
Why don't gazzilionaires start their own countries? - jbverschoor
All of thee guys don't have to work anymore.. Bill, Steve, Larry, Sergey and Mark.
They have the funds and contacts to do it..
So why has no-one tried to start a small country?
======
philk
A number of reasons:

1) Starting their own country wouldn't offer them much they don't already
have.

2) There's no unclaimed land. That means you either need to build your own
land (which is really expensive) or take it off someone else, which probably
makes you a criminal around the world and might ruin your life already.

3) Once you've got the land, you've got to defend it, and mercs[1] + military
hardware gets expensive really fast.

4) Even then, the nasty things you'd have to do to establish a country and get
it recognized around the world will probably cripple your commercial
activities.

5) They don't necessarily have much ability for governing/retaining power.

[1] No-one is going to die for Gatestan out of patriotism.

~~~
stcredzero
<http://seasteading.org/>

1) The seasteading.org folks aren't rich, though they can get resources from
rich people who like their program.

2) They have a well thought-out program for making their own land.

3) The land they have is very small, and it's perched on top of tall towers,
therefore easy to defend. Private security and agreements with local
governments should suffice for their needs.

4) The seasteading folks plan to use flags of convenience, or plan to just not
be noticed. The platforms will most likely be mobile, so if they don't like
their neighbors, they'll just move.

5) Since each unit is relatively small, they can use the same legal framework
that captains aboard oceangoing vessels use.

[1] The seasteading folks seem to be about Libertarian ideals of freedom. I
understand that there are indeed some folks willing to die for those ideals. I
am not saying if this this is a good idea or not.

Disclosure: I am not a member of seasteading.org. I just think they have neat
engineering ideas.

~~~
chadp
Easy to defend? Rubbish. One intercontinental ballistic missile would decimate
their floating platform "settlements".

They are sitting ducks, one well armed rogue pirate ship could finish them.

~~~
dpatru
Technology that can be used for defense is progressing rapidly. The US
military already uses unmanned flying sniper planes and Google already has
surveillance helicopter robots. I expect that it won't be too much longer
before it will be affordable to use robots and other high tech to defend a
floating city against pirates and other enemies with conventional weapons.

North Korea has shown that the easiest way to defend against invasion by the
US is to have a number of nukes. This seems to be Iran's strategy too. Until
they have nukes, they are vulnerable. After they have nukes, they are much
less likely to be attacked themselves.

If North Korea, Pakistan, and (soon) Iran have managed to get nukes, I don't
see why small groups of rich, smart, western businessmen won't be able to.

A floating settlement armed with robotic drones and nuclear missiles would be
pretty secure I think.

------
rdl
Fundamentally, I think because the super-rich have great quality of life and
freedom in most countries. They do tend to emigrate out of bad places (Russia,
etc.) where they made their fortunes and move to places like the US and UK
where they can comfortably enjoy them. If you have $10b in assets, paying
20-30% taxes on your annual investment income ($500mm to $1b/yr capital gains,
so maybe a few hundred million in taxes) in exchange for first-world quality
of life is quite worthwhile. You can always use offshore vehicles to defer
recognizing gains, too.

Once you're already wealthy, there is a lot less reason to care about taxes on
income.

~~~
mseebach
If your citizenship allows it, you can even just place your investments and
the income from it in a tax haven and only pay taxes on the money you bring
into the country to consume (which won't work with US citizenships since they
claim taxes on your worldwide income). Even your house can (probably) be owned
by an overseas holding company.

If you keep travelling, it's even easier. As I understand it, if you're a non-
dom in Britain (ie. not a British citizen, but residenced there), they don't
care about income earned outside the country (your investment holding company
in the Bahamas) and any money you spend outside of Britain.

------
patrickgzill
Dairy farmers farm cows. Hog farmers farm pigs.

Billionaires farm people.

Why would an active farmer, want to move away from his farm?

~~~
PostOnce
Re-read this comment. Let it sink in.

People read comments and keep scrolling, they're all just comments. Sometimes
you have to stop and reflect when actual wisdom is conveyed.

Large customer bases, people. Build them. Zuckerberg, Chad Hurley, Sergey Brin
& Larry Page, these people all have customers bases that number in the
hundreds of millions or billions. You get to be a billionaire by marketing to
billions of people.

------
sad_hacker
There are no undiscovered or unclaimed islands to start a new country.
Existing countries are protecting their sovereignty and territorial
integrity... in theory you can "build" a new country... an island, 22 km/14
miles from the border (territorial waters). Probably it's expensive. There are
many micronations: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_micronations> Why
gazzilionaires haven't started one - I don't know, probably their life is good
enough to enjoy it in countries that already exist.

If anyone wants to start a new country and has budget - let me know. In the
beginning we can make money by selling domain names, if ICAAN approves us. So
we need to pick a good name for our country to get a decent domain name and
make shitloads of money.

