Galt's Gulch is on the oceans | oceanic business alliance

(Wilfried Ellmer) #12

Light honeycomb concrete composite beyond narrow coding - solve the ocean colonization bottleneck.

(Wilfried Ellmer) #13

A new Atlantis - not a sci-fi Fantasy - a survival and development need on a 7,5 billion population oceanic planet…

Vent Base Alpha | human settlement of the mid ocean ridge for mining and energy…

• [Oceanic Aquaculture](

Breakaway Civilization

(Wilfried Ellmer) #14

Is the world running out of space | BBC - Future

By Rachel Nuwer

1 September 2015

Sometimes it’s difficult to fathom that the world could actually become even more crowded than it is today – especially when elbowing through a teeming Delhi market, hustling across a frenetic Tokyo street crossing or sharing breathing space with sweaty strangers crammed into a London Tube train. Yet our claustrophobia-inducing numbers are only set to grow.

While it is impossible to precisely predict population levels for the coming decades, researchers are certain of one thing: the world is going to become an increasingly crowded place. New estimates issued by the United Nations in July predict that, by 2030, our current 7.3 billion will have increased to 8.4 billion. That figure will rise to 9.7 billion by 2050, and to a mind-boggling 11.2 billion by 2100.

Yet even today, it’s difficult enough to get away from one another. Drive a few hours outside of New York City or San Francisco, into the Catskill Mountains or Point Reyes National Seashore, and you’ll find crowds of city-dwellers clogging trails and beaches. Even more remote and supposedly idyllic spaces are feeling the crush, too. Backcountry permits for the Grand Tetons in Wyoming sell out months in advance, while Arches National park in Utah had to shut down for several hours last May due to a traffic gridlock.

For those who can afford the luxury of occasionally escaping other members of our own species, doing so often requires getting on a plane and travelling to increasingly far-fetched locales. Yet humanity’s footprint extends even to the most seemingly isolated of places: you’ll find nomadic herders in Mongolia’s Gobi desert, Berbers in the Sahara and camps of scientists in Antarctica.

This begs the question: as the world becomes even more crowded, will it become practically impossible to find a patch of land free from human settlement or presence? Will we eventually overtake all remaining habitable space?

Taking a stab at answering these questions requires examining what we know about where people will likely base themselves in the future, and what life will be like then. For starters, experts predict that – reflecting current trends – an increasing number of us will live out our lives in cities. As agriculture becomes more efficient, people abandon jobs in that shrinking and difficult sector and instead take up ones in urban manufacturing or service. This has been going on for some decades. In 1930, just 30% of the world’s population lived in cities, compared to about 55% today. By 2050, however, about two-thirds will be based in urban areas.

“Virtually all population growth between now and the end of the century will be in cities,” says Joel Cohen, head of the Laboratory of Populations at Rockefeller University and Columbia University, and author of a book called How many people can the Earth support? “It boils down to more than one million additional people living in cities every five to six days from now until 2100.”

Around half of the world’s population will live in smaller cities of half-a-million to three million residents. The rest will live in megacities, or those that harbour 10 million or more, which will mostly be located in developing and emerging economies such as China, India and Nigeria. Because of governance challenges, however, cities themselves probably won’t exceed far beyond 10 million or so. Instead, mega-regions – places where urban sprawl continues for miles and encompasses a number of cities, as seen today in places like the greater New York City area and China’s Pearl River Delta – will become the norm. Both cities and regions will expand geographically as well as become denser.

“People can live at much higher population densities – it is possible,” says John Wilmoth, director of the Population Division of the United Nations. “As someone who lives in Manhattan, I have to say that it’s not awful.”

Manhattan’s educational, cultural and employment opportunities – as well as its health care options, safety regulations and relatively efficient infrastructure – all contribute to the high quality of life its residents enjoy. Those are not universal urban guarantees, however, and they do not necessarily develop organically as a city or country grows. As Adrian Raftery, a professor of statistics and sociology at the University of Washington, points out: “Increases in population have to be planned for.”

It takes capable governments and institutions to organise basic amenities such as freshwater, sanitation and waste disposal. “But the problem,” Cohen says, “is that managerial talent is in short supply.” Worryingly, the places that are most in need of such oversight today are also the ones where most of humanity’s growth is projected to occur. Much of the future population increase will come from Africa, which will shoot up from its current one billion people to over four billion by 2100. “The Africa projections are really scary,” says John Bongaarts, vice president and distinguished scholar at the Population Council, a non-profit research organisation based in New York City. “A large proportion will end up in urban slums, which is not a recipe for happy living.”

