Silicon Valley billionaire funding creation of artificial libertarian islands - Polidicks

[QUOTE=thisispain;31773639]i very easily could, you might define intellectual as someone smart because they agree with all your views but there were certainly intellectuals in past times that advocated doing horrible things. the problem with a meritocracy is that merit is utterly relative so ultimately the only difference is your tyrant will have a degree.[/QUOTE] Morals are also relative.

This is a great idea, we will finally have a faraway island to send nutjobs like Ron Paul to.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31773686]Morals are also relative.[/QUOTE] yeah but i don't give a fuck if they are

[QUOTE=thisispain;31773719]yeah but i don't give a fuck if they are[/QUOTE] That's the spirit.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31773686]Morals are also relative.[/QUOTE] As much as I hate to say it the idea that scientific progress should be the goal of a nation is on the same tier of subjectivity.

I didn't know the Seasteading Institute were a bunch of randroids. In retrospect it was rather obvious.

[QUOTE=thisispain;31773639]the problem with a meritocracy is that merit is utterly relative so ultimately the only difference is your tyrant will have a degree.[/QUOTE] That's true. The island would be built with social policies in place though so unless you were insanely against them and were hellbent on destroying the island you'd probably never end up there. The question you have to ask is how many bad apples are there in the groups that are allowed access to the island, and how much influence they have to get into major office. There would have to be a democratic process of electing officials. The island would not be purely technocratic.

[QUOTE=Billiam;31773774]As much as I hate to say it the idea that scientific progress should be the goal of a nation is on the same tier of subjectivity.[/QUOTE] Put it as the goal anyways.

[QUOTE=thisispain;31773277]technocracy is essentially made by a group of nerds who hate the world and decide that they should be in power[/QUOTE] If we did things using science to decide policy, we'd have no stupid and harmful bullshit like the war on drugs, we'd have a fair and progressive criminal justice system like in Norway, we'd be saving the environment by using nuclear (uranium and/or thorium) power worldwide, and we'd have no exclusive heterosexual marriage benefits ([url=http://people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/]because scientists are liberal as all hell[/url]). There's no reason why a technocracy can't be democratic. All it requires is the leadership to have scientific knowledge.

[QUOTE=Eudoxia;31773784]I didn't know the Seasteading Institute were a bunch of randroids. In retrospect it was rather obvious.[/QUOTE] I heard that randroids dream of objective sheep.

[QUOTE=Turnips5;31774076]If we did things using science to decide policy, we'd have no stupid and harmful bullshit like the war on drugs, we'd have a fair and progressive criminal justice system like in Norway, we'd be saving the environment by using nuclear (uranium and/or thorium) power worldwide, and we'd have no exclusive heterosexual marriage benefits ([url=http://people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/]because scientists are liberal as all hell[/url]). There's no reason why a technocracy can't be democratic. All it requires is the leadership to have scientific knowledge.[/QUOTE] Just have it so that all the candidates have an interest in science, are well read and know a good deal about the science they work in.

[QUOTE=Turnips5;31774076]There's no reason why a technocracy can't be democratic. [/QUOTE] well it's part of the definition, it's not really a technocracy if people without expertise can vote.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31774170]Just have it so that all the candidates have an interest in science, are well read and know a good deal about the science they work in.[/QUOTE] Exactly. It should just be like a democracy, except the leaders are guaranteed not to be complete idiots. [editline]17th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;31774172]well it's part of the definition, it's not really a technocracy if people without expertise can vote.[/QUOTE] Anyone should be able to vote, but the only people who should get places in the government should be those with the scientific knowledge to make informed decisions in their respective areas. Of course, for this to work properly without a rich/poor bias, you'd have to make education as free and open to everyone as possible.

[QUOTE=Turnips5;31774190]Anyone should be able to vote, but the only people who should get places in the government should be those with the scientific knowledge to make informed decisions in their respective areas.[/QUOTE] but democracy doesn't work that way, you can't decide who can get where because that defeats the point. if i want to vote for someone inexperienced in those fields i should be allowed to if it is democracy.

