What, again? Neither of the "Bitcoin island" schemes ever happened. The seasteading people failed to convince anybody that living on an old anchored cruise ship just for a tax break was worth it. The Sea Pod didn't look survivable in a storm.
Red Rock Island in San Francisco Bay [1] is apparently for sale again. It was supposedly sold in 2025, but that deal may have fallen through. Nobody built anything on it. Five acres of rock with cliffs.
It's basically a mountain peak sticking out of water. It would take a lot of money and work to do something with it. At least as much as the Eagle's Nest [2], plus the costs of operating on an island.
Which means there are about a dozen people in the Bay Area who could afford it.
Libertarians did make an actual island, Republic of Minerva, but the Australian/western and Polynesian governments were so scared shitless of a tiny island of libertarians that they concocted a story about it being "Tongan fishing lands" (despite the fact being way out of Tongan waters and Tonga basically ~never having mentioned it until some other people decided to put an island there). Then they sent the Tongan Navy to take it by force.
From "might makes right" is Tongan because the Tongans were able to take it. From the perspective of homesteading, owning the fruit of your labor, etc I think you can argue since the Minervans both made the island, homesteaded, "discovered" (didn't exist until they made it), and claimed and were actively using it they have senior property rights (you can argue any of these individually but in summation it's quite weighty over any Tongan claim).
Of course might make right ultimately trumps everything else, it is just interesting that you so often hear that if libertarians want to escape society they shouldn't use force to make others follow their ideals, they should just go off into the woods or their own island or some such. But then when they actually make their own island, actually "society" decides they will just take their shit under the auspices of a military force that will kill them if they defend themselves (although the only homicide on Minerva was one Tongan killing another Tongan).
Right now Fiji and Tonga are fighting over it and in reality neither one actually gives much a shit about the actual property rights to hold the island and as a fiji/tongan dispute suddenly the Navy is not so interested anymore. The Tongan claims were initiated after a conference with Polynesian countries and Australia where the goal was not to preserve some Tongan fishing but to smack down the libertarians using it -- Polynesian claims were never an actual reason for the invasion, only kicking the libertarians off the island.
(1) They were minarchist not anarchist, so not sure what your point is about government; they weren't looking to re-invent government defense privately or some such, rather their failure mode was ultimately political alienation manifested in violence (rest of world in that area hated/afraid of the possible prospect of successful libertarians upsetting the status quo and thus called to action to squash them at once). They likely could have survived with the same weak military under a different more palatable political model that makes Australia and Tongans happy face, because in reality Aus+polynesia had no interest in actually taking the land for themselves only expelling libertarians.
(2) Yes they were militarily weaker than the entire coalition of australia + polynesia under the flag of Tonga for invasion, this applies to pretty much all sovereign islands in the Pacific, there is no particularly special lesson to be learned here about polynesian military might -- even the Tongans were ultimately proxying Australia and would find the same fate if Australia disliked their political model.
(3) The takeaway Michael Oliver did actually learn (dude was a legit genius) from this is if you find any success "democratic" countries that preach tenants of peaceful property rights actually are just frauds running under the cold veneer of "whoever can kill and steal, gets the land."
(4) The next "adventure" by the same foundation used lethal force to defend themselves (Vemerena), and IIRC it did survive a bit longer. (There were three major attempts by Phoenix foundation, one was making a new island island, another a civil war-ish breakoff nation in Vanuatu, and another an attempt at civil democratic secession in the Bahamas-- the one defended by armed actors was arguably got the closest to success)
(5) Thus ultimately we can see the property rights model of modern democratic countries are no better than the founding libertarian models, it's just violently taking whatever you can get away with whenever you can get away with it wrapped up under more flowery language than what the libertarians used and with generally higher tax rates. We see this continually whether it is libertarians or communists, the bigger democratic countries will just fuck their shit up as a mode of political alienation whether they have a "government" or not.
(6) Conclusion is duration of survival of small territories of Minerva, communists, et al has little to do with their philosophical model of property rights. Has more to do with forming allies (Cuba with Russia for instance) and/or military might. None of which is philosophically incompatible with the Minervan model of minarchism.
