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?
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.
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.
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.
Well planning for an ICBM is really overkill - most micro-nations would be wiped-out by a single nuclear-tipped ICBM (which are really the only kind since everyone assumes doomsday when one is launched). You're probably referring to tactical missiles a la Tomahawks, or even large anti-ship ones like an Exocet.
They are sitting ducks, one well armed rogue pirate ship could finish them.
Why would an armed rogue ship want to do that? Seastead platforms would only have value as a floating platform. It's not as if you could easily fence the thing.
The platforms could also be hosting things of value, like a casino. A casino would probably be able to afford really good security, and its owners might well have enough political pull to get the assistance of land-nation's militaries. It would have to be a really organized and well equipped rogue pirate ship. I'm not sure these exist. The closest analogues are small open boats of armed Somalis and actual military ships.
Most likely, the platforms would be of little value to a pirate. The few that are going to be worth hitting will probably be too hard to hit.
Nothing protects small country better than enabled dual citizenship with heavy-weight countries. Who would want to attack a country if majority of its population have dual citizenship with the US or UK or any other well-developed country?
The only well-armed ships are navies. Yes, a navy or an ICBM could easily destroy a seastead. They could also easily destroy Monaco, Vanuatu, Dominica, or any other small country. The world is full of sitting ducks, yet we don't see them "finished" very often, because there is little profit in it for a government and it is politically unpopular.
I think TSI/Seasteading as a technology could be successful, I just don't think the Seastead as Sovereign State thing is going to be viable in the next 20-50 years.
Putting a Seastead in someone's 200 mile EEZ, with that country's blessing, to run a private marine park, offshore free trade zone, etc. seems quite viable. By being physically separate and potentially mobile, a host country would have a lot less ability or desire to regulate beyond basic things. There are also some inherent advantages to an offshore platform in a marine environment (there are some concrete platforms floating in the Great Barrier Reef of Australia to support scuba diving operations already).
TSI does a decent job of splitting the technical (difficult, but reasonably feasible, and predictable) from the political, compared to most free-state projects in the past.
In the 1970s a Las Vegas millionaire tried to claim his own nation when he discovered a coral reef that was exposed to the air at low tide, so he decided to build his own island:
In short: new countries give citizens of existing countries more options to vote with their feet. Existing countries will use violence to prevent this.
Doesn't matter. Article IV of the Antarctica Treaty says "no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force;", Signatories include pretty much everyone and it dates back to 1959. You can claim anything you want, but it won't matter unless everyone else recognizes and respects your claim.
Maybe there would be no tax, but the cost of getting internet, energy and food supplied there would be very taxing.
(What good is a year's worth of ramen if you have no fire to cook it on?)
It's worth noting that the only tax you're avoiding is tax on income actually earned within Antarctica -- ie. whatever trade you can manage with your fellow Byrdlanders.
You'll still get taxed on your income generated in other countries.
If they ever do start acknowledging claims, Russia or China or the USA will claim whatever you squat on, and what will you do to prevent them from that? If they wanted to build a giant monument their awesomeness, how would you stop them from building?
Pseudo-kingdoms need soldiers, or at the very least, advanced automated weaponry.
If you actually wanted to build a base on Marie Byrd Land, I'm sure it could be done relatively cheaply, in the tens-of-millions-of-dollars range. Then quite a few more million dollars a year to keep it supplied and running. Certainly well within the capabilities of any multi-billionaire.
It's still not clear why you'd want to, though. I doubt you could avoid much in taxes, and it's really unpleasantly cold down there. On the upside you'd probably be safe from pirates.
edit: A nice yacht is probably cheaper per square foot than an Antarctic base, and tends to have much better weather.
I'd say that depends completely on that existing country's willingness to give up part of its territory. As it is, pretty much all of them don't like that idea at all.
The only countries who might be willing to do that (tinpot little dictatorships, presumably) are also the ones who are likely to claim it back after a couple of years. ("What? We never sold you this island!")
I doubt you need to defend it right away... if you get more powerful - yes, why should anyone want to attack your micronation? They rather do it in diplomatical way so other countries don't recognize your sovereignty.
An American billionaire or (billionaires) sitting on a completely undefended island somewhere...
Don't you think that would be a magnet to just about every terrorist organization in the world? Not to mention if it is anywhere near East Africa I would image a few boat loads of real pirates turning up pretty quickly - even in a lot of what would look like safer neighborhoods I would expect you would start getting a lot of attention from organized crime and other very scary people.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Could in theory lay down your own fibre to several major countries and have a underwater datacenter somewhere, taking advantage of cool water for cooling? Lots of cool engineering could be done to keep it going. Power would be a issue but it could be solved. Would be kind of cool. And since it's offshore nothing can be done right? They could cut of the internet connections, but that would have to be solved by multiple secret lines to different countries/areas and possibly via satellites? I'm just theorycrafting here :D
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.
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.
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)
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.
Yes. Yes, I'm working on an actual technology startup now vs. defense contracting. It is difficult to quantify how happy I am to not be in Iraq/Afghanistan/Kuwait/etc. anymore (or, for that matter, living on a 10k sf 60 year old disintegrating concrete platform). I am in Thailand and Bali for the rest of 2010 SCUBA diving, but after that will move back to the US to be near customers.
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.
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.
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.
Current estimates for a one-way Mars expedition: about $10 billion, with this interesting comment:
"Worden said he has discussed the potential price tag for one-way trips to Mars with Google co-founder Larry Page, telling him such a mission could be done for $10 billion."
He said said: ‘His response was, Can you get it down to $1 [billion] or $2billion? So now we're starting to get a little argument over the price.’"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't see the 'tacit acceptance of the legal system' fading away because of the internet. That sounds very 1996. There will always be a 'state' of some kind, in the sense of a monopoly on the forces of coercion. Your life can become as virtual as you like, but there will always be physical police who can knock on your door.
In general though, the state will fade from relevance as you say -- but not to the point of 'obsolescence'.
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.
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.
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.
This utopian concept has been exaggerated by Ayn Rand in "Atlas Shrugged" when many successful entrepreneurs has moved away to start their own country.
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.
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?
But note that most of the countries without a military force are basically colonies of the neighbouring states, or are part of larger military associations such as NATO.
Basically you can go on without an army if you accept that you are "defended" by the closest country with one and accept to never step on their toes.
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.
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!
Take a look at the terrain you'll be fighting in. Then notice that the "army" is "everybody". Then look at how easy it is to go around the whole country instead.
There's a reason why everybody who's tried to take over Europe has decided to go around the spiky little neutral country in the middle. It's just good sense.
"Everybody" is an overstatement. Switzerland was overrun by the French during the French Revolutionary Wars and was more or less allied with Napoleon during the Napoleonic Wars. It wasn't until after the fall of Napoleon that Switzerland moved to their policy of armed neutrality, a policy which survived both World Wars.
The Swiss Army is actually pretty substantial. Approximately 200k men under arms, which for a country with their population, is decent. Their policy is armed neutrality, not just neutrality.
The G-class is a great light patrol vehicle; better than the UK's Land Rover or the HMMWV for many tasks.
They have F-18s, Leopard main battle tanks, lots of fixed fortifications, etc.
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?
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.
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. ,
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.