Libertarian Islands

[Grave_n_idle]

Government regulation =/= licensing requirement.

Abolish them as well, then.

How?

You're going to disband all the existing companies?

[Sibirsky]

I realize that. But all they do is arrange furniture, some decorations, and color coordinate the stuff. They show you examples of their work, before you decide to hire them. They cannot do damage to your health, finances, or freedom.

Ok, why are florists licensed in some states?

Because florists want it that way.

Correct. You get a cookie.

But why does government succumb to that pressure?

[Lessnt]

Because florists want it that way.

Correct. You get a cookie.

But why does government succumb to that pressure?

Donations....votes....money....prestige....the usual...

[Sibirsky]

None of which will prevent a person from being poisoned in future.

Indeed. There's no prevention mechanism.

There is no prevention mechanism in regulation either. Both systems deal with the offender, after the fact.

[Inertina]

I don't know, I think it's actually an important issue. Regulations exist often to protect the consumer. And in the case of the offending business, they might still be able to mask their own culpability, especially if there are no regulatory boards to check and make sure their safety standards are up to snuff.

If their safety standards are not up to scratch, or their products are overpriced... competitors exist by the bucketload. We've abolished licenses in this economy, remember? All you need to set up a competing business is determination and a bit of capital; no government regulations to fight through.

The problem with this is three-fold. Firstly, it assumes there's perfect knowledge in the market such that people will be aware that such-and-such product is not up to safety standards, which can be hard to prove (especially if the company sees value in suppressing any news that it's products are unsafe, which is a very common occurrence). Without regulations, that becomes more problematic because
companies no longer have to worry about being checked on, which means less chance of them getting reported for having low standards and more incentive to not have those standards. Since it is cheaper to produce a product without said safety requirements, their product is more competitive in price and sells easier. It becomes a vicious race to the bottom.

Secondly, in the event that people are aware enough that a certain product is unsafe and a competitor comes in and offers the same thing for a safer- and much pricier- variety, the economy becomes a two-tier between the haves who can afford the safer higher prices, and the have-nots who cannot. A prime example here could be the meatpacking industry. In this scenario, beef that has been manufactured and shipped under safety requirements would cost more, to the point where poorer people would end up buying beef produced via sketchy practices but which happens to be much cheaper. The problem is straightforward.

Thirdly, there's an incentive to lie and claim your product is safe. In countries where there is no requirement to put food content labels on items, many companies still do so... and leave out harmful ingredients, lower calorie counts, etc. Because information is imperfect, they can get away with this and the public is harmed.

[Sibirsky]

Correct. You get a cookie.

But why does government succumb to that pressure?

Donations....votes....money....prestige....the usual...

Licensing boards are appointed.

[Grave_n_idle]

Indeed. There's no prevention mechanism.

There is no prevention mechanism in regulation either. Both systems deal with the offender, after the fact.

Not really. If you have a regulatory process that requires preventative measures, you can hold people to those measures - and thus force them to prevent, whether they will or not.

If they refuse to follow those measures, you can exact some form of punitive action - not least - obviously - stopping them from trading their unsafe product.

[Irishlande]

Can we say Bioshock?

My thoughts as well!

[Moral Libertarians]

There is no prevention mechanism in regulation either. Both systems deal with the offender, after the fact.

Not really. If you have a regulatory process that requires preventative measures, you can hold people to those measures - and thus force them to prevent, whether they will or not.

If they refuse to follow those measures, you can exact some form of punitive action - not least - obviously - stopping them from trading their unsafe product.

That implies faith in the openness and transparency of the system, as well as a common agreement by all of society on what precisely regulations should prevent.

Neither is even remotely realistic. Government is corrupted by the wealthy to pass legislation that benefits them at the expense of competitors. And no one agrees on every detail of the law. It's entirely arbitrary.

[Grave_n_idle]

Because florists want it that way.

Correct. You get a cookie.

But why does government succumb to that pressure?

Why wouldn't they?

There are good reasons to agree to licensing, if you're the government. There are obviously likely to be incentives, also.

The licensing requirements will exist with or without government involvement - why wouldn't government take advantage of it?

[Lessnt]

Donations....votes....money....prestige....the usual...

