A common objection to Seasteading is that a dictatorship can form which prevents people from leaving. Suppose before a person moved to a Seastead community they form a smart contract. The governors of the Seastead and the person deposit money into a Multi-Signature wallet that can only be unlocked if certain conditions are met. It could be stipulated in the Smart Contract if a dictatorship is formed where people are not allowed to leave the deposit money will be locked away forever. The Smart Contract can take inputs from the news available to ensure that a dictatorship has not been formed. Perhaps the only way to unlock the Multi-Signature wallet is if a person moves a certain distance away from the Seastead community as they cannot be held hostage by a dictator at that distance, which can be verified by satellites available to the Smart Contract. Since the governors of the Seastead will have deposits with many people they will be incentivized to adhere to the Smart Contract so as to not loose money.
Who has ever said this? This is the opposite of what seasteading is.
So it’s kinda like those contracts called “laws”, where the downside to breaking them is loss of freedom or life, and if the persons responsible to enforcing the contract can ignore them if they wish? I think in a place where someone who has been paying $millions in taxes can be put into jail, so the government forfeits the $millions, and instead pays to keep the person incarcerated, is not caring that the “wallet” is locked forever. And there’s the obvious cases where someone bought and and pays taxes to keep the land, as the contract for owning the land, and the government takes it because they can make more tax money doing something else with the land, even if it means putting the owner in a steel and concrete box the rest of their life (it’s called “eminent domain”). I doubt the money a seastead tenant can put up and afford to lose beats what the seastead dictatorship is willing to lose to have it’s way.
I suspect your concept of “being far enough away that the seastead cannot hold a person hostage” is like not being part of a seastead, in an unknown location, and staying away from the seastead in perpetuity.
If you have a law that says “you cannot kill someone”, and “you cannot own a gun if under a certain age”, and “you cannot bring a gun to a certain location”, and “you cannot discharge a gun in a certain location”, and “you cannot scare large quantities of humans”, and “you cannot disrupt legal and peaceful assemblages”, i think you would be stupid as shirt to feel safe for making another law making it illegal to kill people with a gun in a school. Or a contract in some sort of blockchain. Really, many school shooters kill themselves, losing their lives, you think the loss of some money is going to deter them? Or a dictator who wants your yacht?
And many times it’s been shown that contracts made with a government which no longer exists also no longer exist. Even in business, like the bankruptcy of General Motors in the usa, contracts become void.
@Elwar did someone say a dictatorship cannot form on a seastead? I suspect they are inevitable.
The ideal of seasteading is that you can move your house if you don’t like your government.
A dictatorship can form only if the people that live there support the dictatorship.
The answer I like most about seasteads going to war was
If one day your leaders decide to go to war with another seastead or country, they may be surprised to wake up in the morning to find that all of their citizens have floated away.
That’s why I push for modularity and ease of people being able to come and go as they please. All of my designs have taken this into account.
Or there’s a police or military to execute the dictator’s commands. I guess the trick will be to know when to relocate before it happens.
Why worry about an imaginary dictatorship that might happen on an imaginary seastead?..
If any “worries” should be addressed now, would be the economic sustainability, rather than the political one, in my view.