~~~
sad_hacker
We can also become a nation of internet freedom... we can get loads of
investments from people who want to move server parks to our territory to be
protected from other governments and evil censors.

~~~
ojilles
Sounds like Cryptonomicon :)

~~~
arethuza
Or Daemon & Freedom

------
zokier
There was a reality based movie about a British millionaire trying to take
over a small African country. Somebody probably could tell the details about
that.

But I think that nobody runs their own country because it just sucks. And they
all have already had far greater power and leverage via their companies than
what they could imagine getting via own country.

But it's still strange that the gazillionares do not use their money on larger
projects. Well, Google does all kind of interesting stuff. One thing I have
thought would be cool would be building a completely new internet
infrastructure to US, bringing 100Mbps speeds to every house and taking a huge
step towards IPv6.

~~~
randallsquared
_There was a reality based movie about a British millionaire trying to take
over a small African country. Somebody probably could tell the details about
that._

Interestingly, it was more recently used as inspiration for _another_
attempted takeover, and Margaret Thatcher's son ended up being involved on
some level. _The Wonga Coup_ was a fascinating account of this. Apparently
they're making a movie of _that_ , to come full circle.

~~~
zokier
Actually, it was the movie I was thinking of:
<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0783498/>

Full circle completed?

~~~
randallsquared
_Full circle completed?_

More like a spiral: <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0876570/>

The movie I was talking about is apparently not yet released, though on the
same subject. Hm.

------
jasonkester
They have:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand>

It's not a very good idea.

~~~
rdl
The Sealand people weren't rich; they were middle-class pirate radio people
who were just trying to do commercial radio in the 60s. (I lived there for 2
years 2000-2002, and the general condition of the place was fairly poor at the
start and at the end)

~~~
MurkyPast
Wait, you lived in/on Sealand? I'd love to know how you ended up living there.

~~~
rdl
<http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.07/haven.html>

I don't know if I can say "I was on the cover of Wired" correctly, since it
was an aerial shot of Sealand out of proportion on a globe, with 7 of us
standing on the helideck; I'm probably about 4 pixels.

------
peterlada
Instead of that they could just support seceding California -Oregon-Washington
from the union. They all live here anyway. It'd have about 50% of the economy
and 99% of the innovation. No more bailing out the falling empire.

~~~
patrickgzill
They could call it .. COW-Town ...

~~~
s3graham
I think the standard proposal is "United States of Canada".

------
nickpinkston
Paul Romer has a similar idea called "Charter Cities" which would be
independent areas in existing countries.

Good TED talk on it: <http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_romer.html>

------
dageshi
I think rich people found a better alternative years ago. They're called
yachts.

~~~
petervandijck
No, the better alternative is called lobbying.

------
numair
Don't confuse the skills/intellect/resources necessary to be a successful
platform developer with the skills/intellect/resources necessary to be a
successful platform operator/provider.

------
arethuza
Go to Mars - cheaper, easier and probably far more rewarding.

So say you do _really_ want to do it - even with say $100 billion will that
really buy you enough land, infrastructure and pay everyone you need to have a
fully functioning independent country until it becomes self supporting? I
don't think you could set up a self supporting first world equivalent country
for $100 billion even if you did have some decent land available (and there is
none spare at the moment).

What about the government and legal system - is it going to be a full
democracy? If not then expect to be pretty unpopular in the international
community and if it is then why bother - who says the public will support your
policies in your new country? If it isn't then expect some expensive, not
particularly loyal and fairly heavy handed security forces who will probably
instigate a coup d'etat within six months of the country being founded.

All the billionaires you mention have got there by being very smart - setting
up their own country would be about the stupidest thing you could do.

~~~
eru
Are you talking about establishing a thriving colony on Mars, or just a visit?

~~~
arethuza
A visit, maybe a base - a self sustaining "colony" is a long way away.

Pay for yourself to be the first man on Mars? People will know your name
thousands of years from now.

~~~
eru
> People will know your name thousands of years from now.

Might as well ignite a library.

------
spindritf
Maybe they're content with their influence over existing countries?

~~~
marchdown
Still strange how they don't systematically work to further their influence
and improve community. There is place for non-violent restructuring of corrupt
governments from the inside.

~~~
locopati
Why would they want to reduce corruption when it serves them so well?

~~~
marchdown
Because corrupt system is _ineffective_ system. If they have enough influence
to control the system through and through, enough resources fine-tune it to
serve their ends, enough _involvement_ to subvert it, why would they _put up
with_ ineffectiveness in their system. In a way, all rulers face this battle,
and tyrants seem to have easier time with it than elected leaders.

------
iwr
For one, there are almost(?) no unclaimed patches of land available. If you
look at a political map of the Pacific, most of it is locked up between the
EEZ of various states and micro-states.

[http://www.spc.int/aquaculture/images/stories/dfatpacific%20...](http://www.spc.int/aquaculture/images/stories/dfatpacific%202.gif)

Most of these countries are also very poor (Africa levels) and heavy
recipients of foreign aid. So politically, they are corrupt and inaccessible.

So the best bet is to build an oil-rig styled structure or a large ocean-going
ship. However, both options go into the hundreds of millions to the billions;
a super-rich individual is naturally mobile, so he doesn't need a fixed patch
of land that he politically rules.

That said, you may be interested in this:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasteading>

------
Apreche
It's easier to just incorporate a town. This has been done many times before,
such as Celebration, FL.

------
jackfoxy
Because it would make them a target of vilification. It's much wiser to put a
big chunk of your assets into a charitable trust and talk about raising taxes
on the rich. That opens doors simply being rich does not.

------
baguasquirrel
Maybe they don't think politics is fun?

------
peterlada
T is negative, but the concept of nation states is obsolete. It will be very
apparent in 20-30 years. I'd not invest my wealth in nostalgia.