Casting seasteading as a tax avoidance strategy because some loud self proclaimed Libertarians were briefly involved is really sad. Some people really are entranced with the idea of living on the seas and building communities there. Given what goes on with cruise ships and aircraft carriers this isn't even a particularly challenging goal. Put down your aggressively critical politics for a moment and let yourself enjoy that others can dream.
Great username. I too wished to live at sea once, but I gotta be honest with you; hang around any of the big submariner/shipwright/offshore groups for long enough and it will shock you how few people with money in those circles are not Andrew Ryan wannabes. As an avid Cousteau and Earle fan all my life, it broke my heart. If you're uber-wealthy, seeking recognition for that success makes enough sense; that recognition typically comes from people who inevitably live on shore someplace. They might commission a big yacht like Gaben or Zuck, but it serves multiple purposes, not the least of which being "hey, look at me!" But there is a particular type of personality for whom keeping to themselves is the height of luxury, and a couple folks of this persuasion are incredibly wealth. These dragons hoard their keep because, philosophically, it is theirs to do with as they please and not anybody else's. For them, the inherent eroticism of the sea calls their name. I swear to God, it happens every time.
I'm eternally disappointed that none of these libertarian projects even manage to survive long enough to hit the "oops we just reinvented government and taxes" stage.
They don't want to actually create anything for anyone else or the messaging would be different.
It's the same energy of a kid running away from home to the tree house in the yard. All they want is to have all the benefits of society (imagine if they were barred from reentering their home country or traveling anywhere else because Pirate-Monaco-Dubai-island(tm) doesn't have real passports) and not be held responsible for their destructive behavior and impulses.
I would reframe this as the rent-seekers not wanting to create anything for anyone else.
The reason Pirate-Monaco-Dubai-Island isn't productive is because all of the productive land is being squatted by rent-seekers. There is some history that indicates that anarchistic sort of socities can be productive, for example kowloon walled city.
Libertarianism is a spectrum. The majority believe in some form of government, just limited in what it can do to varying degrees. The are also anarchists, yes, but that's not all libertarians.
True, but this is what distinguishes libertarianism from anarchism. Libertarians aren't pursing anarchy, they're pursuing a minimal government and a global environment that makes governments compete on taxes/protections/benefits/etc.
The most extreme form of libertarianism, minarchism, still proposes the existence of a government
This article is about a project called "Destiny" (https://destiny.com), an economic zone to be created in an undeveloped region of Nevis (of St. Kitts & Nevis)
The project goal is to become like Dubai with a 50m dollar investment, which I don't think is an admirable goal btw.
St Kitts & Nevis has had a history of being friendly to crypto and there was an initiative to make bitcoin cash legal tender, although don't think it ever actually happened.
> The project goal is to become like Dubai with a 50m dollar investment
Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
To "become like Dubai" they'd need at least another 3 orders of magnitude on that investment.
For reference, the university I worked at until last year recently renovated the building I was working in. It was a fairly standard-sized academic building for a small liberal arts campus—three stories, with roughly 3-8 classrooms on a side. The renovation was the replacement of its HVAC system, and adding a fairly small "bump-out" addition on one of the short sides, of roughly one medium-large classroom's width.
It cost $35 million.
$50 million would build maybe a couple of decent-sized buildings, or a handful of smaller ones. No skyscrapers. Nothing fancy.
Certainly nothing like Dubai.
(According to Wikipedia, when it was built, the Burj Khalifa alone cost $1.5 billion. With a "b".)
I been to St. Kitts & Nevis. The only thing I can remember is the very stark contrast between the commercialized beaches versus where the locals lived, and the roaming cows everywhere.
Nevis (the baseball) was only boat accessible, and St. Kitts (the bat) is mostly hills of national park.
Vast majority of things must be flown or shipped in. I am hard pressed to see some "techno libertarians" doing techno without Amazon/Temu/Walmart/<insert fav vendor> in 24h drop ship.
>Vast majority of things must be flown or shipped in. I am hard pressed to see some "techno libertarians" doing techno without Amazon/Temu/Walmart/<insert fav vendor> in 24h drop ship.
I think this is an unreasonable bar. All the fertile land in the world has been accounted for. There's no way to accomplish that type of sustainability without conquering existing land or some major technological breakthrough.
I think a fair bar would be economic sustainability. Plenty of countries depend on trade for food, but can make up for it in exports.
