead actually resembles a prison more than it does a frontier.

Yet a libertarian sea-stead means (a) everyone will be armed, (b) restrictions will be very few, (c) it's not totally clear who will create and enforce the restrictions, and (d) there will be sharp and even volatile inequality, as some people make fortunes, some lose fortunes, and some can only sell their work to survive.

Under those conditions, in a crowded setting, where leaving is not trivial, there are serious questions as to how any kind of social order can be maintained. Yet all we are hearing is, "It'll probably work out. They'll figure out some values that will help them. They'll be close-knit. They'll have a bond. They'll know it's not in their best interest to make trouble."

Again, that is severely under-feeding the "J" bulldog.

[stealthfighter]

Even if they managed to build it. They'll need ways to generate profit. Without the certainty of money which is the fuel for most libertarian agenda, I don't know why anyone would pay attention to it.

[MasterM1nd]

Hint, get it out of the ''libertarian'' context and think about this idea again, now looking at it from all the different perspectives and you might see a possible good idea.
Could this: ''artificial self sufficient islands in international waters'' work?
If not, than it would clearly not work for libertarians either...

[yoginimama]

	Originally Posted by MasterM1nd To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Hint, get it out of the ''libertarian'' context and think about this idea again, now looking at it from all the different perspectives and you might see a possible good idea. Could this: ''artificial self sufficient islands in international waters'' work?

In other words, ask what we've all been asking all down the line:

--What about the lack of legal protection in international waters
--What about safety, as the islands will basically be sitting ducks?
--What about weather
--What about supplies
--What about disruption or loss of supplies
--What about illness or blight
--What about breakdowns and repairs
--What about wear and tear? The ocean is a hostile, corrosive environment
--What about currency
--What about trading; what will these islands be able to produce that people/nations can't get more cheaply elsewhere? Buying widgets and trinkets that have to be produced at least in part with shipped-in supplies, then transported, will be much more expensive than buying similar crap made by established multinationals using de facto slave labor
--Etc

"It could be worked out!" is not an answer. How can it be worked out? In the absence of thoughtful and convincing replies, it becomes ever more clear that this idea in fact NOT a good idea and would NOT work--for anyone.

[nowt]

Why wouldn't they have an easier time finding a country willing to cede land?

Libertarian Govisum.

[blueback]

Shipping things via ocean is actually pretty cheap, in a relative sense. The actual cost of the thing is usually determined by the cost of labor wherever it's manufactured. Since living in the ocean (permanently) is going to be expensive, it probably won't make sense to manufacture anything there.

It seems to me that a common strategy for surviving on a frontier is to find some extra valuable resource that can only be accessed far from civilization. Then a small town grows up around that resource and the jobs associated with it. Since the ocean is rich in minerals, I suggest these artificial islands focus on mining rare earth minerals. The world is already finding that it needs more and more off-the-wall vitamins for its science projects, so there's a growing market.

So, lets assume they do that. The primary investor finds a nice patch of minerals and plops the island down on top of it. Extracting them becomes the primary creation of value. Now you need miners, and technicians, which means you need all the support services associated with any population. Since they'd be expected to live out there, you'd need all the services of a standard small sea port. That's a model that shouldn't be too difficult to replicate.

[Haumea]

	What about trading; what will these islands be able to produce that people/nations can't get more cheaply elsewhere? Buying widgets and trinkets that have to be produced at least in part with shipped-in supplies, then transported, will be much more expensive than buying similar crap made by established multinationals using de facto slave labor

Actually, they would make excellent floating brothels. Gambling, whores and tax-free goods. Think Nevada-meets-Delaware on water.

Also, I think what people are missing here is that it's considerably easier to make a society work if you control who gets to participate. Betcha they keep all the scum out.

[yoginimama]

"Libertarian Govisum"
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
And if they really like the island idea, then Kiribati has a bunch of (admittedly tiny) atolls that are currently uninhabited.

---------- Post added 08-22-2011 at 08:03 AM ----------

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The primary investor finds a nice patch of minerals and plops the island down on top of it. Extracting them becomes the primary creation of value. Now you need miners, and technicians, which means you need all the support services associated with any population. Since they'd be expected to live out there, you'd need all the services of a standard small sea port. That's a model that shouldn't be too difficult to replicate.

But it's not a model for a future country, or even a colony. It's a model for a business.

	Originally Posted by Haumea To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Actually, they would make excellent floating brothels. Gambling, whores and tax-free goods. Think Nevada-meets-Delaware on water.

But again, we've already got that. As Axl Rose put it, "If you've got the money, honey, we've got your disease." Why would people bother to go out to a bunch of lashed-together oil rigs for a prostitute, a casino and a duty-free shop when all they have to do is drive to the biggest nearby city for the first two, and order things from Skymall catalogs for the third?