The problem, he continues, is that Africa’s large cities – and, to some extent, Asia’s as well – are not equipped to absorb all of that population influx.

Indeed, places like Lagos, Dhaka and Mumbai already face tremendous challenges at current levels. “People buy water at great [high] prices from street vendors, human waste is all over the place and garbage is just abandoned – not to even speak of green spaces around the city or quality of habitation,” Cohen says. “I don’t think we are preparing adequately in thinking about the placement and organisation, or the political and environmental security, of growing cities.”

Even in developed countries, however, standards of living will probably not continue to improve at the same rate as in recent years. “We’ve had a few decades of extraordinarily rapid economic growth, with poverty declining in both rich and poor countries,” Bongaarts says. “But this will become much more difficult in the future.”

The reasons, he says, are three-fold. Wealthy countries are ageing, meaning their rate of growth and innovation will begin to slow. Secondly, the environmental odds of unencumbered growth are stacked against us: we have already used up the most productive land, dammed the most energetically profitable rivers and tapped into the easiest-to-reach groundwater. Finally, inequality is becoming an increasing problem. While the average American’s median income has not budged much in the past few decades, the top 1% is doing increasingly well. “That phenomenon will continue into the future and in part will be driven by environmental issues,” Bongaarts says.

Climate change is another wild card that could have a significant impact on how both developed and developing urban centres play out in the future. Around 60% of all cities that currently have a million residents or more are at risk of at least one type of major natural disaster, many of them climate-related, and even the most well-organised, highly developed cities have yet to fully plan for these threats. “People oftentimes don’t want to have this discussion because it’s associated with an alarmist view of climate change, but it’s worthwhile to consider what catastrophic climate change would mean for habitable space,” says Michail Fragkias, an applied social scientist at Boise State University.

While the impact of many of these issues could lessen with proper planning, outside of a few progressive nations and cities, there is not much evidence that that is occurring. “No doubt the problems will work themselves out, one way or another,” Cohen says. “But likely at a cost of tremendous and avoidable human suffering.”

Cities, however, are not the only places that will experience future change due to growing populations. Rural and remote places that are not strictly protected will likely see a modest increase in human habitation, too. “With a combination of climate change and technology, it’s not unthinkable that Antarctica might become inhabited, although it’s hard to imagine it being densely populated,” Raftery says. This also means that, for those with the means to do so, finding a quiet corner free from humanity’s mark will become even more challenging. There will simply be too many other people with the same idea in mind.

None of this, however, means that we will run out of actual space to live. Around half of the world’s land currently holds around 2% of the planet’s population, whereas only about 3% of total land supports more than half of humanity. But a growing population does mean that the number of relatively pristine places left to visit will also likely decrease, thanks to an ever-increasing demand for resources needed to support urban lives. “I’d say there’s no threat of the world’s rainforests all being taken over by cities,” says Karen Seto, a professor of geography and urbanisation at Yale University. “The bigger threat is the indirect impact of urbanisation on those landscapes.” Indeed, cities require wood for creating buildings and furniture, agricultural land for growing food, space to dispose of tonnes of rubbish produced on a daily basis – and much more.

Eventually, world population will likely level off, Wilmoth says. Even with our numbers skyrocketing into the billions, growth throughout this century is actually already slowing, and is projected to continue to do so. Many decades from now, human population might even begin to decline. For the foreseeable future, however, we are headed toward an increasingly crowded Earth – although the conditions of that world are still uncertain.

(Wilfried Ellmer) #15

Is the world running out of space ? - Spezies Extinction = rivets popping out of our life support sistem…


Zzzzz … more commercial links spam posts from @Elmo. :worried:

(Wilfried Ellmer) #17

Back to Topic: Galt’s Gulch is on the oceans…

Light honeycomb truss structure | floating structure | floating city

A good example for a shell home that can be used in a train configuration…

Serious posts only - please respect this space… do not clutter your obsessive nonsense here…

• Open your own thread for the “talks you prefer” and keep them there under an adequate thread topic to avoid killing the threads by boredom… do not bore the auditorium here.

• Do not interfere, troll, molest… (frusha | dohse | special )

• Seasteading is about interference freedom.

The thread starter.

