The Transition to a Laissez-Faire System

Political Philosophy
1

We should have a laissez-faire government, without taxation, and limited only to courts, police, and military (which acts only in self-defense). That is the political goal of Objectivism, with respect to the form of government.

How to get there? I understand changing the culture, and all of that. But what should we advocate policy-wise? With the Tea Party seemingly gaining considerable political influence, particularly the support of many of them for “libertarian”/Objectivist-direction politics (i.e. limited government, elimination of the deficit through spending cuts, anti-welfare, etc.), it seems that we might have a chance to influence this group and start major change in the US. But what, exactly, should we advocate when we talk to friends or write our blogs or go to rallies? “Individual rights” and “laissez-faire”, even when we back them up with moral arguments, are more slogans than actual plans of action. We say “cut spending”, or more specifically, “end welfare programs”, but on what timescale? “Cut taxes”, but which, and when?

Here is my thinking on the issue, starting with the basis of individual rights:

Welfare programs are objectively immoral, as they steal from some to give to others. As such, I think it obvious that we must advocate their immediate abolition. “People will be thrown on the streets” is not an argument, as they had no legal right to there welfare (SS, medicare, medicaid, TANF, etc. are included in the term), i.e. if the government chooses to change how much they get paid they can’t sue for the difference. Also, they were living off of evil actions, and so should never have been getting what they were in the first place.

But, people will be thrown on the streets, and that would be bad, and since taxation is evil, we should get rid of it too. So, get rid of welfare, but at the same time we should advocate either a) the repeal of the income tax or barring that b ) a 100% tax credit for charitable donations (so if you owe 1000 dollars in taxes, and give 1000 to charity, you now owe 0). This would dramatically ease the negative consequences of cutting the welfare programs, and lighten the burden of taxation. All forms of government regulation of industry should be abolished immediately as well, as they too are immoral.

As for the debt, the only way to pay it is to a) tax, which is immoral or b ) inflate, which is immoral or c) sell of “public” lands, which the government immorally appropriated, and has no right to. Therefore option c) is really only taxation, but indirectly as one would be paying for stolen property. So option c) is also immoral. Since you can’t pay it, the only option left is to repudiate it. After all, someone who bought a government bond was buying a share in an immoral enterprise (taxation), and so, like welfare recipients, can’t possibly be said to have a “right” to their “property”, which could only be given them by theft.

The elimination of most taxes, minimum wages, business regulations, etc. will almost certainly help mitigate the problems arising from repudiation of the debt and the elimination of welfare. And to do anything less would be to prolong immoral actions. It seems the logical strategy we should advocate (while accepting and working for any intermediate gains we can, of course) is essentially that which most advocate for band-aids: just rip it off.

2

I disagree with your approach. From a purely political point of view it would be suicide. NB It’s not wrong its just many people, even those who lean toward market freedoms would ignore the validity of the argument that those on welfare have no right to someone else’s hard earned money and revert to knee-jerk emotionalism. Like it or not times are tough and with almost everyone knowing someone who has “fallen on hard times” – regardless of if it was their fault or not – your plan would be stillborn.

I think the best idea is to get the country back to prosperity through market and taxation reform and from that point you can begin to destroy the apparatus of the welfare state.

Cut spending in government as much as possible. This always plays well with most centrist voters who view government as a bloated bureaucracy.

Eliminate business taxes to encourage growth and expansion of business and employment.

Reverse a lot of the anti-business, anti-industry policies that have built up. IE let oil companies drill for oil in the continental us.

Where possible pull out/scale back on overseas military deployments… Does the US really need 56,222 troops in Germany or 33,122 in Japan?

Oh yeah, and Privatize, privatize, privatize!

Then once your country is economically healthy again then you can begin hitting the welfare rolls. When times are good people are much more willing to see that those living off welfare are mooching and not “poor unfortunates”.

It’s important to note that it is the economic policies and regulations and constrictions on the market that create the need for welfare. Do away with those bottlenecks and the dismantling of the welfare system will be much easier.

3

I disagree with your approach. From a purely political point of view it would be suicide. NB It’s not wrong its just many people, even those who lean toward market freedoms would ignore the validity of the argument that those on welfare have no right to someone else’s hard earned money and revert to knee-jerk emotionalism. Like it or not times are tough and with almost everyone knowing someone who has “fallen on hard times” – regardless of if it was their fault or not – your plan would be stillborn.

