I read (and for some, re-read) some articles this morning that really struck me as brilliant. Seasteading is an idea to build autonomous, independent, sovereign states on the sea (in international waters) and use these seasteads as incubators of ideas. Many libertarians have latched onto the idea of seasteading and have made financial contributions to the project. I think the idea is a good one, even though there are many challenges to a fully-functioning and independent seastead. Some of the challenges involve the comfort of the residents (sea storms can make residents sick because of the back-and-forth rocking of the seastead). Other challenges involve possible invasion from other nations (to stop some of the possible activities happening there), unfriendly maritime law, and the upkeep of the place.
The reason why I say that seasteading is a brilliant idea is the following: someone needs to demonstrate (or re-demonstrate if we count some of the early Americans) that everyone is better off when left to choose for themselves. The poor are taken care of better when free people can use their money to freely give (instead of being forced by a government to give to welfare). Sure, there will be people that make "wrong" or "bad" decisions (I put these words in quotes, not to argue for moral relativism but to argue that some things are only wrong or bad because the government doesn't think we should do it), but a freer people would also be able to do more good and would be more accountable to God for their actions.
I hope that one day (2015?), seasteading becomes a reality.
Here are the internet sources to which I went for information:
http://www.benzinga.com/general/politics/11/08/1862462/want-out-seasteading-libertarian-hamlets-may-be-the-answer
http://www.economist.com/node/21540395
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/18/peter-thiel-seasteading_n_930595.html
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Monday, January 30, 2012
The paranoid king and his paranoid subjects
Once upon a time, there was a land with a group of free people. They loved their land and their lack of wars. They were prosperous. They weren't without problems, but their situation was a lot better than the far off lands they knew.
These far off lands were lands of perpetual war. They had poverty and disease, more than the free land with free people.
The free people had made two big mistakes. These mistakes had changed their lives and their children's lives. They had got involved in two wars in the far off lands, lost many of their boys and girls to those wars, and made the world less stable. The only good thing about these mistakes is that the people had declared the wars and had not had a king do the declaring for them.
Soon the free people wanted a king. They wanted a king, because all the far off lands had a king or someone like a king and they wanted to fit in. So, they got themselves a king (at least, he acted like a king and ruled like a king and got into wars whenever he wanted to, like a king).
There was much evil in the far off lands. Some of the kings and peoples in the far off lands were going to destroy the whole world, or at least enslave it. The newly-kinged people thought that if they didn't do something, that they were going to be destroyed or enslaved. Their king sent their boys and girls off to battles and wars in the far off lands. Wars kept springing up here and there and each war killed many of their soldier boys and girls and spent the people's money.
Other lands rose up and threatened the people, because the other lands were sick of the newly-kinged people being over there, like a nagging babysitter trying to stop daily sandbox fights. The other people of the other lands attacked the once-free people. The once-free people got into war again. And again. And were talking about starting another war.
Some of the people began to worry. "We can't pay for these wars. We're out of money! Our sons and daughters are dying over there! But if we don't get those evil people in those other lands, they'll get us!" The king and his subjects were scared and couldn't sleep.
So that was the dilemma, go fight more and spend borrowed money and have their sons and daughters killed in ever sprouting conflicts, or leave them alone and perhaps the evil people would destroy all the peoples of the earth.
Some people thought that maybe this war would not waste money and kill the people's soldier children.
An old man came forward and told the people a piece of wisdom that he had heard from another wise person. "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." The old man also said that the people should follow the golden rule, but the people didn't understand what gold had to do with anything.
But the people were worried about their enemies throughout the world, and so they ignored the old man and his "wisdom."
So the people fought until they had a currency crisis and couldn't buy a piece of bread. Their enemies didn't blow up the world after all, but it other damage had been done. The once-free land had fallen into economic crises and had let themselves become enslaved.
The End (but it doesn't have to be)
These far off lands were lands of perpetual war. They had poverty and disease, more than the free land with free people.
The free people had made two big mistakes. These mistakes had changed their lives and their children's lives. They had got involved in two wars in the far off lands, lost many of their boys and girls to those wars, and made the world less stable. The only good thing about these mistakes is that the people had declared the wars and had not had a king do the declaring for them.
Soon the free people wanted a king. They wanted a king, because all the far off lands had a king or someone like a king and they wanted to fit in. So, they got themselves a king (at least, he acted like a king and ruled like a king and got into wars whenever he wanted to, like a king).
