Telegram Archive - week 18, 2025, page 1
- 12 minutes read - 2396 words
I’m having an exchange with Joe Quirk on Twitter.
https://x.com/borisreitman/status/1916950536546652536
Joe Quirk is advocating sea steading, claiming that it’s not a fantasy. I’m claiming otherwise. If sea steading is just to extend beachfront real estate, and get yourself a house with a view, I have no problem with this. But the claim that there can be a sovereign floating state ? That’s a fantasy. How will it defend itself from a bomb ? Underwater nuclear explosion? Imagine, investing decades to develop this city, only to see it sunk in some war.
He responds to me: It’s a reality. Cruise ships are floating anarcho-capitalist cities. Seasteads are a technology to stay out there. 45% of the planet is unclaimed by any state.
I respond: Cruise ships are not a threat to totalitarian regimes. But a free society that publishes, say, caricatures of Muhammad, won’t be able to defend itself on water from an attack by such countries. …
John Stossel published today a full length interview with Yaron Brook.
“There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come.” – Victor Hugo
Is there anyone of you on Urbit?
Let’s continue the sea steadiness debate here @participant-4603
The amount of defense that a floating state would need to have would be orders of magnitude more costly than the GDP of the state
And I doubt they would see it coming: a far away nuclear explosion passed off as a training exercise will trigger large waves or tsunami . The floating city will sink and declared by the world as failure of the floating technology
How about a plain full-scale revolution? Or just a city secession? Is that possible?
It’s possible in a small country. It could be done in a city, if it’s well positioned geographically to be independent: l mean, it can’t be Chicago, but it could be Miami. But for a city there is no counter balancing interest. There needs to be a border country that can defend the city’s cessation. Otherwise, the host country will never let it go.
Now, in a small country like Puerto Rico or Montelibero it’s possible, but how to get the momentum ? Isn’t it just easier to do it politically and officially, for the population of these countries doesn’t want escape from statism, it likes it. It’s going to need a large propaganda machine, which is easiest done through political parties.
Historical precedent: libertarian Michael Oliver instigated a revolution in the island of Vanuatu, with the hope to take over it. It didn’t pan out. A new Conservative party took control of it, resulting from revolution.
Oh, alright, thanks. Well, how about single cities of “democratic” nations? It wouldn’t require the same effort as convincing the whole nation of the validity of one party’s ideas
Like Monaco, Angola, Lichtenstein ?
No, like Rome, London or Berlin
Cities within large, sovereign, democratic countries
Or even taking over by force small tyrannical nations: Ayn Rand herself said that any free nation has the moral right to take over tyrannies
London has 9 million people and it’s in the center of the country. How can it be sovereign ? How to convince 9 million people to rebel against own country?
Where to assemble a military to do it ?
Herzl was offered to do a coup in the Ottoman Empire. He refused, the risk of failure was too high.
Mmh, fair. But then why not just go Galt? Individually, I mean, until the State collapses?
Good news! Lab grown meat is here. It’s a commercial reality in USA. Now, together with vertical farming of vegetables, this solves the problem of self sufficiency in an early period of new country formation.
There will always be Dagnys and Reardens who will carry society on their shoulders. Look at Mr Wonderfull, who is a Trump apologist.
Look at Bill Maher, who supports Newsom.
Sure.
In the meanwhile the Zuckerbergs and Bezoses carry the world.
Then it’s not worth it.
How was the Bitcoin event btw?
Maher loves Newsom. But frankly Newsom doesnt seem that great. For example Buttigieg is way better, in my opinion. And the rest of the Dems know it and will push him
I see what you’re saying, so a rogue State would launch a strike because they were so incensed and they would launch this from afar.
I’m not fond of either of those options as they or not ethically or morally sound.
Newsom ran California into the ground with DEI policies, high taxes and regulations, forcing normal people to get up and move to Austin
@participant-4603 how was the Bitcoin event?
I hear they’re going to push an update to Bitcoin that expands the OP_RETURN opcode and cause bitcoin blockchain to be flooded w crap. The bitcoin community are opposed to it but the devs are gonna do it
I know someone putting together a big Bitcoin house here in Mérida. It’s going to be beyond amazing. This is not a pipe dream. I saw it with my own eyes.
I wanna come visit you in Mexico. I’ve never been. Maybe in the summer
Intercoin is doing multiple major currencies projects now. I want to share one here w you guys.
And if there is crypto activity in Mérida is it gonna become like Zug in Switzerland? Or is Mexico city the center?
The guy that bought one of the most amazing properties in one of the best parts of Mérida is more of a maxi.
But he has the space and the capital to make things happen. None of it is bull.
