For most of human evolution, in a physical battle between two groups, it's generally the most populous group that wins. However, physical battle extracts a heavy cost to both sides; even the winners will typically be much worse off than they were before.
Therefore, it's in both sides interests to avoid fighting if possible. Democracies are evolutionarily stable because they shift conflict from physical battles to proxy battles by vote. Being enslaved to the winners of a democratic vote is preferable to most people than almost certain death in a physical war.
This helps explain why people respect some democratic votes, but not others. For example, if a 100 of my friends and I move to a small town in New Hampshire (Grafton, let's say) and vote to decriminalize machine guns in our town, Democrats nationally are unlikely to respect our democratic vote, despite endless blather about the sanctity of democracy and the right to vote.
That's because they know that they have vastly greater numbers and could easily crush us if they wanted to. Thus, the votes of smaller democratic polities are only respected by larger democratic polities to the extent that they don't conflict with the larger democratic polities preferences.
Technology can shift the balance of power, however. For example, if the residents of Grafton, NH somehow acquired nuclear missiles, then the US Federal government would likely respect Grafton's vote to decriminalize machine guns. That's because, enforcing a machine gun ban on the residents of Grafton would potentially be much more costly than it is worth. (If the Feds tried to arrest and/or kill Grafton residents, then they could nuke DC.)
IMO, North Korea continues to exist--despite the obvious misery the DPRK causes most of their citizenry--because they're backed by another major power, China, and they have nukes. Without those two forces in their favor, North Korea's government would likely have fallen to invasion and/or revolution long ago.
This is why early seasteads that try to start outside the protection of existing nation states will likely be crushed. Existing states are already in an equilibrium of power with other states. Fledgling seasteads that try to start outside of their protection will likely be crushed, as they don't yet have sufficient populations / firepower to extract sufficient cost from attacking states to be left alone. (For example, the Thai navy seized Ocean Builder's first tiny seastead prototype, and tried to arrest and charge the residents with sedition.)
IMO, seasteads will only be able to be independent if a) they have the backing of an existing power b) they have sufficient population and firepower to make the cost of conquest unaffordable.
Obviously, if my thesis is correct, this is disappointing for libertarians who view seasteads as a route to escape from the restrictions and predations of existing governments.
However, I think it also represents an opportunity for seasteaders.
The oceans are vast and mostly unexplored. Control over the oceans will mean control over the fish stocks, oil/natural gas, and other mineral resources on the bottom of the ocean floor. As land based resources become depleted, mining the oceans will become increasingly desirable.
Controlling the seas is also an important military objective. Many of the most vicious battles of WWII were fought over small islands in the South Pacific, as they could act as a base of operations (airfields, fuel re-supply, etc) for the US military forces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Air_Forces_in_the_South_Pacific_Area
Smarter government leaders realize this. This is why China is beginning to reach out to small island nations like Kiribati and offering aid and economic development funds. They hope to get access to these countries natural resources and establish a friendly base of operations.
Under current international law, small Pacfic island nations control vast amounts of the ocean's resources.
For example, here's the size of the area controlled buy just three Pacific island nations (in millions of square miles):
French Polynesia: 1.93
Kirbati: 1.4
Federated States Of Micronesia: 1
To put this in perspective, French Polynesia controls more of the ocean than the land area of India (1.15 million square miles) and Mexico (0.750 million square miles) combined. In total, just these three countries control more of the ocean than the entire land area of the US (3.5 million square miles).
Yet these countries have tiny populations:
French Polynesia: 270 K
Kirbati: 120 K
Federated States Of Micronesia: 100 K
To put this in perspective, the population of Boise, Idaho is 230 K. It wouldn't take much investment to sway these countries.
If China takes de facto control over the Pacific, then this will be bad news for the US in any future conflict in the area (such as a war over Taiwan). China's wealth and military might is only going to increase, and they outnumber the US by a factor of three. They also have tens of millions of "excess" males who will never find a mate due to China's one-child policy. They have a lot of cannon fodder to throw into any conventional conflict.
One way to prevent China's control over the Pacific would be to promote the "homesteading" of the Pacific by people friendly to the US.
For example, imagine that the US offered to finance seasteads for residents of the Philippines who 1) agree to move aboard a Pacific seastead and b) join the US Coast Guard / National Guard. In exchange, after some period of service (say, ten years), they would get US citizenship.
The Philippines has a population of 110 million people. Over time, more and more of their population would become absorbed into the US. Similar offers could be made to the residents of other poor but populous countries: India (1.4 billion), Indonesia (271 million), Pakistan (225 million), Nigeria (211 million), etc.
Not only would this policy strengthen US sphere of influence in the Pacific, it would strengthen those countries political and economic ties to the US. In any conflict with China, they would be more likely to ally with the US if tens of millions of their relatives are on Pacific seasteads and in the US proper.
It would also hasten their economic development, from remittances sent home from the US and/or from US managed seasteads.
Eventually, China will realize that they will have to do something similar, or their nearby oceans will be controlled by the US and its allies.
As a result, there will be a race between the US and China to colonize the oceans, and to recruit homesteaders who will be favorable to their interests. China already has a large internal population to deploy (by force, if necessary). So, the US will have to act fast if they want to win.
Seasteaders could use this competition to extract concessions from their host countries, such as low taxes, low regulation, autonomy, etc. And eventually, the seasteads themselves will become populous enough and powerful enough to become an international power in their own right.