There was much evil in the far off lands. Some of the kings and peoples in the far off lands were going to destroy the whole world, or at least enslave it. The newly-kinged people thought that if they didn't do something, that they were going to be destroyed or enslaved. Their king sent their boys and girls off to battles and wars in the far off lands. Wars kept springing up here and there and each war killed many of their soldier boys and girls and spent the people's money.
Other lands rose up and threatened the people, because the other lands were sick of the newly-kinged people being over there, like a nagging babysitter trying to stop daily sandbox fights. The other people of the other lands attacked the once-free people. The once-free people got into war again. And again. And were talking about starting another war.
Some of the people began to worry. "We can't pay for these wars. We're out of money! Our sons and daughters are dying over there! But if we don't get those evil people in those other lands, they'll get us!" The king and his subjects were scared and couldn't sleep.
So that was the dilemma, go fight more and spend borrowed money and have their sons and daughters killed in ever sprouting conflicts, or leave them alone and perhaps the evil people would destroy all the peoples of the earth.
Some people thought that maybe this war would not waste money and kill the people's soldier children.
An old man came forward and told the people a piece of wisdom that he had heard from another wise person. "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." The old man also said that the people should follow the golden rule, but the people didn't understand what gold had to do with anything.
But the people were worried about their enemies throughout the world, and so they ignored the old man and his "wisdom."
So the people fought until they had a currency crisis and couldn't buy a piece of bread. Their enemies didn't blow up the world after all, but it other damage had been done. The once-free land had fallen into economic crises and had let themselves become enslaved.
The End (but it doesn't have to be)
Playing by the rules
I was talking to an acquaintance the other day about politics. He was talking about the strict constitutionalists and how he didn't agree with them. I let him know that I was a strict constitutionalist. Our conversation basically ended there.
I've been thinking about the constitution and how it is treated. Some say that the Constitution is old-fashioned and does not reflect the complexity of our modern world. Thus, they say, we need a living Constitution or a loose interpretation of the document. The problem, I believe, with this argument and suggestion, is that there is nothing anchoring a "living Constitution" or the "loose" interpretation applied to what Ezra Taft Benson called "A Heavenly Banner." Instead, I think there is a simple solution.
All we need to do is play by the rules. We need to amend the Constitution whenever we think it is outdated or does not handle our current situation correctly. If we don't want to live by any of the Constitution, we should amend it out of existence, as the Constitutional Convention did with the Articles of Confederation.
One of the advantages of amending the Constitution is that it puts down the possibility of some faction rising up and having a violent coup, when they don't like where our country is going. Instead, there would be discussion, deliberation, and input from the people. The people would feel that their voices were heard, and would more than likely accept the change (or tolerate it peacefully).
An analogy may help. Pick a sport, any sport. That sport has rules by which the competitors play. Imagine if two teams were in the midst of the game and a referee tells everyone that he doesn't like a rule and so going to ignore that rule. If each player decided to play by his/her rules, then there would be chaos. Many of the fans perhaps would become disenchanted with the sport.
The Constitution has laid out the process by which it can be changed. Constitutional amendment. Those are the rules. So, instead of ignoring the Constitution, we should amend it when needed. Play by the rules!
I've been thinking about the constitution and how it is treated. Some say that the Constitution is old-fashioned and does not reflect the complexity of our modern world. Thus, they say, we need a living Constitution or a loose interpretation of the document. The problem, I believe, with this argument and suggestion, is that there is nothing anchoring a "living Constitution" or the "loose" interpretation applied to what Ezra Taft Benson called "A Heavenly Banner." Instead, I think there is a simple solution.
All we need to do is play by the rules. We need to amend the Constitution whenever we think it is outdated or does not handle our current situation correctly. If we don't want to live by any of the Constitution, we should amend it out of existence, as the Constitutional Convention did with the Articles of Confederation.
One of the advantages of amending the Constitution is that it puts down the possibility of some faction rising up and having a violent coup, when they don't like where our country is going. Instead, there would be discussion, deliberation, and input from the people. The people would feel that their voices were heard, and would more than likely accept the change (or tolerate it peacefully).
An analogy may help. Pick a sport, any sport. That sport has rules by which the competitors play. Imagine if two teams were in the midst of the game and a referee tells everyone that he doesn't like a rule and so going to ignore that rule. If each player decided to play by his/her rules, then there would be chaos. Many of the fans perhaps would become disenchanted with the sport.
The Constitution has laid out the process by which it can be changed. Constitutional amendment. Those are the rules. So, instead of ignoring the Constitution, we should amend it when needed. Play by the rules!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)