It took us many decades to get into the hole we’re in now; it will take additional decades to climb out. The metaphor provides the key lesson: stop digging! In political policy terms, that translates into the principle ‘no new coercion’. Beyond that, we repeal existing coercive policies in whatever order we can generate sufficient public support for, always tying the repeal back to the underlying principle of individual rights.

You might be interested in the final chapter of George Reisman’s book Capitalism, in which he lays out a possible political program for the restoration of laissez-faire in the United States.

4

You might be interested in the final chapter of George Reisman’s book Capitalism, in which he lays out a possible political program for the restoration of laissez-faire in the United States.

I read the chapter, and it seems he largely agrees with a “if there was a magic button that got rid of all interventions instantly, then we should push it”. Gradualism in theory is eternity in practice, after all. The basic strategy is to avoid any increase in intervention in any way, and to go for the largest gains we can at any point in time, and always make it clear that our goal is their total abolition ASAP. That is the only logical strategy, I should think, but it seems that many suggest that it must be gradual, even in theory/ideal. Or is that an incorrect impression on my part?

5

I think we basically have to copy the socialists’ strategy that got them from the nineteenth century to where we are now at the end of the twentieth century. We have to be Objectivist counterrevolutionaries in other words, constantly agitating at the crises and disappointed expectations of the current system, bringing about total delegitimization of the current system and “inspire the masses with a vision of a greater, better, free society.” We have to show them the “why” of the causes of the current situation, then point them towards the solution. Once we influence something approaching a sizeable amount of the population, as long as we root out tolerators, pragmatists, and compromisers, then our revolution will be almost impossible to stop. As far as what to cut first and which order to do it in, that will come automatically after we have effected a change of public opinion.

6

The basic strategy is to avoid any increase in intervention in any way, and to go for the largest gains we can at any point in time, and always make it clear that our goal is their total abolition ASAP. That is the only logical strategy, I should think, but it seems that many suggest that it must be gradual, even in theory/ideal. Or is that an incorrect impression on my part?

I’m a bit baffled by this. To me, going for “the largest gains we can at any point in time” is gradualism, in that it acknowledges that we aren’t going to move from our current situation to laissez-faire in a single massive step. It will be a journey over time, making gradual but constant progress. Perhaps you mean something different by the term? I would agree that we should never settle for less than we can get. There is even some evidence to suggest that asking for more can work better than asking for less – the eastern European experiments with privatization tended to be more successful when they were sudden and large-scale rather than limited and extended over time, for example.

7

I’m a bit baffled by this. To me, going for “the largest gains we can at any point in time” is gradualism, in that it acknowledges that we aren’t going to move from our current situation to laissez-faire in a single massive step. It will be a journey over time, making gradual but constant progress. Perhaps you mean something different by the term? I would agree that we should never settle for less than we can get. There is even some evidence to suggest that asking for more can work better than asking for less – the eastern European experiments with privatization tended to be more successful when they were sudden and large-scale rather than limited and extended over time, for example.

It is gradualism, but in practice. The difference is that while I will advocate the biggest changes I could ever in my wildest dreams actually get through Congress, if those changes are somehow going to be enormous (like a bill that eliminates Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the minimum wage, and the income tax effective in, say, three months) then I’d do it. Gradualism in theory says that we can’t change too fast, and need to wind down programs like Social Security, or the income tax. The problem with gradualism in theory is that since society generally doesn’t agree with us, they won’t really have much pull on politics for a given number of voters who agree with them. If you have a bunch of people who would like to see the repeal of these programs effective immediately, then they will have more pull on politics and have more influence for their numbers. Also, gradualism in theory places some goal higher in the political realm than individual rights (as it explicitly states that we can’t eliminate rights violating programs because [something] ). That seems, to me, to blatantly violate the principle that government must not initiate force, and individual rights must be protected.

8

The problem with gradualism in theory is that since society generally doesn’t agree with us, they won’t really have much pull on politics…

I don’t think this is necessarily true. I think it all depends on the specifics of what voters think of your ideology. This, in turn, means that it depends on the existing political ideology of voters. Today, you will likely lose many more people than you gain, if they think you’re kooky.

Also, gradualism in theory places some goal higher in the political realm than individual rights (as it explicitly states that we can’t eliminate rights violating programs because [something] ). That seems, to me, to blatantly violate the principle that government must not initiate force, and individual rights must be protected.

This is not necessarily true either. In a specific case, force could be justified in righting a past wrong. In a program like social security, it might appear that working/earning folks are screwed so that retired folk get the undeserved. However, it is not the doing of those retired folk as such, but everybody’s doing. When rectifying the situation, it generally makes sense for everyone to take a hit. It is not justice to say to the person who has been taxed for 30 years, and is on the verge of retiring: “sorry, but you get nothing back”, and to the guy who has been taxed for two years: “You will get nothing either”.

Welfare is very different, but there too I think that justice demands that one takes into account the nature of human beings who must plan their lives based on the current system.

In other words, I think some degree of gradualism (different for different types of programs) is not simply necessary as a political compromise, but rational and just.

Even departments like the FDA and the SEC ought not to be abolished overnight. Today, many regulations are stand-ins for contractual clauses. One ought to give people a chance to understand the impact of phasing out those regulations, so that people can understand what it means (knowledge is not automatic, it takes time to acquire and to ponder ). If one is going to give people (say) 2 years notice and then abolish (say) the SEC, it probably makes more sense to list a few things that can be removed in 6 months instead of waiting two years… thus we’re back to gradualism.

9

This is not necessarily true either. In a specific case, force could be justified in righting a past wrong. In a program like social security, it might appear that working/earning folks are screwed so that retired folk get the undeserved. However, it is not the doing of those retired folk as such, but everybody’s doing. When rectifying the situation, it generally makes sense for everyone to take a hit. It is not justice to say to the person who has been taxed for 30 years, and is on the verge of retiring: “sorry, but you get nothing back”, and to the guy who has been taxed for two years: “You will get nothing either”.

Welfare is very different, but there too I think that justice demands that one takes into account the nature of human beings who must plan their lives based on the current system.

In other words, I think some degree of gradualism (different for different types of programs) is not simply necessary as a political compromise, but rational and just.

Even departments like the FDA and the SEC ought not to be abolished overnight. Today, many regulations are stand-ins for contractual clauses. One ought to give people a chance to understand the impact of phasing out those regulations, so that people can understand what it means (knowledge is not automatic, it takes time to acquire and to ponder ). If one is going to give people (say) 2 years notice and then abolish (say) the SEC, it probably makes more sense to list a few things that can be removed in 6 months instead of waiting two years… thus we’re back to gradualism.

Alright, let’s examine social security. The person about to retire has been living under this system, expecting, indeed relying, on social security in order to finance his retirement, is complicit in the violation of property rights in the system. The man who is only 25 has no such plans (as he likely isn’t too concerned about retirement at this point), and has only been involved in the system for a few years. Justice would say that the person who was relying on theft to finance his retirement (primarily) can justly have that swept out from under him. The young man can justly have his property rights defended, as he is not relying upon theft for his livelihood. The same for those on welfare. There is a difference between drawing social security money, or collecting unemployment, because you might as well (it’s there for you to take after all), and actively relying upon it in order to live your life. In the one case you are not complicit in the theft (as your life is not dependent upon it, and you have the option of actively opposing it without contradiction of your life), and in the other you are complicit in the theft (as your life is dependent on it, and to oppose it would be to oppose your own survival). If anything, justice gives more of a reason for immediate repeal than anything, as those who would be severely negatively impacted deserve to be, and those who would not do not deserve to be.

As for regulations and the like, immediate repeal (as in, tomorrow morning all regulations are gone) would likely lead to many problems, even some severe ones. But the very severity, if backed by a powerful government capable of enforcing rights, would push the development of just measures to deal with them far quicker than could happen under any more gradual plan. So long as the government enforced rights (had sufficient police and a large and capable enough court structure), the economy would work itself out just fine.

10

Alright, let’s examine social security. The person about to retire has been living under this system, expecting, indeed relying, on social security in order to finance his retirement, is complicit in the violation of property rights in the system.

This is someone who has not taken a dime from the system and has probably had tens of thousands of dollars taken from him. If he is a reasonable person, he would realize that the system is not sustainable in its current form, and would therefore not rely on it completely. However, with all the money taken from him, he has had much less chance to save for his retirement. it is pretty reasonable if he assumes that the system might be cut back, but will still be there in some form.

An unjust system makes victims and thieves of all the participants. If you want to be just, instead of stopping, you would try the impossible task of going after assets of people who have received social-security, if they are dead going after their heirs for stolen property, asking people to pay back all the subsidies they received in education, and so on.