Licensing boards are appointed.

Which comes with money, prestige.....

[Grave_n_idle]

Not really. If you have a regulatory process that requires preventative measures, you can hold people to those measures - and thus force them to prevent, whether they will or not.

If they refuse to follow those measures, you can exact some form of punitive action - not least - obviously - stopping them from trading their unsafe product.

That implies faith in the openness and transparency of the system, as well as a common agreement by all of society on what precisely regulations should prevent.

Such faith isn't even vaguely required. I didn't say the system was foolproof or perfect - I just explained how it's preventative.

[Trotskylvania]

Donations....votes....money....prestige....the usual...

Licensing boards are appointed.

By politicians. Maybe they like the florists' money. Small cookies in the grand scheme, but I suppose every little bit helps the re-election fund.

[Sibirsky]

Licensing boards are appointed.

By politicians. Maybe they like the florists' money. Small cookies in the grand scheme, but I suppose every little bit helps the re-election fund.

Correct. You get a small cookie.

I'm too lazy to post a pic, and enough pic spam for today. You can always scroll and look at Gni's cookie.

[Trotskylvania]

By politicians. Maybe they like the florists' money. Small cookies in the grand scheme, but I suppose every little bit helps the re-election fund.

Correct. You get a small cookie.

I'm too lazy to post a pic, and enough pic spam for today. You can always scroll and look at Gni's cookie.

*noms*

[Ashmoria]

they work in people's homes.

I realize that. But all they do is arrange furniture, some decorations, and color coordinate the stuff. They show you examples of their work, before you decide to hire them. They cannot do damage to your health, finances, or freedom.

Ok, why are florists licensed in some states?

of course they can do damage to your health, finances (and i dont know what freedom means). they can steal from you; they can over charge you for the things they buy; they can decorate your home in an unsafe manner.

i assume that they have licenses because they require insurance and bonding. that is facilitated by having a licensing procedure.

what matters is whether or not it requires a significant fee, test or education to get the license. if its hard to get a license then its a travesty.

florists seem a bit much. every now and then there is some horror story on the news or some oprah type show where some <whatever> has done a bad, dangerous job. we can pretend that its florists for now. its a "WHAT A CRYING SHAME!" story where they end with "and did you know that florists dont even need to be licensed in this state?!!" then i assume some state rep sees the story and introduces a bill in the state house.

[New England and The Maritimes]

By politicians. Maybe they like the florists' money. Small cookies in the grand scheme, but I suppose every little bit helps the re-election fund.

Correct. You get a small cookie.

I'm too lazy to post a pic, and enough pic spam for today. You can always scroll and look at Gni's cookie.

As I've said before, I am totally with you on redesigning barriers to entry. Licensing requirements should be reserved to occupations which do carry a major risk of harm to those who didn't make the choice to use shabby, cheap alternatives. Construction, building inspection, auto inspection, auto repair, driving, operation of heavy machinery and the like are things which should be licensed. Interior decorators and florists don't need these preventive measures, since the odds of a mistake in their fields costing an innocent party their life, health or property is pretty damn slim.

[Lucent Dawn]

This is an interesting concept, and I'd like to see where this goes, and I remain neutral on whether I'd like to see this work or fail.

The article provides little information. From what I can deduce, unfortunately, it seems there might be issues where the experiments could go wrong. Depending where the resources come from and other factors these societies could be easily opened to exploitation by larger nations or economic entities. Also, if the resources came from abroad, these "nations" would be highly subject to international economic fluctuations.
My question is that of where the resources come from.
They at least need (it would seem) to be putting some sort of economically strong product initially if they want to achieve larger goals. It depends on to what extent International Businesses initially and eventually decide to use the "islands".
These could, of course, just remain small societies for now, "experiments" as the article seems to reference them. It would be difficult, though, to predict how the system advocated would operate in a large society from results on how it operates in a small one, and that, of course, is an issue.

Depending on the effort and scale of this project it would seem the projects would simply burn out and perish, or, on the other hand, become international economic hubs (businesses might be too timid to invest themselves in the project initially).
Also is the problem of providing public services. The idea is that "private" organisations pay for them. It is yet to be seen whether such a system is effective.
If it is genuinely effective, great, but then what if it fails?