What is your definition of "techno libertarians"? asking because my understanding is that their primary work and concentration of work is not agriculture; there is no need for "fertile land". They can build stuff on a rock like Hong Kong.
I image this as a bunch of F/LOSS techno peeps living in condos or town homes with postage stamp grass to take care of. they would run off to the shore to do some water activities, go into the town and do some restaurants and some such.
Basically, this reads like an attempt to anchor digital nomads.
These projects obviously have limited success. I found it interesting to learn about a couple that were very successful, though.
1) the Republic of Venice from 7th to 18th centuries, basically a merchant-run state controlled by a tight circle of wealthy traders. Its whole setup revolved around safeguarding trade and property and staying clear of the Catholic church and European kings.
2) the Republic of Ragusa from 14th to 19th centuries, in what’s now Dubrovnik, run by a small group of merchant families. Strong focus on open commerce and neutrality, made early advances in public health and infrastructure and had its own privately funded healthcare and insurance, all paid for by trade profits
If you consider them libertarian projects they failed. That's the thing about libertarianism - to succeed it needs to reinvent stuff that it is so opposed to.
Venice and Ragusa (and Genoa) were oligarchic states, had laws, and used force to enforce these laws. Civic liberties were suspended or heavily restricted.
As someone with no plans to live or vacation in the caribbean, I'm curious. Is there a specific notable reason, or is it just a combination of littler things (cost, convenience, politics, weather, etc.)?
I've spend a total of about 2 months in the Carribean. One of those being an entire month straight.
It's the convenience really, and the fact that nobody is in a hurry. Island time is real. You cannot be demanding. You can't really be upset at service. Most people are there to chill out, even if they are doing a job. Life is just slower.
This is good, IMO. But if you are a hedonically adapted/burned out western metropolis dweller, this culture shock could be distressing.
There's nothing wrong with living in the Caribbean. Tons of people live there for a reason. Biggest issue with the Caribbean is the price of property, susceptibility to climate disasters and susceptibility to external political forces which means constant securit threat.
Have you spent time in the Carribean and SEA? SEA prices are better, it's safer, people are more honest in most areas, and while food is subjective, IMO SEA has that locked as well.
In 2014 it was Chile, in 2017 it was Honduras, then Colombia and El Salvador in the early 2020s. In Chile and Colombia they were coasting on tax authorities not pursuing them and relying on the cultural cachet of being thought-leading risk takers who were forward-thinking enough to take on a new frontier (remember this is when they started flying south for ayahuasca ceremonies). In the case of Honduras and El Salvador, they were setting up in tax-free zones (which is effectively a transfer of wealth from those outside of the zone to those inside). Notable that the periods of Chilean and Salvadorian history that these “libertarians” tend to celebrate were periods of political repression. I can’t imagine these ventures will be any different.
Remember the scene in Blow when Johnny Depp’s character goes to Columbia to make a withdrawal from the millions he’s been sending to their banks and they are like like “huh, we don’t remember you creating an account here. Good day sir. Please leave.”
The recent citations are definitely interesting, but none of this is really new. I met with some VCs in the early 10s, and some of them talked about "free enterprise zones" in various areas in the region. Frankly, I'm a little surprised this isn't discussed more. Maybe because the need for "liberty" is less in the realm of bits & bytes for these developments, it is less publicized.
Theres a long history of these things being poorly thought out ideological projects by people with too much money and not enough understanding of the real world.
Curious to see the hilarous ways this new wave will fail in.
"Grafton got worse. Recycling rates went down. Neighbor complaints went up. The town’s legal costs went up because they were constantly defending themselves from lawsuits from Free Towners. The number of sex offenders living in the town went up. The number of recorded crimes went up. The town had never had a murder in living memory, and it had its first two, a double homicide, over a roommate dispute."
"And meanwhile, the town that would ordinarily want to address these things, say with a robust police force, instead found that it was hamstrung. So the town only had one full-time police officer, a single police chief, and he had to stand up at town meeting and tell people that he couldn’t put his cruiser on the road for a period of weeks because he didn’t have money to repair it and make it a safe vehicle."
Great stuff! Apologies for the snark before, there weren't many comments and I was miffed that one of the few was so short. I stepped outside my office into the sun right after posting and felt ridiculous. Go outside, people!