The Film Tomorrowland paints a nice picture why we need to get on the task to engineer a better future in a interference free space…

Context: | Why have we lost optimism about the future ? | Why has so little of the development we imagined to be in place for the 21st century been made a reality - are we falling short to maximize progress ?

Context : Breakaway Civilization on the Ocean

Is the oceanic real estate business a way to deliver Galt’s Gulch ? / Tomorrowland / Atlantis / utopia ?

#To Galt’s Gulch They Go
Over the boom and through the bust . . .

Thomas Frank

There was a time when Atlas would frown and the world of nations would tremble. He was as mighty as Zeus and as petulant as a teenager. His wrath was irresistible, and he was easily provoked. Badmouth him and he might just drop his burden and walk away. Elect someone he didn’t approve of and he’d put a lightning bolt up your ass.

And scream it did. Still, these were the early days of collective capitalist action, and there was a certain brutality and clumsiness to the proceedings. Not every American firm doing business in Chile went along with the program—the high-minded banks, for example, squealed about their policy of “non-involvement in the political affairs of the countries where they do business.” And in the end, Atlas’s goals for the Southern Cone were achieved only by means of an ugly military coup.Chile learned the hard way about minding the feelings of the business-class god. In 1970 that country selected as president one Salvador Allende, a socialist of the old school who quickly set about nationalizing banks, telecom concerns, and so on. American companies naturally feared these developments and laid plans to push the country down a different path. They would withdraw investments, executives mused; they would halt purchases of Chilean goods; and they would persuade others to do the same. President Richard Nixon, who was clearly thinking along the same lines, told his CIA director to “make the economy scream.”

In later years, Atlas would grow more subtle in expressing himself, more refined. When François Mitterrand was elected president of France in 1981—another socialist pursuing an array of nationalizations and expanded rights for labor—there was no need for a junta of generals to intervene. Mitterrand pumped the depressed French economy full of Keynesian stimulus, but his nationalizations were too much to take: the private sector simply refused to play along. The New York Times spoke of an “investment strike,” rich Frenchmen moved abroad, and Mitterrand himself moaned about a guerre sociale conducted by the bosses. This socialist was no Salvador Allende: he came into office at the head of a good-sized majority, he presided over one of the largest economies in the world, and he was fully committed tto the American-led security program of the era. But none of that mattered to peevish Atlas.

It took only two years for Mitterrand to capitulate. In 1983 he embarked on his famous economic U-turn, one of the most depressing episodes in the entire gloomy history of the neoliberal conquest. Economic orthodoxy returned to France in triumph. Entrepreneurs were celebrated. Labor unions went into a decline from which they have never recovered.

A similar episode took place in those days in Jamaica, where the socialist prime minister, Michael Manley, pleaded with the business community to invest, but without result: their mistrust was simply too great. Another unfolded in Canada, where large national corporations, according to one witness, threatened to pick up their marbles and go home unless Pierre Trudeau’s government abandoned plans to close certain tax loopholes.

And finally America itself got a taste of Atlas’s power. The immortal remark Bill Clinton addressed to his economic advisers shortly after being elected president in 1992—“You mean to tell me that the success of the program and my reelection hinges on the Federal Reserve and a bunch of fucking bond traders?”—will stand forever as testimony to the power of the visible hand. Seven years later, the administration had been converted to the cause so utterly that it now rationalized the things Atlas did to states that dared to regulate: “In a global economy where capital can be invested anywhere,” quoth vice president Al Gore in 1999, “red tape is like an economic noose that says: if you send your investments here, we’re going to strangle them with bureaucracy, inefficiency, and forms, fees, and requirements you can barely even understand.” Even for Americans, certain conventional acts of public administration were now beyond the horizon of the permissible. By 1999, not even a red-baiter like Richard Nixon would have been able to escape the wrath of the business god, thanks to his worshipful hours at the altar of Keynesianism. Just let the infidel try his wage and price controls in the decade of “globalization,” and it’d be his economy that would scream.

In France they have a phrase for the inveterate hostility of financial interests to the political Left: the mur d’argent, a wall of money against which reformers fruitlessly hurl themselves. In English-speaking lands we use a more active term: we call it a “capital strike.”

The phrase comes down to us from a period of economic desperation and left-wing righteousness. Faced with a severe recession in 1937–38, officials of the second Franklin Roosevelt administration chose to blame a “strike of capital” undertaken for political reasons—a collective act of sabotage by the economic royalty. Today, of course, we know that the actual cause of that recession was the Roosevelt administration’s own abrupt clampdown on Keynesian stimulus, a policy it undertook in an ill-advised attempt to balance the federal budget. But the hatred for the super-rich ran hot in those days, and the class-war explanation for the slump is what sold.

