Libertarian paradise?
Some experts have scoffed at the legal and logistical practicalities of seasteading. Margaret Crawford, an expert on urban planning and a professor of architecture at Berkeley, calls it "a silly idea without any urban-planning implications whatsoever." Other observers have mocked it outright, such as Slate's Jacob Weisberg, who deemed it perhaps "the most elaborate effort ever devised by a group of computer nerds to get invited to an orgy." Despite the naysayers, Thiel appears firmly committed to the idea; he has so far funneled $1.25 million to the Seasteading Institute.
"When you start a company, true freedom is at the beginning of things," he says and slides the thought over to the topic of nations. "The United States Constitution had things you could do at the beginning that you couldn't do later. (Like slavery?) So the question is, can you go back to the beginning of things? How do you start over?"
Read more.
I sure would like to live on an oil rig constructed without a building code and governed by a corporation.
2 comments:
Oh come on now...
First, this isn't a libertarian dream, mainly because there is no way operations of this sort would be feasible without the one thing libertarians are supposed to hate: State intervention.
Second, government regulation is far from a guarantee of safety. Had I the choice, I would have much rather worked on a BP oil rig that was fully insured by a private company and subject to strict liability than one that has to conform to corporate-influenced regulations enforced by inspectors who do not have a vested interest in the operation. (Do you think a private insurance company staring down the barrel of hundreds of millions of dollars in liability is going to allow a single screw loose on the rig?) Some government-mandated safety codes/oversight are necessary, especially for industries where there exists no good market alternative (e.g., agriculture and food service), but it's far from clear--as an empirical matter--that regulation produces superior results to liability.
I think they would allow a screw loose for a price, but insurance companies don't do inspection, they just look at your record. Cost risk and all that.
Actually, the building code works quit well. I could only imagine the horror that would take place if, say, California decided to substitute strict liability for the latest ASCE 7 seismic code.
One of the main reasons I am doubtful of something like strict liability working, is that it assumes people will act rationally. Some people will, others will be risk takers, even when the risks are idiotic. I've seen people risk their careers, business and significant money over a few thousand dollars. I don't have the faith that higher stakes will significantly curb the risk taking. In fact, I think they would increase, given that they wouldn't actually be breaking any established methodologies.
Post a Comment