Yeah if you take any system and quickly replace it you'll run into issue. My town is so libertarian it doesn't even have public roads and absolutely zero public services, no police officer either, but we've been doing it that way for decades if not centuries, so we have the system down and there's no stories about bears or the roads not working or whatever.
> Did you sincerely believe that the parent poster was suggesting bear-overrun as a probable outcome?
Gee, maybe they should have written a comment explaining their point of view that we could then discuss, instead of a quippy, dismissive one-liner! Then, we could be discussing the likely pitfalls of this endeavor instead of circlejerking over a Vox piece.
> If you understood correctly, then your response is an example of the same thing you're complaining about.
Do you not understand the process of abstracting a situation one small step to consider it at a higher level than its surface details? Or are you pretending not to? Which do you think makes you look better?
What, again? Neither of the "Bitcoin island" schemes ever happened. The seasteading people failed to convince anybody that living on an old anchored cruise ship just for a tax break was worth it. The Sea Pod didn't look survivable in a storm.
Red Rock Island in San Francisco Bay [1] is apparently for sale again. It was supposedly sold in 2025, but that deal may have fallen through. Nobody built anything on it. Five acres of rock with cliffs. It's basically a mountain peak sticking out of water. It would take a lot of money and work to do something with it. At least as much as the Eagle's Nest [2], plus the costs of operating on an island. Which means there are about a dozen people in the Bay Area who could afford it.
[1] https://www.latitude38.com/lectronic/red-rock-island-isan-fr...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kehlsteinhaus
Libertarians did make an actual island, Republic of Minerva, but the Australian/western and Polynesian governments were so scared shitless of a tiny island of libertarians that they concocted a story about it being "Tongan fishing lands" (despite the fact being way out of Tongan waters and Tonga basically ~never having mentioned it until some other people decided to put an island there). Then they sent the Tongan Navy to take it by force.
http://www.queenoftheisles.com/HTML/Republic%20of%20Minerva....
Nothing scares a cartel of coercive monopolies extracting rent from trivial administrative work more than competition.
What exactly is the argument for why their credibility should be taken as higher than the Tonga government claims?
Because there clearly could be ulterior motives involved on both sides.
From "might makes right" is Tongan because the Tongans were able to take it. From the perspective of homesteading, owning the fruit of your labor, etc I think you can argue since the Minervans both made the island, homesteaded, "discovered" (didn't exist until they made it), and claimed and were actively using it they have senior property rights (you can argue any of these individually but in summation it's quite weighty over any Tongan claim).
Of course might make right ultimately trumps everything else, it is just interesting that you so often hear that if libertarians want to escape society they shouldn't use force to make others follow their ideals, they should just go off into the woods or their own island or some such. But then when they actually make their own island, actually "society" decides they will just take their shit under the auspices of a military force that will kill them if they defend themselves (although the only homicide on Minerva was one Tongan killing another Tongan).
Right now Fiji and Tonga are fighting over it and in reality neither one actually gives much a shit about the actual property rights to hold the island and as a fiji/tongan dispute suddenly the Navy is not so interested anymore. The Tongan claims were initiated after a conference with Polynesian countries and Australia where the goal was not to preserve some Tongan fishing but to smack down the libertarians using it -- Polynesian claims were never an actual reason for the invasion, only kicking the libertarians off the island.
If they have literally no credibility worth speaking of… maybe it just doesn’t matter that much?
If you can't defend your land, somebody else will eventually take it. That's kind of why governments were invented in the first place.
(1) They were minarchist not anarchist, so not sure what your point is about government; they weren't looking to re-invent government defense privately or some such, rather their failure mode was ultimately political alienation manifested in violence (rest of world in that area hated/afraid of the possible prospect of successful libertarians upsetting the status quo and thus called to action to squash them at once). They likely could have survived with the same weak military under a different more palatable political model that makes Australia and Tongans happy face, because in reality Aus+polynesia had no interest in actually taking the land for themselves only expelling libertarians.
(2) Yes they were militarily weaker than the entire coalition of australia + polynesia under the flag of Tonga for invasion, this applies to pretty much all sovereign islands in the Pacific, there is no particularly special lesson to be learned here about polynesian military might -- even the Tongans were ultimately proxying Australia and would find the same fate if Australia disliked their political model.