A “capital strike,” according to the 1938 understanding of the phrase, is a highly unusual event: a coordinated action directed by people like the group that Roosevelt’s advisers called the “sixty families,” a term they borrowed from a conspiracy-minded bestseller of the day. This is also the version enshrined by Ayn Rand in her 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged, where it’s organized money versus the idiot pee-pul, only the moral poles are reversed, and the rich supermen masterminding the walkout are heroes rather than villains.

Were we to apply the term strictly, a “capital strike” would mean a confrontation in which the wealthy decline to take short-term profits in order to gain an advantage that might open up after the capitulation of the other side—meaning the left-wing politicians who always darken the horizons of the wealthy. This strict definition would also imply a certain amount of organization in order to maintain discipline—an owners’ committee, or a sort of radicalized Chamber of Commerce. Striking capital, defined this way, wouldn’t just want to get a better return somewhere else; it would be after political changes here at home.

In this narrow sense of the term—in which the business community comes together as a politically motivated cartel—capital strikes are fairly rare. But if we understand a “capital strike” more like an investors’ version of a union work-to-rule campaign—financiers go through the motions and show up for work, but their hearts aren’t in it—we start to see examples all over the place. Now a “capital strike” is just another name for everyday financial functions: the movement or idling of money that occurs when companies go looking for optimal business environments. When companies demand concessions from a city or a county or a state, for example. Or when rich people flock to a tax haven. Or when money flees a country that has started nationalizing certain industries. Or when lobbyists threaten to move an operation abroad if a certain regulation is enforced.

By this definition, “capital strikes” are everywhere, happening all the time. We are afraid to tax financial transactions, lest the home bases for our own financial markets decamp to swinging London. We dare not regulate credit default swaps, lest the geniuses who make them decide to “shift their activity to jurisdictions that provide more appropriate legal and regulatory frameworks,” as some official someone actually said back in 1999. A presidential candidate tells us we must give big banks a tax holiday, or else they won’t ever repatriate the billions that they’ve parked overseas. Each of these is a capital strike, as is the far less exotic spectacle of a company choosing suburbs over city or locating the site for its new plant in open-shop South Carolina instead of union-friendly Illinois. And they are, if we think about the matter this way, both common and extremely effective.

Whatever specifics we associate with it, the phrase “capital strike” is intended to be an expression of great contempt. It was the deed, declared Robert Jackson, a Roosevelt official who would later become a Supreme Court justice, of an “economic oligarchy of autocratic, self-constituted and self-perpetuating groups,” which society had little power to control. Unable to get their way at the ballot box, these aristocrats now demanded it by threat of economic force. Their relationship with We the People, according to this picture, is one of constant extortion.

Of course, the preferred brand image for most businesses is precisely the opposite: pure, mystical oneness with the vox populi. The common man speaks and corporate America listens, in every situation giving the little people exactly what they want. No business wants to be seen as a peevish, grasping tyrant. The pro sports franchise owner who insists that taxpayers build him a new stadium, and skyboxes too, if you please, is hardly a beloved figure in American culture.

Over the last few years, however, certain reaches of the political Right have developed an outright cult of the capital strike. We can see it, for example, in the resurgent popularity of Atlas Shrugged and its reversal of the strike-novel tropes of the thirties. In 2011, John Boehner, speaker of the House of Representatives, characterized the economic slump as a matter of “job creators” being “on strike.” Before long, certain conservatives were even trying to flip the script of the Great Depression itself—announcing that what happened in 1937–38 really was a capital strike. In his syndicated newspaper column, Michael Barone, the coauthor of The Almanac of American Politics, has used the supposed capital strike of the Roosevelt years as a warning for Barack Obama no fewer than seven times since 2010.

Every news item, to these apostles of the capital strike, vibrates with the universal political chorus: Do what business wants! Do what business wants! Do what business wants! Or! Else!

Hence the grasping at stray news stories for any hint that the uprising of the moneyed is finally on. Phil Mickelson, a golfer who makes almost $48 million per year, announced in January that he was considering moving out of California due to high state taxes there; the Right leapt for joy to hear it, with an editorial in the Wall Street Journal urging this man who chases a little white ball for a living to “vote with his Gulfstream” and find some low-tax somewhere to sulk in.