[QUOTE=Turnips5;31774076]If we did things using science to decide policy, we'd have no stupid and harmful bullshit like the war on drugs, we'd have a fair and progressive criminal justice system like in Norway, we'd be saving the environment by using nuclear (uranium and/or thorium) power worldwide, and we'd have no exclusive heterosexual marriage benefits ([url=http://people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/]because scientists are liberal as all hell[/url]). There's no reason why a technocracy can't be democratic. All it requires is the leadership to have scientific knowledge.[/QUOTE] 95% of Congressmen and Congresswomen have an academic degree.

[QUOTE=thisispain;31774256]but democracy doesn't work that way, you can't decide who can get where because that defeats the point. if i want to vote for someone inexperienced in those fields i should be allowed to if it is democracy.[/QUOTE] I see it as a kind of constitution-type agreement - everyone has to assent to leaders needing certain qualifications to be elected in their respective positions. It's really not that much different from having a minimum age at which you can become president, something the US has already.

[QUOTE=Billiam;31774362]95% of Congressmen and Congresswomen have an academic degree.[/QUOTE] But in what fields? [editline]16th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Turnips5;31774368]I see it as a kind of constitution-type agreement - everyone has to assent to leaders needing certain qualifications to be elected in their respective positions. It's really not that much different from having a minimum age at which you can become president, something the US has already.[/QUOTE] Why keep a smart person from being elected just because they don't have a degree?

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31774402]Why keep a smart person from being elected just because they don't have a degree?[/QUOTE] Why keep a smart person from being elected because they're under 35? [editline]17th August 2011[/editline] Shit, I don't know. You tell me.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31774402]But in what fields?[/QUOTE] Law and economics I'd imagine. However it doesn't make much sense to bar people who don't have specific degrees seeing as a Legislative body deals in a lot of other things.

[QUOTE=Billiam;31774362]95% of Congressmen and Congresswomen have an academic degree.[/QUOTE] I hope its in Physics.

[QUOTE=Turnips5;31774437]Why keep a smart person from being elected because they're under 35? [editline]17th August 2011[/editline] Shit, I don't know. You tell me.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I think that's dumb too. And the 35-year old limit is only the presidency.

[QUOTE=Billiam;31774457]Law and economics I'd imagine. However it doesn't make much sense to bar people who don't have specific degrees seeing as a Legislative body deals in a lot of other things.[/QUOTE] I dunno, stopping lawyers and economists from playing any part in our government seems like a good idea to me. Lawyers are people who, by definition, seek for ways to fuck with the system. They hunt for technicalities. Even good defense lawyers who only protect clients they truly believe to be innocent are going to be well versed in leveraging technicalities. This isn't really what needs to be happening. This leads to the bullshit filibuster-fest we have today. Economists need to go fucking die. It is tremendously flawed, but for a small nation, you would probably just be better off backing your currency with a supply of raw minerals. Gold is good, but really it could be anything. Hell, you could have a currency backed with helium or uranium stockpiles. Once you have economists involved, you have made an error. Get income, spend income. Loans shouldn't be necessary in the day to day operation of your nation. Failing to pass a balanced budget should indeed be illegal. So that leaves us with a bunch of people who are intimately familiar with a variety of issues. Biologists, medical doctors, sociologists, psychologists, chemists, etc etc... all hashing out issues with one another. You could even choose to break down your congress by their specialty, rather than their geographic location. This would prevent things like redistricting being used in order to cut certain candidates out. This would also ensure that you have an appropriate distribution of all the major sciences being represented. This would also prevent them from doing what US congressmen do, namely fuck over the nation in order to nab a few more defense contract jobs for their constituents. I'm not saying that this system is perfect by any means, but I'm not really seeing much in the way of drawbacks at the moment. Seriously, point them out. I'm having difficulty producing any serious drawbacks.