I am disquieted by the fact that the ambitions of this project (as portrayed in the article) beckon something akin to Rapture in the case they ultimately go wrong.

Even then, I don't know whether or not the the project can be trusted to actually produce one of these "nations" in the foreseeable future.

[Keronians]

Correct. You get a small cookie.

I'm too lazy to post a pic, and enough pic spam for today. You can always scroll and look at Gni's cookie.

As I've said before, I am totally with you on redesigning barriers to entry. Licensing requirements should be reserved to occupations which do carry a major risk of harm to those who didn't make the choice to use shabby, cheap alternatives. Construction, building inspection, auto inspection, auto repair, driving, operation of heavy machinery and the like are things which should be licensed. Interior decorators and florists don't need these preventive measures, since the odds of a mistake in their fields costing an innocent party their life, health or property is pretty damn slim.

I can agree with the above.

[Sibirsky]

I realize that. But all they do is arrange furniture, some decorations, and color coordinate the stuff. They show you examples of their work, before you decide to hire them. They cannot do damage to your health, finances, or freedom.

Ok, why are florists licensed in some states?

of course they can do damage to your health, finances (and i dont know what freedom means). they can steal from you; they can over charge you for the things they buy; they can decorate your home in an unsafe manner.

i assume that they have licenses because they require insurance and bonding. that is facilitated by having a licensing procedure.

what matters is whether or not it requires a significant fee, test or education to get the license. if its hard to get a license then its a travesty.

florists seem a bit much. every now and then there is some horror story on the news or some oprah type show where some <whatever> has done a bad, dangerous job. we can pretend that its florists for now. its a "WHAT A CRYING SHAME!" story where they end with "and did you know that florists dont even need to be licensed in this state?!!" then i assume some state rep sees the story and introduces a bill in the state house.

By freedom I mean, a person has been charged with a crime, punishable by jail time. He hires an attorney. If that attorney is inept, the person may be convicted, perhaps wrongfully so.

[Sibirsky]

Correct. You get a small cookie.

I'm too lazy to post a pic, and enough pic spam for today. You can always scroll and look at Gni's cookie.

As I've said before, I am totally with you on redesigning barriers to entry. Licensing requirements should be reserved to occupations which do carry a major risk of harm to those who didn't make the choice to use shabby, cheap alternatives. Construction, building inspection, auto inspection, auto repair, driving, operation of heavy machinery and the like are things which should be licensed. Interior decorators and florists don't need these preventive measures, since the odds of a mistake in their fields costing an innocent party their life, health or property is pretty damn slim.

[GeneralHaNor]

But how would that turn a profit if I was to work there? This isn't a charity, it has to make money to be viable. I just don't see how they could other than breaking minimum wage and even then they don't exactly have the space for a sprawling manual labour factory.

My guess is it'll be mostly offshore financial services, and server hosts for internet gambling and various degrees of forbidden porn.

Reason enough to invest.

All those things are huge markets.

[GeneralHaNor]

That's true enough of course... But assuming this Florida coast development employs Americans you'll have to pay at or close to American minimum wage to convince anyone to work there. You'll save money by not paying tax but maintaining a floating island and importing food and water isn't cheap, so in all likelihood you'll end up taking all that money back in upkeep. So I mean... what's the point?

Plus, the real problem in logistics isn't the thinking or the talking - it's the literal transfer and storage of solid material - something an off-shore facility has absolutely no capacity to help with.

This if true enough.
Take your average grocery store, it along with all the other grocery stores for that chain require an expansive network of warehouses and distribution centers in order to stay stocked. Any "General Store" that exists on this islands would require a specialized shore to ship company to supply them. I suppose you could fix this with DSD (Direct Supply Distributors, which we also use) but do you really believe Coca-Cola would fit the bill to sail out to your island?, or fly?

Logistics is probably gonna be the killer here. These things will be islands for the super rich and the services only they can afford, because a pack of lunch meat will probably cost $52

[Gauthier]

Maybe we'll get to see a microwar if this new island gets invaded by The Pirate Bay.

[Josh Sinister]

Can we say Bioshock?