Therefore, it's in both sides interests to avoid fighting if possible. Democracies are evolutionarily stable because they shift conflict from physical battles to proxy battles by vote. Being enslaved to the winners of a democratic vote is preferable to most people than almost certain death in a physical war.
This helps explain why people respect some democratic votes, but not others. For example, if a 100 of my friends and I move to a small town in New Hampshire (Grafton, let's say) and vote to decriminalize machine guns in our town, Democrats nationally are unlikely to respect our democratic vote, despite endless blather about the sanctity of democracy and the right to vote.
That's because they know that they have vastly greater numbers and could easily crush us if they wanted to. Thus, the votes of smaller democratic polities are only respected by larger democratic polities to the extent that they don't conflict with the larger democratic polities preferences.
Technology can shift the balance of power, however. For example, if the residents of Grafton, NH somehow acquired nuclear missiles, then the US Federal government would likely respect Grafton's vote to decriminalize machine guns. That's because, enforcing a machine gun ban on the residents of Grafton would potentially be much more costly than it is worth. (If the Feds tried to arrest and/or kill Grafton residents, then they could nuke DC.)
IMO, North Korea continues to exist--despite the obvious misery the DPRK causes most of their citizenry--because they're backed by another major power, China, and they have nukes. Without those two forces in their favor, North Korea's government would likely have fallen to invasion and/or revolution long ago.
This is why early seasteads that try to start outside the protection of existing nation states will likely be crushed. Existing states are already in an equilibrium of power with other states. Fledgling seasteads that try to start outside of their protection will likely be crushed, as they don't yet have sufficient populations / firepower to extract sufficient cost from attacking states to be left alone. (For example, the Thai navy seized Ocean Builder's first tiny seastead prototype, and tried to arrest and charge the residents with sedition.)
IMO, seasteads will only be able to be independent if a) they have the backing of an existing power b) they have sufficient population and firepower to make the cost of conquest unaffordable.
Obviously, if my thesis is correct, this is disappointing for libertarians who view seasteads as a route to escape from the restrictions and predations of existing governments.
However, I think it also represents an opportunity for seasteaders.
The oceans are vast and mostly unexplored. Control over the oceans will mean control over the fish stocks, oil/natural gas, and other mineral resources on the bottom of the ocean floor. As land based resources become depleted, mining the oceans will become increasingly desirable.
Controlling the seas is also an important military objective. Many of the most vicious battles of WWII were fought over small islands in the South Pacific, as they could act as a base of operations (airfields, fuel re-supply, etc) for the US military forces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Air_Forces_in_the_South_Pacific_Area
Smarter government leaders realize this. This is why China is beginning to reach out to small island nations like Kiribati and offering aid and economic development funds. They hope to get access to these countries natural resources and establish a friendly base of operations.
Under current international law, small Pacfic island nations control vast amounts of the ocean's resources.
For example, here's the size of the area controlled buy just three Pacific island nations (in millions of square miles):
French Polynesia: 1.93
Kirbati: 1.4
Federated States Of Micronesia: 1
To put this in perspective, French Polynesia controls more of the ocean than the land area of India (1.15 million square miles) and Mexico (0.750 million square miles) combined. In total, just these three countries control more of the ocean than the entire land area of the US (3.5 million square miles).
Yet these countries have tiny populations:
French Polynesia: 270 K
Kirbati: 120 K
Federated States Of Micronesia: 100 K
To put this in perspective, the population of Boise, Idaho is 230 K. It wouldn't take much investment to sway these countries.
If China takes de facto control over the Pacific, then this will be bad news for the US in any future conflict in the area (such as a war over Taiwan). China's wealth and military might is only going to increase, and they outnumber the US by a factor of three. They also have tens of millions of "excess" males who will never find a mate due to China's one-child policy. They have a lot of cannon fodder to throw into any conventional conflict.
One way to prevent China's control over the Pacific would be to promote the "homesteading" of the Pacific by people friendly to the US.
For example, imagine that the US offered to finance seasteads for residents of the Philippines who 1) agree to move aboard a Pacific seastead and b) join the US Coast Guard / National Guard. In exchange, after some period of service (say, ten years), they would get US citizenship.
The Philippines has a population of 110 million people. Over time, more and more of their population would become absorbed into the US. Similar offers could be made to the residents of other poor but populous countries: India (1.4 billion), Indonesia (271 million), Pakistan (225 million), Nigeria (211 million), etc.
Not only would this policy strengthen US sphere of influence in the Pacific, it would strengthen those countries political and economic ties to the US. In any conflict with China, they would be more likely to ally with the US if tens of millions of their relatives are on Pacific seasteads and in the US proper.
It would also hasten their economic development, from remittances sent home from the US and/or from US managed seasteads.
Eventually, China will realize that they will have to do something similar, or their nearby oceans will be controlled by the US and its allies.
As a result, there will be a race between the US and China to colonize the oceans, and to recruit homesteaders who will be favorable to their interests. China already has a large internal population to deploy (by force, if necessary). So, the US will have to act fast if they want to win.
Seasteaders could use this competition to extract concessions from their host countries, such as low taxes, low regulation, autonomy, etc. And eventually, the seasteads themselves will become populous enough and powerful enough to become an international power in their own right.