Cyde Weys Musings

Just a few days ago, I was talking with my officemate about micronations and how awesome the concept is (he had never heard of Sealand before). We both liked the idea, but didn’t exactly see how it would be possible. All of the land on Earth is already claimed, leaving no room to create a new nation in, and the Sealand approach, declaring a new nation on an abandoned World War II-era naval platform off the coast of England, isn’t exactly a widely applicable solution. How conveniently timed, then, that Ars Technica should publish an article on seasteading.

The basic seasteading approach is to create more platforms somewhat akin to Sealand, but to do so far out in international waters, where there is no pesky United Kingdom around to claim ownership. The first few seasteading projects will be pretty expensive, and will only be affordable by the rather wealthy. Don’t look to them to alleviate the problem of overcrowding in developing nations anytime soon — although living on one would sort of be like living in a developing nation, thanks to the very limited real estate and the basic nature of the amenities — facts of life likely to scare off all but the wealthy most dedicated to the concept. I feel an amazing draw to living out in the middle of the ocean, though, and if I could make a living on a seasteading platform, I think I’d like to do so for at least a few years. I should point out that my attraction to the concept is based far more from a survivalist/return-to-nature viewpoint than from a libertarian one.

The concept is perfectly doable with today’s level of technology; that’s the really neat thing. All that’s missing is the capital investment. The basic structure of the platforms is very simple: ballast tanks underwater, a narrow concrete pole at surface level to minimize wave contact, and then a spread out platform on top. Multiple platforms can be attached with cables, gangways, flexible pipes, and wires. If the concept really takes off, a bunch of platforms could go in together on an underwater fiber-optic Internet connection to shore, and then share the connection amongst all of the platforms using a local network.

The Ars Technica article pretty thoroughly covers all of the technological and governmental aspects of making seasteading work, but amongst all the talk of libertarianism and being free from governmental intrusion, I think it’s missing something important. The concept of seasteading isn’t attractive just to libertarians. There’s an undeniable novelty to living in the middle of the ocean in a close-knit community that appeals to some fraction of the population. The idea is very survivalist, very individualist, very science fiction. If it can be done cheaply enough, I don’t think there will be any shortage of people clamoring to get into one, especially on a less-than-permanent basis. It’s true, most people have too many connections to family and friends in their communities to move out into the middle of the sea — but who wouldn’t want to go for a month at a time? Talk about the ultimate get away from it all vacation!

And in the long run, seasteading will play an increasingly important role in human society. As construction techniques get better and economies of scale come into play, land on seasteads will be significantly cheaper than in many places on Earth. Eventually, millions of people may be living in seasteads not because they choose to, but because there is no room for them anywhere on land. The oceans take up two-thirds of the planet’s surface; isn’t the spread of permanent human habitation to them inevitable?

Oh, how amazing it’d be to be one of those first lucky few who go by choice.

So it turns out that Sealand won’t be sold to The Pirate Bay, as I speculated earlier (although to be fair, that was an easy prediction to make). The reasons this deal fell through are many: The Pirate Bay isn’t able to raise nearly enough money, Britain would object to the sale as it would damage their interests (turns out Sealand isn’t totally independent), and Prince Michael of Sealand has a book/movie deal in the works regarding Sealand, which might be put in jeopardy if the micronation is sold to pirates.

So who will buy Sealand? I’m thinking it will eventually be sold, but there’s no way Prince Michael is going to get the US$1,000,000,000 he’s asking for. Sealand is a burnt-out obsolete naval defense platform with some level of autonomy (but not complete independence). Private islands could be had for much cheaper. Private islands are better because they’re real land, not just an anchored platform, they’re larger, and they wouldn’t have claims on them by first-world superpowers. It’s much easier to buy a Polynesian or Micronesian island and use it for illicit purposes; try to do that with Sealand, and Britain is almost guaranteed to re-assert their authority. They’ve only allowed Sealand to remain autonomous because it’s been worthless and harmless. If it started presenting any kind of a threat (including threats to British media conglomerate interests), you can bet it would be taken down.

This Sealand froo-foo is going from strange to Dadaist. I wrote earlier that the micronation of Sealand is now up for sale, presumably as a result of the fire in June 2006 that pretty much gutted the entire defense platform. The asking price is around £500 million.

Now, The Pirate Bay (a popular filesharing site) is announcing plans to buy Sealand. They’ve even set up a new site soliciting donations. How do they possibly expect this to work?! Wikipedia, which is in the top ten sites on the Internet, has been soliciting donations for weeks now and they haven’t even hit the $1 million mark. The Pirate Bay, by comparison, has many fewer visitors and is arguably a less worthwhile cause. They’ll be lucky to get £100,000, let alone £500,000,000.

What is next in this bizarre saga? Sealand is on the market with an absurd asking price, and now an Internet piracy site is trying to buy them? Are we getting punked by the news media? I don’t think The Pirate Bay would be happy with owning Sealand anyway; Sealand’s Internet connection is through an underwater cable that leads to the British mainland, which could easily be shut down by British authorities. Indeed, The Pirate Bay is already safer in Sweden, where their net connection isn’t at the whim of one of the most pro-copyright European governments.

I think what’s really going on is a play for publicity. The Pirate Bay knows they cannot hope to even get a fraction of a percent of the funds necessary to pay Sealand’s acting price. They do know, however, that their possible goal of buying a private island is much more achievable (on their site they say the starting price is $50,000). I think this bid for Sealand is just a bid for publicity which will ultimately go towards buying some small island and trying to turn it into an independent nation.

Boy, this is some depressing news. Everyone’s favorite micronation, Sealand, is up for sale. Sealand has existed as an independent “country” since 1967 under one rule. Now, it appears that may all be over (at least if they get the astronomical sum they are asking for). Sealand was known in recent times for hosting web servers and anonymizers that were outside of the reach of any world governments. Unfortunately, Sealand caught fire on June 23, 2006, destroying the hosting center, and probably leading up to this proposed sale.

Sealand is so fascinating to me because it represents a sort of Heinleinian ideal that most people can only dream of: making your own bona fide country, with your own laws, and truly being free to do whatever you want, outside of the reach of intrusive governments. Many critics will argue that Sealand technically never was an independent country, but over the past few decades, it has been a de facto country because it has been run independently outside of the United Kingdom’s control (and taxation, I might add).

Sealand also has some interesting history. From the second linked article:

Britain’s Royal Navy attempted to evict [Paddy Roy Bates] the following year but were unsuccessful: as they entered territorial waters, Roy of Sealand fired warning shots from the former fort.

In 1978 Dutch and German businessmen visiting Sealand to discuss a business deal kidnapped Roy’s son, but they were overpowered and held as prisoners of war before eventually being released.

The first quote reminds me a lot of Michael Cresap (b. 1742), a local historical Maryland resident who shot at the police from Pennsylvania when they tried to come in and assert dominion. The brouhaha Michael Cresap raised ultimately resulted in the drawing of the Mason-Dixon Line, because his defense had been that he was on the Maryland side of the border and that the Pennsylvanian police had no jurisdiction there.