Wanted: one tropical paradise for file-sharing, freedom

Story<BR><BR>The Free Nation Foundation is searching for its own island utopia after The Pirate Bay failed in its bid to purchase Sealand. Libertarians, prepare to spend the next three years chopping wood, collecting rainwater, and keeping the satellite uplink alive.

 

[beeblebrox]

My Libertarian ass is packed and ready to move.

 

[Korov]

What I don't understand about the Pirate Bay incident, is where do they think they're going to get their internet connection from?<BR><BR>You can't just plug into a cable running across the ocean...it has to come from an ISP somewhere. Who would presumably be located in a country with actual laws.<BR><BR>People would just get the ISP in question to cut off their net connection because of illegal activities...right?<BR><BR>If they really want to host illegal content, they should just move their operations to some hell-hole that has more important problems to deal with than copyright violation and be done with it.

 

[kray28]

LOL...I liked that last <I>Lord of the Flies</I> reference.

 

[glutto]

This kind of reminds me of a country known as Petoria...

 

[zOMG its lex]

HECK YEAH! count me in for the first wave.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Korov:<BR>What I don't understand about the Pirate Bay incident, is where do they think they're going to get their internet connection from?<BR><BR>You can't just plug into a cable running across the ocean...it has to come from an ISP somewhere. Who would presumably be located in a country with actual laws.<BR><BR>People would just get the ISP in question to cut off their net connection because of illegal activities...right?<BR><BR>If they really want to host illegal content, they should just move their operations to some hell-hole that has more important problems to deal with than copyright violation and be done with it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>hell-holes have ISPs too, just get it from one of them.

 

[Ray Sanders]

If you had to pick an island... my favorite uninhabited 'hell-hole' would be Navassa island. Currently claimed as a US Territory, but also claimed by Haiti. In the general vicinity of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Haiti and Jamaica. No power, no telecommunications, no Starbucks, no nothing (other than an abandoned lighthouse and a few rustic buildings). Plan on laying 100 miles of sub-sea fiber to Cuba (which has insufficient connectivity itself).<br><br>Oh BTW, the US Government might object -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif --<br><br>Edit: It appears that Navassa has its own TL .um -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif --

 

[OrangeCream]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by kray28:<BR>LOL...I liked that last <I>Lord of the Flies</I> reference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Beat me to it. I was thinking, "And who gets to be Piggie?"

 

[break99]

Beautiful dream indeed but hardly realistic (sadly).<BR><BR>Why not pick a ISP from Taiwan? they never did signed the (in)famous copyright agreement.

 

[pbrice68]

Perhaps these people should hook up with the remains of the Laissez Faire City cyberspace and physical city project in Costa Rica.<BR><BR>Or, the people who are trying to build a floating free city, Freedom Ship. Although, I wonder what would happen to Freedom Ship should it encounter a ROGUE WAVE!!!!OMG!!!!

 

[ferny]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ray Sanders:<br>Edit: It appears that Navassa has its own TL .um -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif -- </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Not anymore...<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In January 2007, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers dropped the .um domain from the master list of domain names in response to the domain's being unused and the desire of the University of Southern California Information Sciences Institute to divest itself of responsibility for the domain.[1] </div>
</blockquote>

 

[wandergeist]

I may be the only person that remembers this, but the (now long-defunct) "Computer Language" magazine published an article sitting somewhere between an essay and speculative fiction that predicted exactly this. (This would have been around '91 or '92; I believe it was in the same issue that reprinted Thompson's "Trusting Trust" 1987 ACM lecture as well as an essay by Timothy Leary along with the usual C and smalltalk stuff -- it was an interesting magazine.) That article suggested one of the (then newly-independent) Central Asian republics -- dubbed "Obscuristan" -- as the site for such a venture, and primarily focused on its use as a data haven. The people running this haven eventually came to host so many secrets for so many powers that they became immune to pressure or threats, because they could always threaten to reveal inconvenient data they had in their possession (this of course made the rather faulty assumption that the data wouldn't be encrypted in a way that made it unavailable to the people running the data haven). I think the article ended with them launching a satellite (again with former soviet tech) that would act as a giant server farm out of reach of any terrestrial law enforcement.<BR><BR>IIRC some of the original Cyberpunk writers (Sterling, Gibson, Stephenson etc) used similar sorts of data havens as a plot point in several stories.<BR><BR>Anyway, art anticipates life; but it's always amusing to see an old fictional idea getting put into practice (or at least proposed).

 

[d_jedi]

What's to stop the US from bombing the shit out of any "country" that exists only for the purpose of facilitating piracy?

