Even at Sea, No Water for Me!
Religion — By Robin Dembroff on March 2, 2009 at 11:43 am‘When you can’t beat ‘em or bear ‘em: bail.’
Such would appear to be a motto fitting the Seasteading Institute: a grassroots organization based in San Francisco that, sick of modern politics and engorged government systems, decided they should build new frontiers instead of wasting time trying to reform existent societies that do not (or cannot) hear the individual’s voice.
How do they hope to do this? Well, their plan centers around the “international” legal status of most of the worlds’ oceans. They intend to build “permanent dwellings on the ocean” that will solve all the world’s political issues through the ‘simple’ solution of building a little social system for every type of government.
I.e.: “Honey, you know I respect your attachment for monarchy, but I heard the socialist society on Seastead C is really thriving–can’t we at least try it out for a month or two?”
I believe in a post a few weeks ago, I said something to the effect of, ‘People don’t change. Technology does.’ From Babel to Bishop Hill, (a 19th century attempt at Illinoisan utopia), people continue to seek–and rightly so–for a peaceful utopian society of brotherhood.
Ah, then there’s that awful monkey wrench… This side of heaven, people have a terrible habit of being dystopic.
Is the Seasteading Institute “it”? Is this what we’ve all been waiting for–the abandonment of those antiquated notions like “patriotism” or “community loyalty”? If you don’t like the government–leave! We’ve had enough fiery conversation in recent comment sections regarding abandoning what we dislike/criticize for the concept to be familiar. “Why help reform wrongs when it’s so much simpler and safer to ‘abandon ship’?” (Pardon the lame pun.)
I see the problem as this: let’s say I ‘abandon ship,’ and attach my flotilla-household to a new social system–if the last place couldn’t be perfect, what makes me think that a new place, habited by the same ol’ species, can attain utopia? As way of analogy, if I keep divorcing man after man, how long will it take before I recognize that the “perfect” man is a myth, (thank God!)
Or is finding something ‘better’ a good enough reason to seek a new frontier…?
I’ve heard a lot of talk recently about all the people leaving California like rats fleeing a sinking ship. I’m honestly not sure what to think about the growing movement–a slew of questions arise in my mind, such as, “Does a person owe loyalty to a state as well as a nation?” “Where is the line between responsibility for community [i.e. staying and being a good California citizen] and responsibility for family [i.e. providing them the best possible life]?
While the scenario in which the Seasteading Institute would flourish seems unlikely, would there be moral implications to a life of jumping from one society to the next at every whim? I am in no way denying there are some countries with horrible conditions in which their citizens ought to flee–of course that is true, just as it is true that there are husbands who abuse their wives to the point of justified divorce. However, Seasteads are the extreme of that attitude: “if it’s not ‘just-so,’ feel free to leave.”
Is that freedom, or just enslavement to unrealistic appetites–a demand of the world something that it lacks capacity to grant? Are we all turning into Emma Bovary’s, seeking a glittering world that is non-existent?
I don’t believe so.
In this life, the perfect community cannot exist, for communities are made of imperfect people. There is, though, a place we will never wish to leave:
“The city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb. By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it, and its gates will never be shut by day–and there will be no night there. They will bring into it the glory and the honor of the nations.” (Rev. 21)
Until that time, whether in Burma, California, or on a floating city, the Apostles words will, I firmly believe, continue to hold true: “For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing…” (Rom. 8)
Print This Post
Tweet This
Digg This
Save to delicious
Stumble it
View Comments
They intend to build “permanent dwellings on the ocean” that will solve the all the world’s political issues through the ‘simple’ solution of building a little social system for every type of government.
Of all the commentors on this list, I think I’m probably the most conservative in the sense that I actually have a degree of respect for Burke. The idea Burke confronted with the French Revolution was basically the same thing. Toss our all the old stuff and build society again from scratch only impelmenting the stuff we ‘know’ works per our use of reason.