Let’s keep this channel focused on the subject matter.
Another supporting fact that we need to create a new country is that we observe so many presidents going to pay homage to Vatican. There is no separation of church and state, not fully, yet. It is a giant charade, but it’s unlikely to end in the next 200 years.
Aren’t they paying respects to another head of state? To their own citizens that may happen to be Catholic?
Religion and Citizenship are two ways people are being divided
If there was a full separation of state and church, it wouldn’t be critical for the president to be a religious man in order to win elections. He wouldn’t need to pander to the electorate by going to see the Pope, Rabbi, or Mullah. Religion is (still) seen as the only justification of morality.
Abortion in Honduras is completely prohibited under any circumstance, and has been constitutionally prohibited since 1982. – wikipedia
“Honduran criminal law applies in the ZEDE–things that were already illegal in Honduras, such as abortion and illegal drugs including psychedelics, are also illegal in the ZEDE.” – VidaDAO website.
This shows the pragmatist kind of thinking (which is a bad thing) of libertarians. Why go start a new society of freedom in a country that forbids abortion?
Abortion as it exists today has no place in a society that respects property rights
What do you mean?
If the fetus is assumed to be a thing, then it is co-owned by both parents; accordingly, the legal principles governing property—including animals and inanimate objects—would apply
Co-ownership implies that no co-owner may unilaterally dispose of the common property in a way that affects its integrity without the consent of the other
And if it isn’t? Do you think abortion could still be acceptable?
If it isn’t, you will have to prove that it has a psyche
What do you mean by psyche?
So, one should prove the foetus has a mind?
Yes
So, once the brain was formed, the foetus would not be considered a property, right?
Yes, after the 28th week, abortion should not be allowed
But wouldn’t the foetus depend on the mother’s body?
Although it is debatable whether there is a “psyche”
Who cares? No psyche, no individual
I’m talking about after the formation of a brain: once the brain is formed, should abortion be allowed?
And, if not, why?
It depends — in newborns, there is scientific certainty that a psyche is present; in fetuses, it is debatable (after the 28th week)
So, you aren’t sure whether abortion should be allowed after the 28th week?
I’m leaning more toward no
Why, if I may?
I don’t have an opinion on the matter, but I’m genuinely interested in different perspectives
Ok, thanks, but I have a doubt regarding this topic:
If the foetus is to be considered a person (that is: not property), doesn’t he have the same duties as others? Therefore, if the mother doesn’t want it, can’t she kill it on the grounds that it lives completely off her body?
My bad, misread
Np
She can’t. If you accept that assumption, it’s murder
Why? If somebody lives off somebody else’s property, they are a thief and a parasite and the owner has the right to defend themselves
Perhaps it’s comparable to conjoined twins
What do you mean?
I think she could let the pregnancy run its course
From that assumption, it would be a pointless murder
Why? If a criminal told you that they must live 9 months off your own property, could your killing them be considered a pointless murder?
The woman chooses to get pregnant
The fetus, if everything is normal, does not pose a risk to her life
Not really, circumstances may vary: from r@participant-7825 to problems with contraceptives
The fact that a thief doesn’t pose a threat to their victim’s life doesn’t mean the victim shouldn’t be allowed to defend themselves
Well, to me the fetus is not an individual. I’m just assuming. It’s not a position I support
My position is a mix of Walter Block and Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Would you agree that a bunch of cells , initial growth after conception, is not a person and has no rights ?
Sure
Then you are against the Honduran law, and Prospera as well. Forcing a woman to carry the growth is against her rights to use her body’s she sees fit.
Yes, but also that other systems which don’t allow the father to object aren’t any better
However the religious conservatives claim that a soul descends into the egg when it’s impregnated. That’s mystical BS.
I don’t care, I’m a physicalist deist
The father no more can force the woman to carry the term than the state. A man can’t rape a woman for the same reason. He can be horny, but the woman owns her body. Even if she is his wife.
If he didn’t rape her, then he has a right
I hope biobags will improve in the future, so the issue can be resolved
Unfortunately, today it’s not possible to abort without violating the co-ownership
(if the father doesn’t agree)
Do you think parents have a duty towards their children? Like, to raise and shelter them? @participant-3927
P.s. abortion is an issue of “conversion,” just to be clear
Yes. Responsibility
Why? I mean, if children have the same rights as their parents, don’t they have the same duties (in this case: not to infringe on anybody’s property rights)? And wouldn’t forcing parents to take care of children mean imposing onto them the duty to sustain somebody else through their own effort?
Btw, @participant-3927, why do you think Anarcho-Capitalism isn’t the ideal solution?