(3) The takeaway Michael Oliver did actually learn (dude was a legit genius) from this is if you find any success "democratic" countries that preach tenants of peaceful property rights actually are just frauds running under the cold veneer of "whoever can kill and steal, gets the land."
(4) The next "adventure" by the same foundation used lethal force to defend themselves (Vemerena), and IIRC it did survive a bit longer. (There were three major attempts by Phoenix foundation, one was making a new island island, another a civil war-ish breakoff nation in Vanuatu, and another an attempt at civil democratic secession in the Bahamas-- the one defended by armed actors was arguably got the closest to success)
(5) Thus ultimately we can see the property rights model of modern democratic countries are no better than the founding libertarian models, it's just violently taking whatever you can get away with whenever you can get away with it wrapped up under more flowery language than what the libertarians used and with generally higher tax rates. We see this continually whether it is libertarians or communists, the bigger democratic countries will just fuck their shit up as a mode of political alienation whether they have a "government" or not.
(6) Conclusion is duration of survival of small territories of Minerva, communists, et al has little to do with their philosophical model of property rights. Has more to do with forming allies (Cuba with Russia for instance) and/or military might. None of which is philosophically incompatible with the Minervan model of minarchism.
Casting seasteading as a tax avoidance strategy because some loud self proclaimed Libertarians were briefly involved is really sad. Some people really are entranced with the idea of living on the seas and building communities there. Given what goes on with cruise ships and aircraft carriers this isn't even a particularly challenging goal. Put down your aggressively critical politics for a moment and let yourself enjoy that others can dream.
Great username. I too wished to live at sea once, but I gotta be honest with you; hang around any of the big submariner/shipwright/offshore groups for long enough and it will shock you how few people with money in those circles are not Andrew Ryan wannabes. As an avid Cousteau and Earle fan all my life, it broke my heart. If you're uber-wealthy, seeking recognition for that success makes enough sense; that recognition typically comes from people who inevitably live on shore someplace. They might commission a big yacht like Gaben or Zuck, but it serves multiple purposes, not the least of which being "hey, look at me!" But there is a particular type of personality for whom keeping to themselves is the height of luxury, and a couple folks of this persuasion are incredibly wealth. These dragons hoard their keep because, philosophically, it is theirs to do with as they please and not anybody else's. For them, the inherent eroticism of the sea calls their name. I swear to God, it happens every time.
I'm eternally disappointed that none of these libertarian projects even manage to survive long enough to hit the "oops we just reinvented government and taxes" stage.
They don't want to actually create anything for anyone else or the messaging would be different.
It's the same energy of a kid running away from home to the tree house in the yard. All they want is to have all the benefits of society (imagine if they were barred from reentering their home country or traveling anywhere else because Pirate-Monaco-Dubai-island(tm) doesn't have real passports) and not be held responsible for their destructive behavior and impulses.
I would reframe this as the rent-seekers not wanting to create anything for anyone else.
The reason Pirate-Monaco-Dubai-Island isn't productive is because all of the productive land is being squatted by rent-seekers. There is some history that indicates that anarchistic sort of socities can be productive, for example kowloon walled city.
Libertarianism is a spectrum. The majority believe in some form of government, just limited in what it can do to varying degrees. The are also anarchists, yes, but that's not all libertarians.
True, but this is what distinguishes libertarianism from anarchism. Libertarians aren't pursing anarchy, they're pursuing a minimal government and a global environment that makes governments compete on taxes/protections/benefits/etc.
The most extreme form of libertarianism, minarchism, still proposes the existence of a government
https://archive.is/gWfRv
This article is about a project called "Destiny" (https://destiny.com), an economic zone to be created in an undeveloped region of Nevis (of St. Kitts & Nevis)
The project goal is to become like Dubai with a 50m dollar investment, which I don't think is an admirable goal btw.
St Kitts & Nevis has had a history of being friendly to crypto and there was an initiative to make bitcoin cash legal tender, although don't think it ever actually happened.
https://www.investing.com/news/cryptocurrency-news/bitcoin-c...
> The project goal is to become like Dubai with a 50m dollar investment
Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
To "become like Dubai" they'd need at least another 3 orders of magnitude on that investment.
For reference, the university I worked at until last year recently renovated the building I was working in. It was a fairly standard-sized academic building for a small liberal arts campus—three stories, with roughly 3-8 classrooms on a side. The renovation was the replacement of its HVAC system, and adding a fairly small "bump-out" addition on one of the short sides, of roughly one medium-large classroom's width.
