Extropian country
Mark D. Fulwiler (mfulwiler@earthlink.net)
Thu, 19 Feb 1998 13:48:02 -0800
James Rogers <jamesr@best.com> wrote:
> I have similar reservations as to putting a large investment into a
> tropical island. Many of the tropical islands have very little elevation
> above sea level. Any number of natural occurences (large storm surge,
> tsunami, oceanic meteor impact) could have devastating consequences.
> Additionally, most of the smaller islands are not much more than
> sand-logged coral reefs with only marginally substantial foundations.
> While fine for a tropical bungalow, I would be more hesitant to build a
> really large structure on top of it. Tropical islands with solid volcanic
> or tectonic origins *are* plentiful, but tend to be significantly larger
> (i.e. expensive) than their more affordable and smaller reef-based brethren.
>
> This is why I would seriously consider the Alaskan/Canadian coastal
> islands. These islands are built of some of the oldest, hardest rock*(see
> below) on the planet, and many are more than 1000 feet in elevation.
> Additionally, this is one of the calmest coastlines on the Pacific Ocean;
> the water is *glassy*. Plenty of fresh water, lots of timber, all the
> seafood you can catch/eat, and a very mild climate (similar to Washington
> state). I initially visited the area only after my parents moved there
> (for a scant two years) and immediately fell in love with the place.
>
> Of more interest to many on this list is that there is no practical force
> of law in these areas. Local laws are, for all intents and purposes,
> absolute. Visiting the local communities is a real-life demonstration of
> how this can be very good or very bad, depending on the constitution of the
> particular community. In areas where strong self-discipline is the social
> norm, these islands are nearly a libertarian mecca; you can do whatever you
> want as long as you don't harm anyone else. However, there are some
> islands that are essentially malevolent oligarchies/dictatorships, with all
> the usual bad things associated. As an odd twist to the normal state of
> affairs, the Alaskan government has more money than it knows what to do
> with (oil revenues; there are no taxes in Alaska) and will gladly fund all
> sorts of schools/ventures/projects just to spend it for the benefit of
> improving the image of the state. One of their latest greatest projects is
> to spend their excess funds on wiring the entire state with fiber and
> high-speed switches in the attempt to turn Alaska into something resembling
> a high-tech state (even if they *are* missing the tech people). Quite
> frankly, there is a decent possibility that Alaska would sell you an island
> "pennies on the dollar" if you promised to bring a whole lot of high-tech
> expertise with you. As I said, the southern coastal islands are *not* bad
> places to live, if a bit underdeveloped.
>
> If I was to consider a permanent location for an Extropian country (per
> se), this would be my best choice based on what I know.
>
Good points. However, the main problem in establishing an Extropian
country (as I'm sure you know) is not finding some suitable land one
could buy (there are a number of islands on the market, and many more
could be had with enough cash) , but obtaining sovereignty. You might be
able to buy an island in Alaska, but Washington is not going to let you
form your own country, even if you are Bill Gates. One might be able to
buy sovereignty from a smaller, poorer country however.
Although you might consider the climate on the coast of Alaska "mild," I
believe a tropical location would have much more appeal to most people
despite the problems you mention. Hurricanes could be avoided by picking
an island near the equator. I agree that a coral atoll would be a bad
choice, but why not investigate decent volcanic islands in the tropics?
Mark Fulwiler