undefined | Better HN

0 pointscrusso13y ago0 comments

This is surprisingly naive for someone who wants to build a floating city in order to create libertarian paradise?

Was it surprisingly naive for the explorers and founders of the New World to want to build new societies based upon their ideas? They packed up everything they owned and risked their very lives to go to somewhere lacking an entrenched society so they could build something new.

The effects of their experiment have been disproportionately dominant in the culture and growth of the world for centuries.

Now we're in a world where all the land is spoken for by government bodies that enforce their monopolies on governance through force. Imagine if government said, "There can be no new startup companies. You'll have to influence the existing companies from within." How would entrepreneurs feel about being unable to start new enterprises?

0 comments

6 comments · 2 top-level

jbooth13y ago· 2 in thread

A continent generally provides more opportunities to be self-sufficient than a retro-fitted cruise ship.

EDIT: Also, survival rate on those colonization trips? Not so great. And that was with things like DIRT around that you can PLANT things in.

Basically, the 'floating city' idea is just a rebranding of what current cruise ships already offer: Pay exorbitant prices for everything in order to be on the ocean. Ain't no new society coming out of that.

crussoOP13y ago

Also, survival rate on those colonization trips? Not so great. And that was with things like DIRT around that you can PLANT things in.

Early colonists didn't know much about desalination and hydroponics.

Ain't no new society coming out of that

You very well may be correct as far as probability of an outcome, but your cynicism and lack of imagination are so very wrong... and sad.

jbooth13y ago

Sigh. Plenty died of starvation and exposure. Read up on history sometime, disease was one of the lower risk factors the first few winters.

A bunch of programmers on a boat who need to get every single essential supply from the mainland is not a society. It's a tax avoidance scheme.

It might even be profitable for a generation, until they start having kids and incur more costs.

And the funniest part? Small groups of people in scarcity/survival situations tend to organize themselves into something that looks much more like collectivism than it does capitalism.

When you criticize my lack of imagination, do you mean 'imagine' in the John Lennon sense?

1 more reply

rprasad13y ago· 2 in thread

Except, you know, for the remaining 99% of colonial Americans, who came from multiple nations (i.e., Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, and France) primarily to exploit the vast natural resources for sale back in Europe.

Let's not forget that the American dream is built on the corpses of the many thousands of native Americans whose homelands were usurped by force, or the corpses of the thousands of slaves brought here against their will, or the corpses of the thousands of Rebel soldiers who fought for their rights to keep other men as slaves, or the corpses of the thousands of Mexican soldiers who fought to keep the Southwest out of the the greedy hands of frontiersmen.

Force is, and has been, the defining facet of American society since its inception. American is the dominant culture in the world today for other reasons (thanks Hollywood), but let's not pretend that the official, widespread use of force played anything less than a major role.

crussoOP13y ago

You're kind of all over the map spewing half-truths and full-hate there... but I have to point out the worst of your arguments.

You mentioned the thousands of Rebel soldiers who died fighting for slavery. Really, most were just fighting against being told what to do by the central government and didn't even own slaves. You conveniently didn't mention the thousands of WHITE Northern soldiers who died to end slavery and whose side prevailed, thus showing the core character of the nation. Why is it that folks like yourself generalize the American battle over slavery by mentioning only the losers rather than the winners who sacrificed so much for another race? It's kind of hard to have a meaningful discussion on interesting topics when your post is so intellectually dishonest.

tptacek13y ago

Yes. Slavery had little to do with the civil war. You've totally rebutted the parent post. We're not heading straight into crazytown on this thread at all.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

6 comments · 2 top-level

jbooth13y ago· 2 in thread

A continent generally provides more opportunities to be self-sufficient than a retro-fitted cruise ship.

EDIT: Also, survival rate on those colonization trips? Not so great. And that was with things like DIRT around that you can PLANT things in.

crussoOP13y ago

Also, survival rate on those colonization trips? Not so great. And that was with things like DIRT around that you can PLANT things in.

Early colonists didn't know much about desalination and hydroponics.

Ain't no new society coming out of that

You very well may be correct as far as probability of an outcome, but your cynicism and lack of imagination are so very wrong... and sad.

jbooth13y ago

Sigh. Plenty died of starvation and exposure. Read up on history sometime, disease was one of the lower risk factors the first few winters.

A bunch of programmers on a boat who need to get every single essential supply from the mainland is not a society. It's a tax avoidance scheme.

It might even be profitable for a generation, until they start having kids and incur more costs.

And the funniest part? Small groups of people in scarcity/survival situations tend to organize themselves into something that looks much more like collectivism than it does capitalism.

When you criticize my lack of imagination, do you mean 'imagine' in the John Lennon sense?

1 more reply

rprasad13y ago· 2 in thread

crussoOP13y ago

You're kind of all over the map spewing half-truths and full-hate there... but I have to point out the worst of your arguments.

tptacek13y ago

Yes. Slavery had little to do with the civil war. You've totally rebutted the parent post. We're not heading straight into crazytown on this thread at all.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse