Taxes exist to cover the costs of governing the people, providing infrastructure and services for the citizens and so on. Even if you can get unplugged from existing governments, someone has to pay for the infrastructure of the seastead and essential services.
Suppose a seasteading nation provided the same transportation, protection, defensive and other public goods as the US government. An eyeball estimate [1] suggests the cost would be 35% of what the US govt spends, and that's assuming the sea-based nation still pays for things like military adventurism and the war on drugs.
>An eyeball estimate [1] suggests the cost would be 35% of what the US govt spends, and that's assuming the sea-based nation still pays for things like military adventurism and the war on drugs.
Only if that eyeball is completely blind to economies of scale.
Which service, specifically, do you feel benefits significantly from economics of scale?
And since most of these services are provided by city governments, why would a town like Edison, NJ have economies of scale that a similarly sized sea-based nation would lack?
If one's main concern is taxes, they vary considerably within the US from one state to another. There are websites with good info on that. Here is just one: http://retirementliving.com/RLtaxes.html
Further, my best understanding is that for most jobs of the exact same type, it makes little or no difference to take the same job title elsewhere for more pay because in most cases the additional salary merely covers higher local cost of living. Those increased local costs of living are typically there due to more amenities (ie San Francisco is more expensive in part because there is more infrastructure, culture, etc there than in Nowhereville USA). Plus, people who are well off in a way that makes them highly mobile (some US retirees fit this descripton, even if not "wealthy" per se) so they can live just about anywhere they choose can already take advantage of doing things like moving south of the border.
I do understand the argument in the article about looking to escape existing governments. That's a very different motivation from wanting to escape/reduce taxes, which can to a large degree already be done without jumping through the hoops involved in seasteading.
Comments
Taxes exist to cover the costs of governing the people, providing infrastructure and services for the citizens and so on. Even if you can get unplugged from existing governments, someone has to pay for the infrastructure of the seastead and essential services.
Suppose a seasteading nation provided the same transportation, protection, defensive and other public goods as the US government. An eyeball estimate [1] suggests the cost would be 35% of what the US govt spends, and that's assuming the sea-based nation still pays for things like military adventurism and the war on drugs.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2009_US_total
So while it's true that you have to pay some taxes, they could easily be far lower than most first world nations.
You are correct that ocean dwellers should be comprised of people who enjoy seafood or people willing to pay $8/avocado.
[1] I'm including defense, protection (police+fire), transportation and "other spending" (e.g., water treatment, community development).
>An eyeball estimate [1] suggests the cost would be 35% of what the US govt spends, and that's assuming the sea-based nation still pays for things like military adventurism and the war on drugs.
Only if that eyeball is completely blind to economies of scale.
Which service, specifically, do you feel benefits significantly from economics of scale?
And since most of these services are provided by city governments, why would a town like Edison, NJ have economies of scale that a similarly sized sea-based nation would lack?
Defense (see also: "divide and conquer")
If one's main concern is taxes, they vary considerably within the US from one state to another. There are websites with good info on that. Here is just one: http://retirementliving.com/RLtaxes.html
Further, my best understanding is that for most jobs of the exact same type, it makes little or no difference to take the same job title elsewhere for more pay because in most cases the additional salary merely covers higher local cost of living. Those increased local costs of living are typically there due to more amenities (ie San Francisco is more expensive in part because there is more infrastructure, culture, etc there than in Nowhereville USA). Plus, people who are well off in a way that makes them highly mobile (some US retirees fit this descripton, even if not "wealthy" per se) so they can live just about anywhere they choose can already take advantage of doing things like moving south of the border.
I do understand the argument in the article about looking to escape existing governments. That's a very different motivation from wanting to escape/reduce taxes, which can to a large degree already be done without jumping through the hoops involved in seasteading.