Well, okay, not literally.
But see this.
By Roderick
Tagged Anarchy, Left-Libertarian, Science Fiction | 2 Responses

The Empirical Me
I’m Roderick T. Long, Professor of Philosophy at Auburn University. I’m an Aristotelean/Wittgensteinian in philosophy and a left-libertarian market anarchist in social theory. (More about me here.) This blog, Austro-Athenian Empire, is a continuation of my earlier blog, archived here.
Lapsus Linguae Left-Libertarian Boring Administrative Stuff Democracy Unethical Philosophy Feminism Science Fact Financial Saga Space Spencer Elseblogs Industriels Personal Guest Blogs Left and Right Thank You Please May I Have Another Paterson Online Texts Humor Science Fiction Cato Encyclopedia Terror IP The Thin Blue Line Conflation Debate Labortarian Antiquity Jove's Witnesses No Borders Molinari/C4SS PI Complex Can't Stop the Muzak Free the Earth Antiracism Rand Ethics Resistance Is Not Futile Therapeutic State LGBT Juvenilia Anarchy Arma Virumque Praxeology
Copyright © 2012 Austro-Athenian Empire.
Speaking of Friedman, there were a few questions I was pondering ever since Seasteading got mentioned on the AP news wire last week. On the seasteading institute’s site in the section about whether governments will interfere with seasteads, it has this response:
The extended Q&A then goes on to discuss how things like drugs and will have to be banned in order for the seasteads to operate freely. This sounds rather like a slippery slope to me – once it’s established that banning a few things is acceptable, how do we know the seasteads won’t ban more and more things to comply with the laws of existing nation states until the seasteads are indistinguishable from a US city or a caribbean island?
But, assume somehow the seasteads do end up mostly free. Then the last part about seeing “who gets interfered with” sounds incredibly naive. If the land based nations can find just one seastead doing something dangerous (e.g. nukes, drugs, etc), what stops them from tarring the rest of the seasteads with the same brush and destroying them? Most US citizens for example think invading Afghanistan was justified just because of one man living there. And keep in mind Friedman says elsewhere in the FAQ that seasteads will have to rely on some minimal goodwill from nation states to survive.
Friedman said that exporting drugs would be banned. But does that mean importing them is also banned?