Reviewing a new book on seasteading by Patri Friedman and Joe Quirk, Shlomo Angel writes,
there is also no particular urgency to settle the oceans, as plenty of land remains for building cities: They occupy only about 1% of the land of countries today. And it is much cheaper to build cities on land than on the oceans.
That is somewhat beside the point. All of that land is now claimed by governments, and those governments will not allow you to build a city with its own set of rules.
I hope to review the book at some point.
Right. And the question is whether they’d ever allow such a city to thrive and trade anywhere in their reach, if the rules are objectionably different enough to matter.
The government will certainly allow you to build a virtual city with its own set of rules. I used to comment on Econlog. But then I was banished because I linked to the tax choice Wikipedia page too often. Clearly I think it’s a stupid rule. But does what I think matter? Evidently not according to Econlog. It’s their website and they can create whatever rules they want.
The idea of needing to create a city on the sea in order to test different rules is incredibly ignorant of basic economics. As long as there are consumers and producers… websites can be used to test every single relevant rule.
Plus, people can be citizens of multiple websites. This allows them to simultaneously compare different rules. Virtual foot voting isn’t very costly. In physical cities, on the other hand, having to sell your house, quit your job and pull your kids out of school makes foot voting extremely costly. So just because people don’t choose to exit does not necessarily mean that the rules are more beneficial than the alternatives.
Interestingly enough, as far as I know, nobody has created a website where subscribers (taxpayers) elect members (representatives) to decide how to divide the fees (taxes) among all the content (public goods). It’s not like people are unaware of these rules. For some reason they just don’t think that they are good rules for virtual communities. But obviously they think they are good rules for physical communities. If only economists endeavored to help people get their stories straight. Unfortunately, this won’t happen until economists themselves get their stories straight.
There will always be a margin at which people seek greater autonomy. Deny them the hills, as James C. Scott demonstrated in the The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia, and they will move to the mountains. The sea and space are just the next in line.
Wouldn’t it be easier to just find a volunteer Indian reservation? All they would have to do is convince one tribe.
Omg, did this reviewer even read the book? Or even the intro?
Roger- interesting point about reservations!
Yeah, if Angel had simply added examples – even if cautionary like Romer’s Honduran effort, or only somewhat similar like various Special Economic Zones or perhaps more local autonomy within larger existing governing units (e.g., states rights in the U.S.) – the argument would have carried more weight. (I’m not saying Angel is right or wrong. I’m merely saying the argument could have been better made.)