Libertarians cheer to see Gérard Depardieu, a star of the French film industry, give up his French citizenship in order to avoid paying the higher taxes imposed by the country’s new Socialist government. They roll over with Randy ecstasy to see Bernard Arnault, CEO of LVMH and the richest man in Europe, apparently do the same. In both cases, these poor tax refugees, along with their bold billionaire friends, are said to be “going Galt.” In fact, this is the second time Arnault has deprived the ingrate patrie of his genius: he also ran bravely away back in 1981, when Mitterrand got elected and frightened everyone out of their wits. In the fullness of time, however, Arnault returned to France, where the Mitterrand government kindly helped him to take over a floundering textile conglomerate; Arnault promptly dumped the less profitable divisions of the enterprise, and thus launched—with government help—his empire of tawdry luxury brands. Depardieu, for his part, has enjoyed a long career in the heavily subsidized French film industry, appearing in such government-backed winners as the Asterix movies . . .

Instead, what conservatives wonder—what confounds them utterly—is why no one is making the economy scream over here. Inside the bubble of libertarian purity, everyone knows we are suffering under the thumb of a tyrant who is worse than Mitterrand, worse than Pierre Trudeau, worse than Michael Manley—maybe even worse than Allende. You might point out to them that personal taxes are still relatively low in America; that we just finished bailing out the banks; that the stock market is booming; that organized labor is weaker today than it has been since the year 1900; that businesses get whatever they want from state and local governments; that the free-trade agreements just keep coming . . . none of it would make any difference. Inside the bubble, everyone knows that fundamental American values are under attack, that average people are persecuted by arrogant college professors and power-mad bureaucrats, that the free-enterprise system is breathing its last. Inside the bubble, this is a matter of complete conviction. It does not require proof.Ah, but I see I am beginning to wander into one of the perennial dead ends of writing about the Right: thinking that contradictions matter. In truth, Atlas just doesn’t care about such boring details. I mean, how many times have we heard that some libertarian hero earned his pile in Stalin’s U.S.S.R, or made millions off some invention pioneered for him by big government, or spent his entire career at some business-subsidized think tank, never once venturing out into the “free market” that he prescribes ritualistically for everyone else? Libertarian hypocrisy is an old story—and in the bubble world of laissez-faire, it’s a story that counts for nothing.

What it requires, given our failure to unseat the dictator Obama by conventional means, is action. Direct action.

But where are the leaders? Why is Atlas allowing this to go on? Why isn’t Wall Street issuing ultimatums to the Kenyan commie? Why aren’t the fucking bond traders crushing his program? Why has business investment grown almost 8 percent a year for the past three years? I mean, come on: Is a sulking pro golfer really the best we can do? Inside the bubble, none of it makes sense.

The only possible answer is that corporate America has become so devitalized, so compromised by the tyrant’s cash, that it can no longer fight. Big business has dropped the torch; only small entrepreneurs can save the situation, can restore the dream to the parched desert of statism. And so have flowered a hundred wild schemes in which lesser individuals imagine how they might withdraw from the life of the nation and rouse Atlas from his slumber. “How many times since Obama came to power has withdrawing your services sounded like a good idea to you?” wrote an essayist recently on one prominent right-wing website, noting that he was speaking to anyone who “works hard to make more than $200,000 a year in a small business.”

Yes, strike! Strike! Strike! But how? How can you “withdraw” the “services” that net you such an admirable annual haul without, you know, actually endangering your bank account? How can you arrange matters so you won’t have to endure the will of the majority, but they and their beloved state will still have to protect you?

Democracy is a problem, all right. Fortunately, entrepreneurs are at work on a solution. And all their innovations point in one direction: withdrawing physically into some libertarian laager—some mountaintop or island or remote state—where free-market principles will be observed with the zealotry they require.

There are, for example, several different plans floating around out there to launch a free-market hideaway named “Galt’s Gulch,” after the fictional place Ayn Rand’s fictional billionaires went to hide during their walkout. One of them is in Chile—made forever safe by that early, bloody act of free-market utopianism—while another, following closer to Rand’s text, is located in Colorado, which its organizers hope to make a center for the “Asset Management” industry.