~~~
mike_esspe
Lately, i often hear this prediction. What is the source of this optimism?

~~~
ebaysucks
The evolution of communications vs military technology.

The world is becoming more interconnected and subject to shocks.

Reputation systems will thus have to become increasingly efficient.

A statist legal system is a monopolistic claim on managing reputation, but its
inadequacy will become too costly to maintain.

Competitive solutions for reputation management will arise - the semantic web.

Law by force will be gradually replaced by law by reputations.

If the tacit acceptance of the legal system fades away, so does the power of
the state.

~~~
riffraff
how is evolution of military technology slower than evolutions in
communication? I mean, what scale exists to measure that? And how does it
cause nation-states to be obsolete, if something we have many proofs that
improving communication means allow nation-states to become larger.

~~~
indrax
Moore's Law doesn't apply to tanks.

------
robryan
Ah this is one of those things I've always thought would be a great idea in
theory. Would be interesting to see if you could get a poor but large country
to sell a large chunk of uninhabited land.

I don't think military is required, if you can afford the land your contacts
probably put you in a better situation than many poor nations.

------
sabj
As soon as I am a gazillionaire, I will do this. It will be my opportunity to
test out all the theories I have learned in my political science studies.

------
yuxt
This utopian concept has been exaggerated by Ayn Rand in "Atlas Shrugged" when
many successful entrepreneurs has moved away to start their own country.

~~~
dantheman
Actually in Atlas Shrugged, the men of the mind go on strike. They do not
start their own country, they remove themselves to a safe place, a hiding spot
of it you will, and wait for the crash so that can come back and rebuild
society correctly from first principles. The goal was never to create their
own country, it was to correct what is wrong with the US.

------
jbverschoor
Ok.. But they could just buy out a small country, but that would mean no clean
start. Or they could build something in the ocean

Is military really necessary??

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
Of course military is necessary. Once you have something, someone is going to
want to take it from you.Or have thousands of years of history taught us
nothing?

~~~
peterlada
Umm, Switzerland??? Significant portion of gold deposits, highest standard of
living, etc. Nobody seems to want it though. Their "army" is a few thousand
tops. Their vehicle is a Mercedes Benz G Class, seesh.

~~~
arethuza
What a truly awful example.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland>

"The armed forces consist of 134,886 people on active duty"

The Swiss have a centuries long reputation for being pretty tough - (that's
why the Pope chose to have Swiss Guards). Military service is mandatory.

"Switzerland has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world."

They are probably the only country in the world that has blast and fallout
shelters for rather more than 100% of its population.

And have you actually seen the landscape of Switzerland - it's the European
version of Afghanistan.

~~~
nickpinkston
Yea, there's a reason the Nazi's never tried invading...

Today, every able male has an an assault rifle and is required to maintain
their marksmanship - which is a national past-time with +200m ranges in most
towns.

There are hidden underground airfields, people trained/armed to blow up
tunnels at a moments notice.

Add to that crazy terrain, weather, a homogeneous/close-knit population, a
distributes governance structure, etc. - you get the one of the most
defendable country's EVER!

------
ebaysucks
Peter Thiel has funded The Seasteading Institute by Patri Friedman. Their goal
is not to start a country, but to allow anybody to do so.

------
jbverschoor
Ofcourse, it should have a really nice tld..

~~~
TamDenholm
.gaz?

------
rbonvall
It has always been the other way around: people try to own countries in order
to have a gazzilionaire-like lifestyle.

------
wladimir
I'm sure this will come as soon as 'real' countries start to fall apart, and
the age of city-states will begin...

------
mooism2
Why would they want to?

~~~
rubidium
exactly. Despite all the discussion about the difficulties of founding a
country, the biggest reason is there is no motivating factor big enough to do
so.

They have a society, people and places in which they have been successful. Why
leave that?

------
mjgoins
This is what rich white men in Europe already did. It was called Imperialism.

------
AlecDonut
In a gazzilionaire-country there would be no true wealth - just numbers!

------
duffbeer703
There are actually some proposals out there to build extra-national trade
cities in Africa to encourage Western-style development, minus the intense
corruption of African governments.

------
hootmon
The primary expense of any government is security, both local and national.
Police and Military. Protect the property of the individual. Why should Bill
and his buddies pay for an army when we do it for them? Taxes should be based
on value received, which means that those with the most property get the most
value, so they should pay the highest taxes, but in our country the opposite
is in practice. We working stiffs, with very little property, pay the lion;s
share of the police and military budget. ,