It cost $35 million.
$50 million would build maybe a couple of decent-sized buildings, or a handful of smaller ones. No skyscrapers. Nothing fancy.
Certainly nothing like Dubai.
(According to Wikipedia, when it was built, the Burj Khalifa alone cost $1.5 billion. With a "b".)
I been to St. Kitts & Nevis. The only thing I can remember is the very stark contrast between the commercialized beaches versus where the locals lived, and the roaming cows everywhere.
Nevis (the baseball) was only boat accessible, and St. Kitts (the bat) is mostly hills of national park.
Vast majority of things must be flown or shipped in. I am hard pressed to see some "techno libertarians" doing techno without Amazon/Temu/Walmart/<insert fav vendor> in 24h drop ship.
>Vast majority of things must be flown or shipped in. I am hard pressed to see some "techno libertarians" doing techno without Amazon/Temu/Walmart/<insert fav vendor> in 24h drop ship.
I think this is an unreasonable bar. All the fertile land in the world has been accounted for. There's no way to accomplish that type of sustainability without conquering existing land or some major technological breakthrough.
I think a fair bar would be economic sustainability. Plenty of countries depend on trade for food, but can make up for it in exports.
I am not sure i understand what you are writing.
What is your definition of "techno libertarians"? asking because my understanding is that their primary work and concentration of work is not agriculture; there is no need for "fertile land". They can build stuff on a rock like Hong Kong.
I image this as a bunch of F/LOSS techno peeps living in condos or town homes with postage stamp grass to take care of. they would run off to the shore to do some water activities, go into the town and do some restaurants and some such.
Basically, this reads like an attempt to anchor digital nomads.
[flagged]
[dead]
Without a proper supply chain 50m is just a fart in the wind.
It's like a Fyre festival but you live there!
A glance at their website shows 25% of the profit being paid out between the government, residents, scholarship funds, etc.
So you're effectively paying US taxes from the get go, before you even get to the point of anything at all going towards basic services.
Bitcoin Cash, legal.
Or
Bitcoin, cash legal.
These projects obviously have limited success. I found it interesting to learn about a couple that were very successful, though.
1) the Republic of Venice from 7th to 18th centuries, basically a merchant-run state controlled by a tight circle of wealthy traders. Its whole setup revolved around safeguarding trade and property and staying clear of the Catholic church and European kings.
2) the Republic of Ragusa from 14th to 19th centuries, in what’s now Dubrovnik, run by a small group of merchant families. Strong focus on open commerce and neutrality, made early advances in public health and infrastructure and had its own privately funded healthcare and insurance, all paid for by trade profits
If you consider them libertarian projects they failed. That's the thing about libertarianism - to succeed it needs to reinvent stuff that it is so opposed to.
Venice and Ragusa (and Genoa) were oligarchic states, had laws, and used force to enforce these laws. Civic liberties were suspended or heavily restricted.
They'll figure out soon enough why people vacation instead of live there
As someone with no plans to live or vacation in the caribbean, I'm curious. Is there a specific notable reason, or is it just a combination of littler things (cost, convenience, politics, weather, etc.)?
I've spend a total of about 2 months in the Carribean. One of those being an entire month straight.
It's the convenience really, and the fact that nobody is in a hurry. Island time is real. You cannot be demanding. You can't really be upset at service. Most people are there to chill out, even if they are doing a job. Life is just slower.
This is good, IMO. But if you are a hedonically adapted/burned out western metropolis dweller, this culture shock could be distressing.
At some point people will also figure out why these people are fleeing.
These are billionaires, pretty sure they will only do 183 days and being on your boat probably counts.
There's nothing wrong with living in the Caribbean. Tons of people live there for a reason. Biggest issue with the Caribbean is the price of property, susceptibility to climate disasters and susceptibility to external political forces which means constant securit threat.
[flagged]
It's amazing this kind of vitriol is tolerated as long as it aids the bashing of libertarians.
Have you spent time in the Carribean and SEA? SEA prices are better, it's safer, people are more honest in most areas, and while food is subjective, IMO SEA has that locked as well.
