Would anyone seriously want to live on an artificial island?
I dunno, everyone who fled from mainland China to Honk Kong or Taiwan?
Why are you so obsessed with Ron Paul and he people that support him?
I think you protest too much.
It's no different than living at sea on a very large cruise liner.
It would probably be more appealing to older people who don't really have a life.
And financial companies, manufacturing companies, R&D outfits, smugglers, prostitutes and gamblers.
It will be just like the original US, just without aborigines to kill.
Oh well, you cant have it all.
Protest too much? 1st amendment fella. And I'm not 'obsessed' with Ron Paul. I've criticised Obama and Perry recently too. There are many reasons I don't like Paul though. One for example, is that he believes the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act are both unconstitutional.
Well, then where is it written that the US federal government has that power?
That's a good point.
It's funny that the only way to get laissez faire is to run away from government.
Some government would probably make a case to call such activities "pirating" and then make the case to intervene. Gotta get their cut, ya know.
You are more obsessed with Ron Paul than the so called "Paultards" you like to make fun of.
I think you have a crush on him and secretly want to be one -- otherwise why come on a thread about seasteading and bring up Ron Paul.
And both those things you mention Ron Paul is opposed to are unconstitutional.
It doesn't have to be 'written'. If it isn't in breach of the constitution then the federal or state government or judiciary has the right to legislate whatever it wants. You clearly don't understand the constitution. Also, see the 14th and 19th amendments.
It's a link to a 'libertarian' site about buying an artificial island and turning it into a sovereign state run on 'libertarian' principles. I thought it sounded EXACTLY like the kind of batshit that someone suffering from Paultardation might like.
Oh yes, it very much has to be written down somewhere, enumerated powers and whatnot.
No it doesn't. See the 'Necessary and Proper' clause in Article One, and the McCulloch v Maryland Supreme Court ruling that Congress is 'permit(ted) to seek an objective that is within its enumerated powers so long as it is rationally related to the objective and not forbidden by the Constitution.'
Heh, still got your head up your ass like always. Yes, we see how "logical" and "wonderful" the status-quo is doing. Nah, let's keep doing the same thing over and over and hope we get a different result.