11

Alright, let’s examine social security. The person about to retire has been living under this system, expecting, indeed relying, on social security in order to finance his retirement, is complicit in the violation of property rights in the system.

Do you necessarily know that? What about the man who opposed Social Security for his entire life, but was not able to get it repealed until after reaching an age at which he can no longer work to sustain himself? His ability to save for his own retirement was stripped from him by force against his will. (Saying “he should have saved for retirement without expecting any income from Social Security” is non-responsive. Not everybody is productive enough to be able to do that in the face of the myriad burdens imposed on us by the government.) He did not want to rely on Social Security – he was forced into it. This man is a victim, not a criminal. What, in justice, does he deserve?

12

I’ll respond to both of you at once, as it will be faster. The man who opposed SS all his life but couldn’t save might warrant me helping him. But it does NOT warrant someone stealing my money to help him. That is a violation of my rights. If I, or anyone else, choose to help him, then so be it. It is impossible to do as softwareNerd suggests and go through and take back everyone’s property, because the property was thrown into a common pot and redistributed. The original owner cannot be located, and since the present possessor did not commit the crime in question, it can justly be said to be his (as no one else has any higher claim to it). Who has a right to which portion of other people’s property cannot be determined in any objective fashion. What can be known is that to continue stealing in order to give to others is a violation of property rights, regardless of whether the other person was a victim of aggression or not (provided the the actual individual person you are taking from wasn’t the aggressor against that individual you are giving to, but that isn’t the case here).

You make valid points that many who are on Social Security or the welfare programs or what have you may oppose such systems, and have been unable to find any other avenue to survive given current conditions. But we can’t change that, or even rectify it (as to rectify it would require stealing from others who were uninvolved, or unobjectively stealing from someone who had no choice in the matter). The only thing we can do is to change the system. To try to phase out social security is to prolong theft. I have no obligation to anyone else, just because they were rendered helpless by government policies (I am speaking here of legal/rights-based obligation, I would most certainly choose to give some portion of my income to organizations that help such people). Government doesn’t enforce morality, but rather rights. Those people have no right to my money, and there is no objective way of figuring out thieves and victims in the system (it is far too tangled, and mixes everyone’s property up so it can’t properly be tracked). The only answer is to end the rights violation, and to advocate people help those who were made victims of (in their judgment) and avoid helping (or actively boycott) those who were the active thieves.

13

It is impossible to do as softwareNerd suggests and go through and take back everyone’s property, because the property was thrown into a common pot and redistributed. The original owner cannot be located, and since the present possessor did not commit the crime in question, it can justly be said to be his (as no one else has any higher claim to it). Who has a right to which portion of other people’s property cannot be determined in any objective fashion.

I’m not sure I buy this. The government has records of how much money each of us has paid in FICA tax over the years – it’s a key component of the benefit payout calculation. It also has records of the benefit payments it has made to various people. So even on your premises it seems like the information exists to track how much money was taken from each individual and how much was given; from that, it would be possible to reclaim the ill-given benefits wherever possible and distribute the reclaimed funds proportionately to the people they were taxed from. The principle would be that (1) in any case where we could demonstrate that a person received wealth to which they were not entitled, they would be required to relinquish it to whatever extent possible; and (2) the recovered wealth would be returned to taxpayers on a proportionate basis. The result would be that nobody would benefit from past theft, and the victims would be compensated to the extent possible. Much wealth would be lost, and that’s just a fact that has to be accepted. (Note that I’m not necessarily agreeing with or advocating this course, merely noting that it seems workable based on your premises.)

To try to phase out social security is to prolong theft.

Here’s a question. Suppose, for sake of argument, that there were sufficient public support now to start a 30-year phase-out of Social Security, but not enough to halt it cold-turkey. Suppose further that building the public support for a full halt would take more than 30 years. In such a situation, a phasing out of Social Security would actually lead to the full cessation of the program sooner than holding out for immediate and total abolition. Were that the case, would a phasing out be justified? Phasing out Social Security when an immediate abolition is possible is to prolong theft. But what about when immediate abolition is not possible? Surely beginning a phase out is better than keeping the status quo. It reduces theft. The goal is to get rid of Social Security as soon as possible – but it may be the case, given the beliefs of the American public, that a gradual approach would be a more rapid means to that end.

