"I would prefer to deal with corporate politics over any interaction with the federal government or the state of California any day. Just going to the DMV is a nightmare."
Yes, but this is not a problem of government type, but rather of population size. I've worked in 10,000 person corporations before, and interactions are so full of bureaucratic nonsense that it's amazing you're able to get anything done at all. This is a human problem, not a political system problem. Once you go over the human capacity to know everyone (107 people), you get bureaucracy. This is why ancient tribes would split soon after passing around 120 people. Of course back then the cost of splitting was low since there was plenty of land to go around, and you could just kill anyone who hunted in your territory without worry of an international community.
"If you're talking about wars between firms, a much bigger problem is rival firms hacking one another's computer systems."
Actually, I'm talking about destroying a platform's economic foundation by causing physical damage to the platform that's expensive to fix. A man made floating platform is far more susceptible to attacks of this nature than land based communities. Furthermore, a community with no form of taxation would be ill equipped to deal with this sort of thing since the costs could exceed the amount in the contractual agreement.
"Yes, I left a lot behind, but I gained a lot more. In case you haven't noticed, there's a whole country built on this concept."
What I'm getting at is this: YOU might be happy uprooting yourself and seeking greener pastures, but do not make the mistake of assuming that everyone else thinks the same way you do or would enjoy it if they just gave it a chance. The vast majority of people don't want to move. They want to stay right where they are. It's only when things become so intolerable at home that moving seems the less painful choice where these people move (and indeed that was quite often the case with people choosing the "new world"). You might argue that this sort of person wouldn't move to a sea platform to begin with, but I'm talking about people born on the platform, who wish to remain rooted, and know no other life.
The author critiques the social contract with the following words: "Can we seriously say, that a poor peasant or artisan has a free choice to leave his country, when he knows no foreign language or manners, and lives, from day to day, by the small wages which he acquires? We may as well assert that a man, by remaining in a vessel, freely consents to the dominion of the master; though he was carried on board while asleep, and must leap into the ocean and perish, the moment he leaves her."
I'd argue that after a generation or two of people born there, platform life will be no different.
In fact, most of my argument is not regarding people MOVING to a sea platform, but rather for people born there, and what choice they have.
Yes, but this is not a problem of government type, but rather of population size. I've worked in 10,000 person corporations before, and interactions are so full of bureaucratic nonsense that it's amazing you're able to get anything done at all. This is a human problem, not a political system problem. Once you go over the human capacity to know everyone (107 people), you get bureaucracy. This is why ancient tribes would split soon after passing around 120 people. Of course back then the cost of splitting was low since there was plenty of land to go around, and you could just kill anyone who hunted in your territory without worry of an international community.
"If you're talking about wars between firms, a much bigger problem is rival firms hacking one another's computer systems."
Actually, I'm talking about destroying a platform's economic foundation by causing physical damage to the platform that's expensive to fix. A man made floating platform is far more susceptible to attacks of this nature than land based communities. Furthermore, a community with no form of taxation would be ill equipped to deal with this sort of thing since the costs could exceed the amount in the contractual agreement.
"Yes, I left a lot behind, but I gained a lot more. In case you haven't noticed, there's a whole country built on this concept."
What I'm getting at is this: YOU might be happy uprooting yourself and seeking greener pastures, but do not make the mistake of assuming that everyone else thinks the same way you do or would enjoy it if they just gave it a chance. The vast majority of people don't want to move. They want to stay right where they are. It's only when things become so intolerable at home that moving seems the less painful choice where these people move (and indeed that was quite often the case with people choosing the "new world"). You might argue that this sort of person wouldn't move to a sea platform to begin with, but I'm talking about people born on the platform, who wish to remain rooted, and know no other life.
The author critiques the social contract with the following words: "Can we seriously say, that a poor peasant or artisan has a free choice to leave his country, when he knows no foreign language or manners, and lives, from day to day, by the small wages which he acquires? We may as well assert that a man, by remaining in a vessel, freely consents to the dominion of the master; though he was carried on board while asleep, and must leap into the ocean and perish, the moment he leaves her."
I'd argue that after a generation or two of people born there, platform life will be no different.
In fact, most of my argument is not regarding people MOVING to a sea platform, but rather for people born there, and what choice they have.