 

[Xenoterranos]

I like that satelite-as-a-server-farm idea. We could fire up a couple of these, and with a little engineering, wouldn't need to worry about them for at least 20 years.<BR><BR> Project blackbox

 

[ferny]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by d_jedi:<BR>What's to stop the US from bombing the shit out of any "country" that exists only for the purpose of facilitating piracy? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>It's not the sole purpose of the country. Also waning respect for the US on an international level... But what's to stop the US from bombing anyone that doesn't respect it's practices? Bomb em all to hell, right? <BR>A war over piracy is clearly the next mastermind move! Quick, bomb the shit out of China!

 

[erwos]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xenoterranos:<BR>I like that satelite-as-a-server-farm idea. We could fire up a couple of these, and with a little engineering, wouldn't need to worry about them for at least 20 years. Project blackbox </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>You are going to power these with what? You are going to get them in space how?<BR><BR>You've just written the silliest, most infeasible suggestion yet. Congrats!

 

[ferny]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by erwos:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xenoterranos:<BR>I like that satelite-as-a-server-farm idea. We could fire up a couple of these, and with a little engineering, wouldn't need to worry about them for at least 20 years. Project blackbox </div></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR>You are going to power these with what? You are going to get them in space how?<BR><BR>You've just written the silliest, most infeasible suggestion yet. Congrats! </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I was thinking the same thing about powering them. You'd need some massive solar panel arrays, which would probably require maintenance for damage from random space object collisions.

 

[d_jedi]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ferny:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by d_jedi:<BR>What's to stop the US from bombing the shit out of any "country" that exists only for the purpose of facilitating piracy? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>It's not the sole purpose of the country. Also waning respect for the US on an international level... But what's to stop the US from bombing anyone that doesn't respect it's practices? Bomb em all to hell, right? <BR>A war over piracy is clearly the next mastermind move! Quick, bomb the shit out of China! </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Wasn't the whole point of the Pirate Bay wanting to buy Sealand so they can set up their pirate servers without any laws (or morality) to get in their way?<BR><BR>In any case, do you really think that:<BR>a) Given the current President<BR>b) Given that such a "country" could not defend itself in any way (unlike China)<BR><BR>that there would really be any hesitation to do so?

 

[Rayiner Hashem]

Putting a small number of servers in space really isn't that outrageous an idea. It costs less than $100m to build and launch a fairly sophisticated satellite. Assuming a life-span of 10-15 years, you could keep one up continuously for $5m-$10m per year. Which is really not a lot of money, even for many private individuals. Of course, one sat isn't going to be able to host TPB, but if the freedom of information (important information --- not porn and episodes of "Scrubs"), becomes seriously constricted, then it's hardly out of the question for a private party to work around it by leveraging space-based communications.

 

[thekaj]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Would it end up like utopia, or Lord of the Flies? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That one. The one about the flies.<BR><BR>Day 1: New libertarian island nation established.<BR><BR>Day 28: A small number of citizens develop malaria. A call goes out for donations to help airlift medical supplies in for those people. A collective "screw that. I ain't sick. Let the sick people buy their own medicine!" response is received.<BR><BR>Day 62: A satellite phone call is received from the island reporting that all but 3 people have died, and could some government send in a helicopter to airlift the survivors out.

 

[dmccarty]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pbrice68:<BR>Although, I wonder what would happen to Freedom Ship should it encounter a ROGUE WAVE!!!!OMG!!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Didn't you see the Discovery Channel computer animation of the Freedom Ship vs. the Rogue Wave? (freedom ship wins oh the humanity!)

 

[Rayiner Hashem]

thekaj: Damn skippy. The libertarian party seems to be dominated by people who have had inadequate exposure to Burke and Rousseau. The fundamentalist libertarianism that has taken root in the United States is predicated on a deliberate ignorance of the truth that human beings units of a social order in addition to being individuals. It denies a major facet of human nature, the fact that humans are fundamentally social creatures, in order to achieve a simpler philosophy. Of course, any philosophy predicated on falsehood is incorrect, no matter how elegant it is in its simplicity.

 

[Mono Del Diablo]

I just have to echo thekaj's sentiments. I've known way too many libertarians to think a solely libertarian state could exist long. <BR><BR>The only reason libertarians exist here in the US and other well-to-do countries is, in fact, *because* the collective standard of living has been raised to such a high level using social means. After all, how many dirt poor hell-holes do you see clamoring for more individualism and less collective support and cooperation? And of those few that do, how many of them don't devolve into chaos?