Burke’s response was that we know a lot less than we think. A society builds up over generations of experience and learning. The result is that a society is so complicated that no person can really understand all of it. If you try to build one from scratch you’re going to miss a lot of essential elements that work in ways you’re not going to understand. He understood that tradition wasn’t sacred and he wasn’t against all change (even radical change, he supported the American Revolution for example), but he understood that conservatism’s best point was and is our limited knowledge, our inability to trust ourselves to really be able to map out all the consquences to the changes we may be tempted to make willy nilly.
Fundamentally, I think the right’s failures in recent years has happened because of that. Not becuase of gov’t spending, taxes or whatnot. Because they forgot that ignorance is their best argument and instead choose to believe their knowledge is infinite. Hence they toyed with ideas like undoing the New Deal, rebuilding Middle Eastern countries from scratch ‘in our image’ and so on. Likewise, I think this is the problem with simplistic ‘one size fits all’ ideologies like Ayn Rand’s capitalism, Austrian economics’s ‘just abolish fractional banking and all will be good’, libertarianism and so on. A real society will have deviations from any blueprint. What makes simplistic ideologies so appealing is what makes a simple blueprint appealing. They are easy to learn, easy to apply and offer answers to just about every possible questions. What makes them untrustworthy, though, is that all of these ‘features’ are built upon a fundamental disrespect for reality which is messy, complicated, and ultimately incomprehensible. Reality demands that it be approached with humility, ideologies approach reality with arrogance.
I don’t begrudge the Seasteaders their little experiment. Good luck to them and if their boats start to sink I’m happy with the US Coast Guard saving them and I’ll welcome them back to US shores. On the other hand, if they manage to create a vibrant and useful community I’d be happy to visit it on vacation and apply any good lessons they have to offer. But if they do accomplish that it will happen because they spend years, decades and generations on this project and their society will work like ours, with amazing complexity.
I’ve heard a lot of talk recently about all the people leaving California like rats fleeing a sinking ship. I’m honestly not sure what to think about the growing movement–a slew of questions arise in my mind, such as, “Does a person owe loyalty to a state as well as a nation?” “Where is the line between responsibility for community [i.e. staying and being a good California citizen] and responsibility for family [i.e. providing them the best possible life]?
The problem is a flawed political system is so pervasive – winding its tentacles around the community and family. Their abuse of power is similar to your example of an abusive husband beating his wife. We have the right to get a restraining order against bad government.
I can’t speak for other states but I can tell you that Sacramento has gone off the deep end. Of course their solution to record a deficit is to reduce just a bit the spending (“oh aren’t we great – vote for us again”) but to increase taxes and fees at every turn. I’m sorry, but you don’t need to be a genius to know that taxes do not stimulate an economy and increase revenue generation. People will buy less and save more. People will buy used from a private party with no sales tax instead of retail (do I hear Craigslist?) We are survivalists.
It’s sad how even good people (not perfect people, mind you) go to Washington D.C. or Sacramento and get corrupted. I participated in a simulated run for Congress and 1 term of office. It was an all-day event put on by Washington folk. You had to decide to sell your sole and get reelected or be true and be voted out. I was voted out in one term.
Plus, in real life, there are people who prey on elected officials to find their vulnerability. Their job is to tempt and corrupt officials with sex and drugs and vice. Then, when they succumb to temptation, they are hooked and become puppets. Very sad.
As for utopia on the sea, I’d probably get sea sick!
G,
Do you detect just a tad of arrogance in your rant? If I’m to understand your view of reality, it consists of Good People(tm) (meaning yourself and people who agree with you) who elect Good People who then go off to some faraway land (DC, Sacramento, etc.) where they are corrupted by these Bad People(tm) who prey upon their weaknesses.
Do you have any responsibility for your government? Do you take any responsibility for the policies you and your party have pushed on the local and national level? I remember when the last Governor was recalled and Arnold elected he was hyped as the solution to all CA’s problems. What happened since then?