Glenn Beck, the Constitution-minded conspiracy theorist, is also promoting a model town/theme park where entrepreneurial genius can “retreat from the world” and where all the civic gods of the nineteenth century will be restored to their rightful place. Oh, there will be TV studios, small businesses, a church, and freedom by the bushel. Beck has of course referred to it as a real-life Galt’s Gulch, and has compared it to Disneyland—or what Disneyland was meant to be before it sold out. What a combination: a veritable Skousenland.

Another model libertarian town, “the Citadel,” builds on three of the lousiest ideas in city planning, each making the others even worse. This burg, intended for an Idaho fastness, is not merely to be gated. It will be a medieval-style walled village—like Carcassonne, I suppose, only minus the nineteenth-century improvements. It is to be an American suburb, only without the rules about recycling or architecture. It is to be a factory town, like Pullman, only one that manufactures guns instead. Don’t let this last fact scare you, though. Although everyone in the Citadel is expected to be a crack marksman, there will surely be no hostility between factory owners and factory workers, since the prospectus warns “Marxists, Socialists, Liberals, and Establishment Republicans” to live somewhere else.

Places like Kansas are enthusiastically entering what economists used to call the “race to the bottom,” aiming to cut taxes to zero in the complete assurance that this is how you win the peripatetic billionaire’s favor. (And don’t fear the state’s regulatory apparatus: they’re only keeping it around to harass abortion clinics.) Legislators in Hawaii, meanwhile, have discovered a detour to the ocean floor, proposing that the state compete for the favor of the peripatetic celebrity by cracking down on annoying newspaper photographers.Then there are the usual libertarian schemes to launch a microstate in the middle of the ocean, or in space, or by seceding from the union, or by luring so many wingers to a given area (New Hampshire; the mountains of North Carolina) that its flavor is permanently altered. There’s a group of American management thinkers who want to (and probably will) carve privately owned cities out of the country of Honduras—itself delivered to “freedom” by a good old military coup in 2009—in order to set up their own free-market utopias.

A real estate developer in Michigan has dreamed up a plan in which an island off the coast of Detroit becomes an independent commonwealth and thereby transforms itself into a second Saipan, where taxes are low, schools are private, and everyone is rich (it will cost $300,000 a head to join up). The main industry in this magical place will be the good clean businesses of finance, real estate, and more finance—mmmm, you can almost see the money and the talent fleeing there already. And so packed with quality will it be, this bantustan of the rich, that it will ironically spark a revival of the city from which it has hived itself off. Unless a resentful Canadian navy has blasted it back to wilderness by then, of course.

What do you call it when average people try to mimic the behavior of bond traders and the great corporations, withdrawing into a fortified enclosure the moment they don’t get their way? Is it really Disneyland or Hong Kong? Isn’t Dubai more like it? Or apartheid South Africa? Or the Branch Davidian compound? Or maybe Brook Farm, reconfigured for the Bushmaster set?

As I read over the plans for these nasty little anti-utopias, these projects born of delusion compounded by delusion, I can’t help but think that the closest parallel is to be found in the first half of the nineteenth century, when ideologues of white supremacy launched private military expeditions in order to peel away pieces of Central America for the slaveholding American South—and then, when those endeavors failed, built their whip ‘n’ chains utopia by seceding from the insufferably righteous United States, which had just chosen as president a man they all knew to be a crazy radical. If a work of inspiring fiction is required, the utopians might consider F. Scott Fitzgerald’s story, “The Diamond as Big as the Ritz,” in which a Southern slave owner moves, Galt-like, to an uncharted valley in remotest Montana, convincing his human property that the Confederacy won the Civil War and thus, through a clever falsification of history, managing to keep them in bondage while he himself grows fabulously wealthy. After all, if the truth won’t set you free, well, then neither will Atlas.

The larger question of the capital strike will still be with us long after each of these schemes lapses inevitably into failure: Who really rules in this republic of ours? The people and their elected representatives? Or the crotchety god of private business? From campaign finance rules to free trade agreements to the Internet itself, it seems sometimes like nearly everything has been designed to empower business further, to persuade the self-righteous rich that they need tolerate the bullshit of democracy only in tiny amounts. We laugh today at Glenn Beck’s desperation to withdraw into a Jeffersonian Disneyland of his own. But tomorrow, when the bond traders are back on their feet, the joke assuredly will be on us.