 

[eskatonic]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thekaj:<BR>Day 28: A small number of citizens develop malaria. A call goes out for donations to help airlift medical supplies in for those people. A collective "screw that. I ain't sick. Let the sick people buy their own medicine!" response is received.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>liberterarians still have compassion. They'd object to a forced tax to pay for medical aid, but a request for volnatarly help would likely get a decent response from at least a large percentage of them.<BR><BR>Oe of the main arguments of libertarianism is that when taxes are much lower, people have more money to give to local charities which are more efficient at dealing with local wealthfare issues than the monolithic nationwide aid agencies.

 

[arsbernard]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">people have more money to give to local charities which are more efficient at dealing with local wealthfare issues than the monolithic nationwide aid agencies </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Nice in theory but history has proven this false.<BR><BR>More money to private charities has historically resulted in more grandiose living conditions for those in charge of the charity.<BR><BR><BR>Read some Dickens.

 

[duckm4n]

my bet is on lord of the flies

 

[charleski]

Passport to Pimlico FTW

 

[goodvibes]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arsbernard:<BR>Nice in theory but history has proven this false.<BR><BR>More money to private charities has historically resulted in more grandiose living conditions for those in charge of the charity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I thought that history has shown that people give more money to charities when taxes are lower. Or, at least, I was under the impression that charitable giving in the U.S. is higher than in European countries with higher tax rates. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.<BR><BR>I think you are right that the efficiency argument is incorrect.

 

[Mono Del Diablo]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by eskatonic:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thekaj:<BR>Day 28: A small number of citizens develop malaria. A call goes out for donations to help airlift medical supplies in for those people. A collective "screw that. I ain't sick. Let the sick people buy their own medicine!" response is received.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>liberterarians still have compassion. They'd object to a forced tax to pay for medical aid, but a request for volnatarly help would likely get a decent response from at least a large percentage of them.<BR><BR>Oe of the main arguments of libertarianism is that when taxes are much lower, people have more money to give to local charities which are more efficient at dealing with local wealthfare issues than the monolithic nationwide aid agencies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I'd love to see some evidence for this argument. As it stands, such a scenario would leave the neediest members of society totally at the mercy of the voluntary goodwill of the well-to-do. The problem with not having an enforced system of welfare is that, in times of reduced resources, during years when the economy is less productive, what compulsion would these upper-middle class families have to donate what little earnings they have made to charities? <BR><BR>I'm sorry. As elegant as it might sound, libertarianism is as practical a solution as communism. I'd love to believe it, but there's simply no evidence to back it up, only the wishful thinking of the rich.

 

[simpleWho]

I am surprised there are people who have actually started dreaming about it!..<BR><BR>Much as I would like to live in a 'FREE" country, such a thing is impossible simply because, human beings when living together, WILL come across issues which will require arbitration, and hence, the laws! So please stop fooling yourselves!<BR><BR>What we can argue, is that the laws, as they exist presently in virtually every country of the world, have been the product of the faulty human intelelct alone, and hence are incapable of preventing clashes. <BR><BR>Perhaps if we can think as far out as 'living in a free country'; then the idea of living in a country where the there is 'law'; but one made by the God, and not us pitiful humans. Is it too much of a stretch of the imagination?

 

[warrens]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Oe of the main arguments of libertarianism is that when taxes are much lower, people have more money to give to local charities which are more efficient at dealing with local wealthfare issues than the monolithic nationwide aid agencies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Can you explain how exactly such a system would work if, ohhhh, I dunno.... let's say for the sake of argument, a tsunami caused by a 9.0 earthquake hits an entire region and 300,000+ people died, taking whole communities with it?<BR><BR>Oh, right, Libertarianism doesn't have a decent response for large-scale disasters like that one... the fundamentalists are FAR too self-centered to really appreciate why a stable, supported social network is important to have. Most American Libertarians simply don't understand the massive scope of these kinds of problems, because they live in extremely safe territories where the world's problems don't affect them personally, and they've got some money as a safety cushion if they fall upon hard times.<BR><BR>As it turned out, it was the Libertarians' two biggest grudges, major corporations and governments, that stepped up to the plate -big time- when the Indian Ocean tsunami hit. The area's government was ineffective on all levels, local infrastructure was smashed... what local charities would there be left to support the rebuilding efforts? Not much. Meanwhile, non-trivial amounts of tax money were collected and donated to charities, and nobody but the outrageously selfish questioned it.<BR><BR><BR>Anyways, if the Free State Project is any indication, there just isn't enough support out there for something like this kind of project. If you can't get people to move to New Hampshire, one of the most beautiful and politically interesting places on the continent, you aren't going to get people to move halfway across the planet.

