Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth Science

Paypal Founder Helping Build Artificial Island Nations 692

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the principality-of-sealand-declares-war dept.
MadMartigan2001 writes with a pretty crazy article on a project involving floating libertarian paradises. From the article: "PayPal founder and early Facebook investor Peter Thiel has given $1.25 million to an initiative to create floating libertarian countries in international waters. Thiel has been a big backer of the Seasteading Institute, which seeks to build sovereign nations on oil rig-like platforms to occupy waters beyond the reach of law-of-the-sea treaties."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Paypal Founder Helping Build Artificial Island Nations

Comments Filter:
  • by interkin3tic (1469267) on Tuesday August 16, 2011 @04:55PM (#37112634)
    Worth noting that the Royal Air Force rescued people from the Sealand fire. And that was the royal air force of the UK, not sealand.
  • Pretty much (Score:5, Informative)

    by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Tuesday August 16, 2011 @04:59PM (#37112670)

    Basically, there are two ways to be a sovereign nation:

    1) Get international recognition as such. You get the UN members to recognize you as a sovereign nation and support your rights to that end, and you are good for the most part.

    2) Have enough guns that nobody can question your sovereignty. If you have a powerful enough military, it doesn't matter what other nations want to say, you are sovereign by the fact that they won't do anything about it.

    If you have both of those things, then you are really golden.

    However that's it, those are all you have. You either get the big boys to say "Yep you are your own nation," or you have the ability to force it.

    You might notice history has worked this way. The US is a sovereign nation because it was able to become so via arms. They said "We aren't subject to Crown law anymore." The Crown disagreed with that and a war was fought, the US won, that made them sovereign. Was shit the British could do at that point, they had been defeated.

    The southern US states are not a sovereign nation for the same reason. They declared their sovereignty and left the union to become the Confederate States. The US decided that no, that wasn't ok, union membership was permanent once given, and a war was fought. The Confederate States lost, so they weren't sovereign, they had to be a part of the US again.

  • by nospam007 (722110) * on Tuesday August 16, 2011 @05:07PM (#37112760)

    "Luxembourg doesn't have a navy, ..."

    Not anymore. We have half a navy ship, shared with Belgium. :-)

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/clst-h.htm [globalsecurity.org]

    Navy or not, there are 150 ships registered in here in Luxembourg and running under its flag.

  • by vux984 (928602) on Tuesday August 16, 2011 @05:25PM (#37112976)

    I'd expect most Tea Partiers to have medical insurance, and so your objection is rather misguided.

    44 percent of Tea Party supporters were polled as receiving Medicare or have a family member receiving it.

    Their objection is to excessive federal spending (which is absolutely a valid argument, especially when it comes to public health care, which is almost designed to be tremendously wasteful)

    The vast majority of Tea Party supporters - 70% according to polls, oppose cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.

    Hmmm.

  • by vux984 (928602) on Tuesday August 16, 2011 @07:08PM (#37113806)

    Terrible poll (you OR a family member?)

    Immediate family members... as in the ones that you typically take some personal responsiblity for.
    I wouldn't get excited over the "OR a family member" anyway: 32% of Tea Party supports respond affirmative for themselves personally, vs only 22% for all respondants.

    Poll q106 Are you, or is any member of your immediate family, covered by Medicare?

    Self Identified as Tea Party Supporter
    Yes, self - 16%
    Yes, other - 12%
    Yes, self and other - 16%
    No - 56%

    All Respondants
    Yes, self - 13%
    Yes, other - 12%
    Yes, self and other - 9%
    No - 66%

    Tea Partiers were also personally receiving Social Security benefits at a higher rate than the general respondents. 20% of respondents said yes, 35% of Tea Partiers said yes.

    The vast majority also support eliminating waste and fraud in all gov't spending, including Medicare and Medicaid.

    Seriously, that statement says nothing at all. Good luck finding anyone who doesn't support eliminating waste and fraud in all gov't spending, including Medicare and Medicaid.

    Hell, I fully support national health care like what Canada, England, and France have, and guess what I also fully support eliminating waste and fraud.

  • by AK Marc (707885) on Tuesday August 16, 2011 @07:09PM (#37113810)
    I make $100k per year and my sum of all taxes is under 20%. Perhaps you need to make more to lower your burden. You pay more money in taxes, about $25k, than someone making twice what you do at $20k. Though my $20k doesn't include "fees" that aren't called or treated as taxes (car registration not based on value), nor small taxes applied to someone else who passes them along to me such that I don't pay tax, but instead buy a product or service with a tax included (phone lines, gasoline), but a quick napkin math on that and it wouldn't add up to $5k, so I still pay less than you while making twice as much. That's how the US regressive system works. The tax % goes up, but the deductions go up even faster.
  • by ChatHuant (801522) on Tuesday August 16, 2011 @07:33PM (#37114002)

    This is pretty common. The woman who wrote all those harry potter books did it on the dole. When she got her payout she ran for the US to prevent having to pay the UK tax rates that pay for things like the dole.

    I don't get this post. You're completely wrong. J.K. Rowling did start the books while on the dole, but she did NOT "run for the US" to avoid taxes. On the contrary, she specifically refused to leave the UK (she currently resides in Edinburgh, Scotland), because she felt she owes a debt to the welfare state of Britain. Here are her actual words, from here [timesonline.co.uk]:
     
     

    A second reason, however, was that I am indebted to the British welfare state; the very one that Mr Cameron would like to replace with charity handouts. When my life hit rock bottom, that safety net, threadbare though it had become under John Major's Government, was there to break the fall. I cannot help feeling, therefore, that it would have been contemptible to scarper for the West Indies at the first sniff of a seven-figure royalty cheque. This, if you like, is my notion of patriotism.

    It's pretty clear she's a better person than you are; and I don't understand why you'd post something as far from the truth as you did. Maybe there exists a pathological condition that afflicts conservatives and creates an irressistible compulsion to lie? Just like the other right-winger who suggested Stephen Hawking would have died had he depended on the British National Health Service? (see here [telegraph.co.uk] or here [huliq.com].

Nothing will dispel enthusiasm like a small admission fee. -- Kim Hubbard

Working...