Oceanic Business Alliance Work Hypothesis:

• Politics - less is more. | ocean colonization is about the technology bottleneck |

• If it is broken - can we fix it ? | project pipeline | try fast - fail cheap - try again |

• Big things have small beginnings | transition capacity |

• No way to do business as usual beyond the next 30 years. | sustainability |

• All business will end up in the interference free space of the oceans | Ocean Sphere | SabMiller |


It is always “on topic” to point out to any potential new readers that @ellmer isn’t really providing new information.

@Elmo is only spamming the comment threads with photos and links that ultimately lead to his phony “investment” scheme for the Elmo Association (aka, “Elmo’s Ass.”) of financial losers.

Just like the Admin wrote …
"… over and over and over and over…". :open_mouth:


(Wilfried Ellmer) #20

• Why we can not debate our plans with everybody on a 7,5 billion inhabitant planet.

• Why only “smart comments” can (and should) be responded.

• The need for a FILTER in forum discussion

• The need for “Going Galt” in general.


Finally … we agree on something …

“The need for a FILTER in forum discussion”

It’s called … THE ADMIN. :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes::stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes::stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

(and the Admin wrote …)


The FILTER speaks. It says …


SPAM filter… to eliminate 'come to W.E.‘s sites and give W.E. your money’ posts.

(Wilfried Ellmer) #24

Hmm - the interference problem seems to be an universal issue - even on this thread …

A guy creating multiple fake ids and cluttering his nonsense everywhere can make the thread unfeasible and unconvenient for all of us…
Mad reason whatever he believes to have for his action…
This is why people “go Galt” in first place…it is not always about state control - it is about undue private interference also, and the human “right to do your thing interference free” in general.
Seasteading is after all a quest for interference freedom…
For the special… - please do not respond…

Back to topic…

#Honduras Shrugged

Dec 10th 2011 | The Economist

DISGUSTED by an increasingly invasive state, America’s most capable entrepreneurs retreat to Galt’s Gulch, a libertarian commune. That was the theme of Ayn Rand’s magnum opus, “Atlas Shrugged”, a sacred text for libertarians ever since it was published in 1957. Actually creating such an enclave has been the dream of many fans of small government (or of none at all). Several have had a try at it, but their efforts have always ended in disaster.

Now, for the first time, libertarians have a real chance to implement their ideas. In addition to a big special development region, the Honduran government intends to approve two smaller zones. And two libertarian-leaning start-ups have already signed a preliminary memorandum of understanding with the Honduran government to develop them.

One firm goes by the name of Future Cities Development Corporation. It was co-founded by Patri Friedman, a grandson of Milton Friedman, a Nobel laureate in economics, and until recently executive director of the Seasteading Institute, a group producing research on how to build ocean-based communes. The other is called Grupo Ciudades Libres (Free Cities Group) and is the brainchild of Michael Strong and Kevin Lyons, two entrepreneurs and libertarian activists.

Both share a purpose: to build “free cities”. Last April all three spoke at a conference organised by Universidad Francisco Marroquín, a libertarian outfit in Guatemala. In September they and Giancarlo Ibárgüen, the university’s president, launched the Free Cities Institute, a think-tank, to foster the cause.

As so often with enthusiasts, divisions within the cause run deep. The two firms hail from different parts of the libertarian spectrum. Mr Friedman is an outspoken critic of democracy. It is “ill-suited for a libertarian state”, he wrote in an essay in 2009—because it is “rigged against libertarians” (they would always lose) and inefficient. Rather than giving its citizens a voice, he argues, they should be free to exit; cities should compete for them by offering the best services.

The second firm’s backers appear to be less radical. A founder of several charter schools, Mr Strong is now the force behind FLOW, a movement that claims to combine libertarian thinking “with love, compassion, social and environmental consciousness”, says its website. He too prefers exit over voice (meaning that he thinks that leaving and joining are better constraints on executive power than the ballot box). But he also believes that democratic consent is needed in certain areas, such as criminal justice. His goal in Honduras is less to implement libertarian ideals than to reduce poverty and to speed up economic development.

Some in the Honduran government have libertarian leanings, which is one reason why the authorities have moved so quickly. But when the master developers for the new zones are selected next year, strong political credentials will not be enough—and may even prove to be a drawback. Mr Friedman is stressing a difference between his political beliefs and his firm. “Ideology makes bad business,” he says, adding that Future Cities Development wants to focus on the needs of the people who live in the city.