14

I’m not sure I buy this. The government has records of how much money each of us has paid in FICA tax over the years – it’s a key component of the benefit payout calculation. It also has records of the benefit payments it has made to various people. So even on your premises it seems like the information exists to track how much money was taken from each individual and how much was given; from that, it would be possible to reclaim the ill-given benefits wherever possible and distribute the reclaimed funds proportionately to the people they were taxed from. The principle would be that (1) in any case where we could demonstrate that a person received wealth to which they were not entitled, they would be required to relinquish it to whatever extent possible; and (2) the recovered wealth would be returned to taxpayers on a proportionate basis. The result would be that nobody would benefit from past theft, and the victims would be compensated to the extent possible. Much wealth would be lost, and that’s just a fact that has to be accepted. (Note that I’m not necessarily agreeing with or advocating this course, merely noting that it seems workable based on your premises.)

The problem here is that that money has already changed hands, to other people (the people the spent it on) who got that money illegally (as it was gotten by illegal means), so they have no right to it, and then on and on and on, in a chain of untraceable interactions. The property is gone, lost in a blizzard of transactions and receipts rotted away in landfills. The money stolen has changed hands an enormous number of times since then. The key is that no one should now control property which is not rightfully their’s. That is the principle we must base our analysis on. Except for perhaps the last few months of social security payments, the money (the property that was stolen) is now in the possession of an enormous number of other people (not the people who received it initially), and those people cannot possibly be identified at this point. We also cannot show exactly what most social security recipients actually obtained through stolen money, as they almost all have some other source of revenue from somewhere, and so good money got mixed with bad. No objective analysis of what is justly there’s and unjustly there’s is possible. If you can’t show something was unjustly acquired, you must hold the property claim as valid. The same logic applies for virtually all government interventions of any sort: the property stolen cannot now be tracked down to who controls it now. It is unjust to take from someone who does not presently hold stolen property (and to demand they return items purchased with said property is also impossible, as what was purchased with the money would be impossible to determine in virtually all cases). As a result, we can’t demand everyone give all the money the government gave them back. We can declare bonds null and void, we can end the current rights violations, but correcting the vast majority of past violations is impossible to do in an objective manner.

Here’s a question. Suppose, for sake of argument, that there were sufficient public support now to start a 30-year phase-out of Social Security, but not enough to halt it cold-turkey. Suppose further that building the public support for a full halt would take more than 30 years. In such a situation, a phasing out of Social Security would actually lead to the full cessation of the program sooner than holding out for immediate and total abolition. Were that the case, would a phasing out be justified? Phasing out Social Security when an immediate abolition is possible is to prolong theft. But what about when immediate abolition is not possible? Surely beginning a phase out is better than keeping the status quo. It reduces theft. The goal is to get rid of Social Security as soon as possible – but it may be the case, given the beliefs of the American public, that a gradual approach would be a more rapid means to that end.

If that is what you can get, then take it. And continue to work for its immediate end during the phase-out period, or a shortening of the phase-out period. The point is to never hesitate to reduce the interventions of government if you can do it at any given moment in time. To say that “justly, we must gradually reduce program X at Y rate” is fundamentally different than “the fastest I can, in a politically viable manner, demolish program X is at Y rate.” The latter will jump at any chance to increase the rate at which the phasing out of government intervention occurs, the other will purposely prolong it if the opportunity to accelerate it occurs. If the possibility arises that you could get a phase-out in 5,3,2,1 years instead of 30 arises, you should jump at the opportunity. That is the real difference between gradualism and a rights-based approach-one has a maximum rate at which the reduction of state intervention occurs, the other would do it all tomorrow if it could. Gradualism in practice is a requirement of the way the world happens to be at the moment, but gradualism in theory is the result of placing individual rights below something else in importance in the political realm (or so is the case if my analysis above holds).

15

The problem here is that that money has already changed hands, to other people (the people the spent it on) who got that money illegally (as it was gotten by illegal means), so they have no right to it, and then on and on and on, in a chain of untraceable interactions. The property is gone, lost in a blizzard of transactions and receipts rotted away in landfills.

Well, some of it might be gone, but it is simply not true that all of it is gone. Some of it is untraceable, but not all of it is untraceable. Nobody is suggesting that one can do the tracing and the math perfectly, but perfection ought not to be the enemy of the good.