 

[warrens]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SimpleWho:<BR>Perhaps if we can think as far out as 'living in a free country'; then the idea of living in a country where the there is 'law'; but one made by the God, and not us pitiful humans. Is it too much of a stretch of the imagination? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Hate to break it to you, but there is no God out there that's interested in actively enforcing their own laws on the plane of existance we all happen to be on at the moment. Basically, if there is a God, they don't give a shit. That's what we've got to work with.<BR><BR>If there was a God interested in enforcing their own laws, we would <i>already</i> have the system you propose, because nobody but nobody would go out murdering or thieving or working on Sunday or whatever if it was absolutely certain that they'd be smote.

 

[Mister Morden]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Perhaps if we can think as far out as 'living in a free country'; then the idea of living in a country where the there is 'law'; but one made by the God, and not us pitiful humans. Is it too much of a stretch of the imagination? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Your proposition is predicated on existence of a god, (and judging from your capitalization, I'm assuming you mean Yahweh, god of the ancient Hebrews) one of the most outrageous propositions ever conceived. Yes, that is a colossal stretch of the imagination. Usually, the only way to get people to accept it is brainwashing from childhood.

 

[martinn]

It never ceases to amaze me what a bunch of anti-social geeks without a clue in economics keep dreaming about... a "free" society, disconnected from everyone, allowing everyone to share files freely... la la land...<BR><BR>It beats watching Comedy Central...

 

[codehead78]

I know everyone likes these guys because there all about getting free stuff, sorry Free stuff... <BR><BR>But to me they just sound like some brat who wants to run away from home because mom won't give them McDonalds every night of the week.

 

[Jeremy Seal]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by goodvibes:<BR><BR>I thought that history has shown that people give more money to charities when taxes are lower. Or, at least, I was under the impression that charitable giving in the U.S. is higher than in European countries with higher tax rates. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>My gut would say that has less to do with taxes and more to do with other social factors

 

[X The Eliminator]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by d_jedi:<BR>What's to stop the US from bombing the shit out of any "country" that exists only for the purpose of facilitating piracy? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Nothing stopped Jefferson from blowing the crap out of Morocco and Algeria.

 

[Montana]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>Day 1: New libertarian island nation established.<BR><BR>Day 28: A small number of citizens develop malaria. A call goes out for donations to help airlift medical supplies in for those people. A collective "screw that. I ain't sick. Let the sick people buy their own medicine!" response is received.<BR><BR>Day 62: A satellite phone call is received from the island reporting that all but 3 people have died, and could some government send in a helicopter to airlift the survivors out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You do know that libertarian means "we don't tell you what to do if you're not hurting anybody" and not "we don't have doctors and medical insurance", right? See also: The difference between libertarianism and anarchy. There isn't any reason why you couldn't have libertarian laws in a country that has socialized medicine and public schools. Taxes are as unavoidable as death and using them to fund democratically approved social programs is hardly incompatible with legalizing the things that don't hurt anyone.

 

[DDopson]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Montana:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>Day 1: New libertarian island nation established.<BR><BR>Day 28: A small number of citizens develop malaria. A call goes out for donations to help airlift medical supplies in for those people. A collective "screw that. I ain't sick. Let the sick people buy their own medicine!" response is received.<BR><BR>Day 62: A satellite phone call is received from the island reporting that all but 3 people have died, and could some government send in a helicopter to airlift the survivors out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You do know that libertarian means "we don't tell you what to do if you're not hurting anybody" and not "we don't have doctors and medical insurance", right? See also: The difference between libertarianism and anarchy. There isn't any reason why you couldn't have libertarian laws in a country that has socialized medicine and public schools. Taxes are as unavoidable as death and using them to fund democratically approved social programs is hardly incompatible with legalizing the things that don't hurt anyone. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Exactly. As a self-identified libertarian, I am frequently appalled at what passes for "libertarian" politics and philosophy. Libertarianism is not meant to be synonymous with idiocy, lunacy, and piracy.

 

[DDopson]

Education on Libertarian political philosophy:<BR><BR>Core issues upon which many or most libertarians agree:<BR><BR>Decriminalization / Legalization of Drugs and other chemical substances<BR><BR>removal of morality laws. "Get the .gov out of my bedroom". <BR><BR>legalize abortion (usually) and right-to-die.<BR><BR>Belief that market competition is a healthy and productive force. Economic liberalism as a general principle. More open and free markets with less regulation, although the extent and character of this market freedom varies from person to person. No one but the insane believe that 0 laws and regulation will produce viable markets (imagine if the power company could deny electricity to their competitors in other markets).<BR><BR>Things which libertarians do NOT agree upon:<BR><BR>role of intellectual property (IP) rights <BR><BR>which government services are not well handled by the market and should thus be socialized (eg defense, various aspects of medicine, social safety nets, etc). However, most libertarians want to minimize the number and scope of government roles.