Defense costs for a seastead would be ruinous. A seastead is just another form of island. An island that's close to a land power will almost certainly need the deterrent effect of a strong navy --- its own or that of a friendly power --- if it wants to retain its independence. Strong navies are really, really expensive to build and maintain; a seastead probably would not be able to do either.
Example: Had it not been for the presence of the U.S. Seventh Fleet, mainland China probably would have invaded and conquered Taiwan in 1949 or 1950, or on any of a number of "crisis" occasions since then. It's no accident that whenever China rattles its saber about Taiwan, one or more U.S. aircraft carrier task forces moves into the Taiwan Strait.
Example: Had it not been for the presence of the Royal Navy, the Germans probably would have invaded and conquered England in 1940. The same is true of Napoleon in 1803, for that matter.
Economically, a seastead probably couldn't maintain the kind of navy needed for this task. England was able to maintain the Royal Navy in the 17th through 19th centuries, but it could draw on the resources of a growing empire. Today's Britannia doesn't come close to ruling the waves; it can't afford to.
Could a seastead get a strong, friendly power to extend its own navy's umbrella of protection, the way the U.S. has done with Taiwan? Possibly, but the friendly power would have to perceive a benefit to itself before it'd be willing to do so.
So you think the Germans or Chinese would want to invade the seastead? Do you think it's because the Germans/Chinese would want the seastead's land to extend their own borders?
I'd think it's typically not the land itself that they really want, it's the resources. If a Seastead were to become established and wealthy, you can bet it would eventually come under threat of attack.
If nothing else of value exists on the seastead, there will be a bunch of rich folks with families in rich countries willing to give the invaders lots of money for the promise of their safe return.
Pirates are not picky about how they get their money.
My guess is that the wealth the Seastead generated would be more of the bits/bytes kind (i.e. financial wealth, wealth represented in contracts). I can't imagine a bunch of libertarians sitting in their seastead with big warehouses full of diamonds and gold. There are more effective places to store physical assets.
A seastead is not a perfect solution to freedom. There simply is no perfect solution. It simply creates another option. It's still possible for states to seize the assets of seasteaders, but being on a seastead makes it a bit more difficult.
Don't you think navies are getting a little outdated in their current form? I have to think going forward it's going to be all missiles and anti-missile missiles. Not saying that having a good missile defense won't also be expensive, but probably cheaper to have missiles based on the sea stead than having missiles on a destroyer floating next to the sea stead.
But honestly, it seems hard to really see a hot war between a Libertarian sea stead and a 1st world democracy. The 1st world aggressor would probably do the sanctions thing instead. Actual wars seem to be when one side is authoritarian or fascist or else religion is somehow involved.
Comments
Defense costs for a seastead would be ruinous. A seastead is just another form of island. An island that's close to a land power will almost certainly need the deterrent effect of a strong navy --- its own or that of a friendly power --- if it wants to retain its independence. Strong navies are really, really expensive to build and maintain; a seastead probably would not be able to do either.
Example: Had it not been for the presence of the U.S. Seventh Fleet, mainland China probably would have invaded and conquered Taiwan in 1949 or 1950, or on any of a number of "crisis" occasions since then. It's no accident that whenever China rattles its saber about Taiwan, one or more U.S. aircraft carrier task forces moves into the Taiwan Strait.
Example: Had it not been for the presence of the Royal Navy, the Germans probably would have invaded and conquered England in 1940. The same is true of Napoleon in 1803, for that matter.
Economically, a seastead probably couldn't maintain the kind of navy needed for this task. England was able to maintain the Royal Navy in the 17th through 19th centuries, but it could draw on the resources of a growing empire. Today's Britannia doesn't come close to ruling the waves; it can't afford to.
Could a seastead get a strong, friendly power to extend its own navy's umbrella of protection, the way the U.S. has done with Taiwan? Possibly, but the friendly power would have to perceive a benefit to itself before it'd be willing to do so.
So you think the Germans or Chinese would want to invade the seastead? Do you think it's because the Germans/Chinese would want the seastead's land to extend their own borders?
I'd think it's typically not the land itself that they really want, it's the resources. If a Seastead were to become established and wealthy, you can bet it would eventually come under threat of attack.
If nothing else of value exists on the seastead, there will be a bunch of rich folks with families in rich countries willing to give the invaders lots of money for the promise of their safe return.
Pirates are not picky about how they get their money.
My guess is that the wealth the Seastead generated would be more of the bits/bytes kind (i.e. financial wealth, wealth represented in contracts). I can't imagine a bunch of libertarians sitting in their seastead with big warehouses full of diamonds and gold. There are more effective places to store physical assets.
A seastead is not a perfect solution to freedom. There simply is no perfect solution. It simply creates another option. It's still possible for states to seize the assets of seasteaders, but being on a seastead makes it a bit more difficult.
Don't you think navies are getting a little outdated in their current form? I have to think going forward it's going to be all missiles and anti-missile missiles. Not saying that having a good missile defense won't also be expensive, but probably cheaper to have missiles based on the sea stead than having missiles on a destroyer floating next to the sea stead.
But honestly, it seems hard to really see a hot war between a Libertarian sea stead and a 1st world democracy. The 1st world aggressor would probably do the sanctions thing instead. Actual wars seem to be when one side is authoritarian or fascist or else religion is somehow involved.
Sea ... island ... ships ... My first guess would have been heavily armed pirates.