The real objection to going back in time like that is that these people were like innocent third-party receivers of stolen goods who ought not be penalized for acting in good faith. Rather, penalizing them may be okay to some extent, but penalizing them just as if they were the original and sole criminals is not just. Therefore, penalizing them for acting in ways that were honest and rational within the context of a system they found themselves in is not just.

16

The point is to never hesitate to reduce the interventions of government if you can do it at any given moment in time. To say that “justly, we must gradually reduce program X at Y rate” is fundamentally different than “the fastest I can, in a politically viable manner, demolish program X is at Y rate.”

I disagree. If some Plan X is in reality the best way to achieve some life-sustaining end (such as getting rid of Social Security), then Plan X is moral. What you’re saying implies a split between the moral and the practical – justice says we must do X, but practicality requires Y instead.

17

I disagree. If some Plan X is in reality the best way to achieve some life-sustaining end (such as getting rid of Social Security), then Plan X is moral. What you’re saying implies a split between the moral and the practical – justice says we must do X, but practicality requires Y instead.

Not so much. Justice demands the programs be eliminated as quickly as they possibly can be. “The program should only be eliminated at rate Y” means that if one were politically able to eliminate it quicker, one should not. Whereas a non-gradualist strategy would work to eliminate the program as quickly as one possibly can at any given point in time (so if one were able to viably speed up the phase out of some program, one would do that as well). Indeed, gradualism is what implies a split between moral and practical, as it maintains that while the initiation of force is evil and must be eliminated, practically we just can’t do it because [insert some reason that is not “we can’t get the bill passed”].

Well, some of it might be gone, but it is simply not true that all of it is gone. Some of it is untraceable, but not all of it is untraceable. Nobody is suggesting that one can do the tracing and the math perfectly, but perfection ought not to be the enemy of the good.

The real objection to going back in time like that is that these people were like innocent third-party receivers of stolen goods who ought not be penalized for acting in good faith. Rather, penalizing them may be okay to some extent, but penalizing them just as if they were the original and sole criminals is not just. Therefore, penalizing them for acting in ways that were honest and rational within the context of a system they found themselves in is not just.

If you are sold a stolen item, you have no right to said stolen item, and the original owner does. So, that item should be removed from your possession and placed into the possession of its original owner. Then you can sue the person who sold you the stolen goods to get back all the money you are out, and then some (or this might be done automatically, rather than as a separate case). “I bought your family heirloom from somebody who, it now seems, stole it, but you have no right to get it back” seems fairy preposterous. Indeed, I am not penalizing anyone if I take from them property which is not justly their’s. They had no right to it in the first place. But, and this is important, this isn’t treating them like the original criminal. They didn’t have to pay for court costs, or interest, or damages, they aren’t locked in jail, etc. The criminal has to do all that. We’re just talking about returning all that money to its proper owners.

And I think essentially all of the money is untraceable, because if that money was put into a big pool (say money from their savings accounts), then you couldn’t know exactly where it went, which property was bought with it. And since you couldn’t know that, you couldn’t justly go after anyone for the money (as you don’t know where it went). As a result, it isn’t possible to get that money back. Justice would demand then that the money due back to the original earners be paid by the criminal. But the criminal is the government, and the only way the government can pay anyone back for anything is to steal it. Since that certainly isn’t moral (to correct one injustice we have to create another one of equal size which must too be corrected, and on and on to infinity), we can’t pay back the money. And finally, trying to trace it would cost even more money, and that too would be unjustly acquired. So the only way to correct the injustice is through far more injustice, and so we simply should let things lie as they are.

18

So the only way to correct the injustice is through far more injustice, and so we simply should let things lie as they are.

This evaluation rests on your conclusions about what is just, and we clearly disagree on that score.

I reckon we’ll remain in disagreement about the morality of transitions. This discussion will remain totally academic for our lifetimes. The only scenario in which such a discussion can ever be important is one in which a majority of voters have changed their political philosophy to the point where they want to take the country to full individual rights, but are wondering whether to do so in a quick step or more slowly.

19

Seasteading seems much more reasonable to me. It will be much easier to create a fresh, small capitalist country and watch it grow, than to try to save, let alone restore, a 300 million person nation from the brink of economic (philosophical) bankruptcy.

20

Seasteading seems much more reasonable to me. It will be much easier to create a fresh, small capitalist country and watch it grow, than to try to save, let alone restore, a 300 million person nation from the brink of economic (philosophical) bankruptcy.

Might be realistic soon if Peter Thiel has anything to say about it.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne…icle5901235.ece