In 2014 it was Chile, in 2017 it was Honduras, then Colombia and El Salvador in the early 2020s. In Chile and Colombia they were coasting on tax authorities not pursuing them and relying on the cultural cachet of being thought-leading risk takers who were forward-thinking enough to take on a new frontier (remember this is when they started flying south for ayahuasca ceremonies). In the case of Honduras and El Salvador, they were setting up in tax-free zones (which is effectively a transfer of wealth from those outside of the zone to those inside). Notable that the periods of Chilean and Salvadorian history that these “libertarians” tend to celebrate were periods of political repression. I can’t imagine these ventures will be any different.
Remember the scene in Blow when Johnny Depp’s character goes to Columbia to make a withdrawal from the millions he’s been sending to their banks and they are like like “huh, we don’t remember you creating an account here. Good day sir. Please leave.”
A fool and his wealth is soon parted
I just wrote about this https://open.substack.com/pub/greggbarbers/p/the-productive-...
Interesting that Larry Ellison owns 95% of one entire Hawaiian island (Lanai) and no one seems to notice.
Guess a lot of these guys heard about Little Saint James from the news.
This reminds me of New Utopia and Lazarus Long. I think he wanted to build it on an unclaimed seamount in the western Caribbean.
The recent citations are definitely interesting, but none of this is really new. I met with some VCs in the early 10s, and some of them talked about "free enterprise zones" in various areas in the region. Frankly, I'm a little surprised this isn't discussed more. Maybe because the need for "liberty" is less in the realm of bits & bytes for these developments, it is less publicized.
https://archive.is/gWfRv
Makes for a target-rich environment, I guess.
Here's a fun video that goes through the details of a related project, libertarian sea pods: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V_FM0mLC0c
Theres a long history of these things being poorly thought out ideological projects by people with too much money and not enough understanding of the real world.
Curious to see the hilarous ways this new wave will fail in.
> The Veritas Villages claim to have an education and health-care charity called Help Them Help Themselves.
These people could not be more comically despicable if they tried.
Also one of their "executives" is seemingly a teenager [0]
[0] https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/6866a3346a2532...
So long and prosper.
[flagged]
Or, for a more fanciful fate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldSCClzWMxk
[flagged]
> There are no bears in the Caribbean…
Bears were hardly the only problem.
"Grafton got worse. Recycling rates went down. Neighbor complaints went up. The town’s legal costs went up because they were constantly defending themselves from lawsuits from Free Towners. The number of sex offenders living in the town went up. The number of recorded crimes went up. The town had never had a murder in living memory, and it had its first two, a double homicide, over a roommate dispute."
"And meanwhile, the town that would ordinarily want to address these things, say with a robust police force, instead found that it was hamstrung. So the town only had one full-time police officer, a single police chief, and he had to stand up at town meeting and tell people that he couldn’t put his cruiser on the road for a period of weeks because he didn’t have money to repair it and make it a safe vehicle."
Great stuff! Apologies for the snark before, there weren't many comments and I was miffed that one of the few was so short. I stepped outside my office into the sun right after posting and felt ridiculous. Go outside, people!
Yeah if you take any system and quickly replace it you'll run into issue. My town is so libertarian it doesn't even have public roads and absolutely zero public services, no police officer either, but we've been doing it that way for decades if not centuries, so we have the system down and there's no stories about bears or the roads not working or whatever.
> There are no bears in the Caribbean
Did you sincerely believe that the parent poster was suggesting bear-overrun as a probable outcome?
> but don't let that stop you from making le heckin' reddit quips
If you understood the ironic subtext, then your response is a example of the same trends you're complaining about. Arguably worse.
> Did you sincerely believe that the parent poster was suggesting bear-overrun as a probable outcome?
Gee, maybe they should have written a comment explaining their point of view that we could then discuss, instead of a quippy, dismissive one-liner! Then, we could be discussing the likely pitfalls of this endeavor instead of circlejerking over a Vox piece.
> If you understood correctly, then your response is an example of the same thing you're complaining about.
You reap what you sow.
Do you not understand the process of abstracting a situation one small step to consider it at a higher level than its surface details? Or are you pretending not to? Which do you think makes you look better?
Bears, Sharks, they didn't link to reddit. The result is load-bearing.
Way things are looking, Cuba will soon be on the table for a dime. Right after Trump razes it to get rid of the "undesirables".