[QUOTE=GunFox;31774845]I'm not saying that this system is perfect by any means, but I'm not really seeing much in the way of drawbacks at the moment. Seriously, point them out. I'm having difficulty producing any serious drawbacks.[/QUOTE] you havent accounted for the lord jesus christ [editline]17th August 2011[/editline] this will not stand

[QUOTE=GunFox;31774845]Lawyers are people who, by definition, seek for ways to fuck with the system. They hunt for technicalities. Even good defense lawyers who only protect clients they truly believe to be innocent are going to be well versed in leveraging technicalities. This isn't really what needs to be happening. This leads to the bullshit filibuster-fest we have today.[/QUOTE] Maybe, but an understanding of precedent and tailoring laws to accomplish the intended goal without loopholes is something best left to lawyers don't you think? [QUOTE=GunFox;31774845]Economists need to go fucking die. It is tremendously flawed, but for a small nation, you would probably just be better off backing your currency with a supply of raw minerals. Gold is good, but really it could be anything. Hell, you could have a currency backed with helium or uranium stockpiles. Once you have economists involved, you have made an error. Get income, spend income. Loans shouldn't be necessary in the day to day operation of your nation. Failing to pass a balanced budget should indeed be illegal.[/QUOTE] That's definitely an unfair representation of economics; really there's more mathematics and more education in understanding economics than you think. You can try and toss a lot of these principles out of government, but private citizens will be using them all the damn time. Hell, something as simple as cost estimates requires an accountant. [QUOTE=GunFox;31774845]So that leaves us with a bunch of people who are intimately familiar with a variety of issues. Biologists, medical doctors, sociologists, psychologists, chemists, etc etc... all hashing out issues with one another. You could even choose to break down your congress by their specialty, rather than their geographic location. This would prevent things like redistricting being used in order to cut certain candidates out. This would also ensure that you have an appropriate distribution of all the major sciences being represented. This would also prevent them from doing what US congressmen do, namely fuck over the nation in order to nab a few more defense contract jobs for their constituents. [/QUOTE] That kind of removes the point of representation eh? It'd also be a bureaucratic nightmare.

Having a democratic system with restrictions on voting or candidacy is just fucking stupid. The entire point is to allow the congregation of ALL ideas, regardless of origin or motivation for open discussion and decision. All these talks of Technocracy, Oligarchy, Ayn Rand's Posh Circlejerkarchy, and the rest are thinly guised efforts at keeping the same powerful dicks in power who already abuse the system to obtain it now. Direct represented Greek Democracy is probably the best option. A single vote for all citizens and open floor and equal footing for all candidates. Only difference of course being we keeping slaves and only counting landowners as citizens is bollocks too, so even that's only good on a very basic idealist level.

[QUOTE=thisispain;31774256]but democracy doesn't work that way, you can't decide who can get where because that defeats the point. if i want to vote for someone inexperienced in those fields i should be allowed to if it is democracy.[/QUOTE] You're trying to play for semantics and it's slightly annoying. By moronically-strict definitions no democracies have ever or will ever exist because each puts restraints on voting capacity and, in representative form, who is allowed to be a representative. Convicts in the U.S. can't vote for five year old children to be president, and there are similar rules in all other historical and extant forms of democratic government. That doesn't make us "non-democratic", that makes us "democracies with limitations" and slightly less retarded than whatever you're talking about.

God have they not played bioshock? Really they should have done the opposite. They should have used that money to make a tecnoeconomy where money is useless and machines do all the jobs. Would be a lot more interesting.

Do it the PayPal way: Once someone gets too rich, steal all the money out of their bank accounts!

"The article doesn't even mention if it is designed to be self-sustaining or if they will depend on external resources and labor (e.g manufactured goods). I think thats a pretty important detail, and it will tell us exactly how separate this project is from the rest of society." someone from another forum posted. I wonder if it will just be the super rich living there getting there needs from other countries. If thats true then they aren't really proving anything or will everyone there start from scratch? WOuld they really be willing to do this? Unless they truly believe they can make there way to the top again.

I'll just take a loan from one of the unregulated banks and hire some unregulated guys with guns. I could steal their shit.