Its not Apr1l 1, and here's their website, and here's another article.
Tranquility Bay, and things like it, are disturbing and terrible. But I have a more personal angle on this, as some readers may have realized. These people have used jurisdictional independence to find the freedom they need to do the things they want. I want to do the same, albeit with a very different vision of what to use freedom for. This brings up some thorny questions and ponderings.
Is the world better with local sovereignty, allowing things like T. Bay annd Saddam Hussein to exist? Or should the powerful here interfere in faraway places "for their own good"? If bad things are being allowed locally, who, if anyone, should interfere?
Many will feel that the types of freedom I want to enjoy are evil and wrong, and write articles about "the sinful platform world, where the illicit pleasures of drugs and gambling flourish alongside biotech research which is illegal throughout the civilized world." Am I a hypocrite to feel that I should be left alone, but the parents of these kids should be prosecuted for abuse and/or neglect? As my dream in life is to create a place which the worlds holier-than-thou do-gooders cannot interfere, I feel conflicted when I see things that I think would benefit greatly from meddling or deux-ex-politikos.
I have answers to these questions, and see no real conflict or inconsistency in my dreams or philosophy. (hints: utopia is not an option. Single cases handled poorly do nothing to disprove a strategy's optimality. Superficially similar things can be very different). I just find such ambiguities interesting, and feel it is useful to explore them.
<< Go Pills (07/02/03) << || >> Install (07/01/03) >>