Yet the biggest hurdle for the libertarian start-ups may be that the transparency commission, which will oversee the development regions, is unlikely to give them free rein. The “constitutional statute” for the development zones, which the Honduran national congress passed in August, does not leave much wiggle room in key areas, not least when it comes to democracy: ultimately their citizens will vote.

Both firms, however, have links to prominent libertarians with deep pockets. Mr Strong is close to John Mackey, the co-founder and chief executive of Whole Foods, a high-end supermarket chain—though Mr Strong says that Mr Mackey already has too many other things on his plate. Mr Friedman’s contacts seem more promising: the Seasteading Institute received lots of cash from Peter Thiel, a Silicon Valley billionaire who founded the internet payment service PayPal and was an early investor in Facebook, the world’s biggest social network.

Mr Thiel’s ambitions go far beyond scouting out the next big thing in technology. “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible,” he wrote in an essay in 2009. This is why libertarians should find an escape from politics, he added. “Because there are no truly free places left in our world, I suspect that the mode of escape must involve some sort of new and hitherto untried process that leads us to some undiscovered country.” Back then he had the ocean or space in mind. Honduras would certainly be more convenient.


Believe me, YES, I HAVE 2 IDs on here, and NO, I haven’t used the other one in a LONG time… I have no need to fake myself as someone traceable. Hell, do a Google Search for Bob Dohse… Arizona, if that helps… Me? I’m in Texas. My last trip to Az. was to buy a motorcycle, about 15 years ago.:sunglasses:


(Wilfried Ellmer) #26

I am definitly “going Galt” on people who do not pass my filters for internet forum discussion.

• The commenting needs to be smart
• It needs to bring up a debateworthy topic
• The debate partner must be up to the task to have a scientific quality debate
• The debate partner needs to agree on scientific quality debate only to avoid timewaste.

Back to thread topic: Galt’s Gulch is on the oceans

Oceanic Real estate | global networking hubs | Extraterritorialized | oceanic business alliance
Picture the Ramform | get invested | get started | oceanic business alliance
Real Estate Paradigm Shift | oceanic business alliance | oceanic real estate | floating real estate |

@Elmo … you are most certainly delusional, believing in your fantasy of “going Galt”.

You aren’t John Galt.

You’re just running a phony investment scheme.

Nothing more. Nothing less.


Going Galt
The conservative version of “I’m movin’ to Canada!” Referring to John Galt from Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged”, Going Galt means leaving what you see as a society crumbling in on itself and going somewhere else to watch it all burn to the ground.

Tough talk from an Austrian ex-pat, run-off to South America, parrot-feeder, that built a substandard submarine that sank from preventably damaged seals and shows spalling from poor mortaring of the cement.

First, there has to be a determination of what is scientific vs opinion… Calling for opinions from the bleachers, when confronted with peer-reviewed documentation is NOT a scientific approach…

(Wilfried Ellmer) #29

Thread rule: If you have nothing relevant to say - please do not comment.

Leave the thread to the other 540 forum participants that might have to say something relevant, that might bring up an interesting talk.

Please do not spread nonsense clutter, troll, lower the threads quality, work obsession issues, on threads i opened. This is for serious participants only.

Thanks for not standing in the way of moving seasteading forward.

special link | do not try to talk to me - we have no debate base… | do not expect me engaging in a debate with you as long as you do not pass the filter of reason…you have not done that yet.

Going Galt on [special assignment]( thread participants. Have not been given a reason to revise this asignment yet.


So, put YOUR money where your mouth is and BUILD IT. Do it your way. Wade out into the water with your materials, build your floating construction platform, anchor it, use it to build the next phase and so on.

Me? Buying land and will setup a homestead as support base, and to demonstrate poo-ponics, that you ridicule, as both waste management and food source.

In addition, will be setting up shop to build a towable semis submersible and food supply.

Maybe a tad longer than someone else’s way, but I will be doing, not begging for, or demanding funds to support Elmo’s scams.

(Wilfried Ellmer) #31

The Hypothesis that there is no upside to talk to the “special segment” was coined and sustained earlier…( Joe Quirk - 16.Feb 2016 - ) there is no need for endless obsessive repetition.

What in the phrase “asigned to the segment we do not respond to” do you not understand… go away - this thread is NOT for you…it is for the other 540 users capeable of normal discourse and normal social interaction necessary to move a project forward…why don´t you open a thread for yourself instead of trolling and nonsensing mine…

What exactly on the term “no debate base” do you not understand ?

What on “do not expect to engage me in any kind of debate” do you not understand?