A sad end for the innovative Cape Romano sea domes.

The homes could've survived, had the builder done a few things differently:

1. Anchor the homes on hurricane resistant moorings instead of fixed pillars. This would've allowed them to move the homes as the sea bed, water levels, and shoreline changed.

2. Use fiberglass / basalt reinforcement instead of steel for reinforcement. Untreated cement is porous, so water eventually reaches the steel and causes it to rust. Rusted steel expands, which puts tremendous tensile pressure on cement. Cement is weak under tensile forces, and spalls (crack and break off), which eventually causes more steel to be exposed.

3. If you do use steel reinforcement, don't use unwashed beach sand to make the concrete. Beach sand typical contains chlorides which will attack steel.

4. Use hurricane shutters on all the doors, windows, vents, and other entry ways. This would've prevented the hurricanes from damaging the interior.

5. Make all major interior fixtures (wall panels, cabinets, tables, dressers, etc) with salt water resistant materials (cement, ceramic tile, stainless steel, tempered glass, ETFE, and aluminum). No wood, no sheet rock, no organic fabrics.

6. Put a high capacity drain in every room.

7. Use marine rated wiring and plumbing fixtures.

8. Use styrocrete / closed cell perlite for insulation.

9. Use additives like Xypex, PVA fibers to make the concrete more resistant to cracking and water intrusion.

10. Coat the exterior with silicate mineral coatings. Such coatings chemically bond with cement and are extremely resistant to sun/salt water.

[Found this essay by Jerry Agar on a forum somewhere. It deserves reposting.]

What if we purchased food the way we purchase education?
-- Jerry Agar

Public education is a monopoly controlled by the government. Whenever I point out that socialism doesn’t work, I am invariably told that I am wrong and that education is too important to be left to the private sector. Children have a right to education, and some children would not be educated without total government involvement.

Should we then decide that food is too important to be left to the private sector, in the belief that only the government can equitably distribute groceries? After all, if we don’t eat, we can’t learn.

What would it be like if we purchased food the same way we purchase education?

Grocery stores would be government owned and operated.

There would be a Department of Groceries with a highly paid Superintendent of Groceries, along with tenured positions such as Secretary of Celery, Deputy of Donuts and the Administrator of Arugula, all with fine offices and a staff (assistant Secretary of Celery.) Naturally, they would be housed in an expensive office building, full of people who never actually stock shelves, run the register, bag the food, unload trucks or retrieve the carts from the parking lot.

Every person would be assigned a grocery store. Despite public hearings, in the pretense of listening to the public, your grocery store would be assigned and you would NOT -–I repeat NOT – be allowed to shop in ANY other public food store regardless of its proximity to your home.

From time to time, due to population changes, each person would be reassigned to a different grocery store.

So as to ensure that we get a proper ethnic and socio-economic mix you may be assigned to a store in another neighborhood – this would be only for the good of the community. White people should learn a greater appreciation of tacos and ethnic people need to embrace white bread and mayonnaise.

If we bought groceries the way we buy public education, each person would get the same amount and type of groceries.

This would ensure that no longer would the rich be consuming sirloin in greater amounts than do poor people. That would not be fair.

Of course, as they tend to do, the rich could opt out and go to private grocery stores, but their share of the public grocery budget would remain with the public store and they would have to pay extra from their own pocket for their greedy consumption of private food.

The fact that these private stores would sell food at a cheaper prices, with greater variety, showing vastly superior customer responsiveness, would be of no consequence to the government food stores monopolizing the public grocery dollars.

This large administration would annually demand more money for the public stores and the legislature would invariably give it to them.

If there were to be any threat to NOT increase funding of the public food stores, the Dept. of Groceries would threaten the public by declaring that they would no longer be able to fund bread and milk.

There would never be a threat to decrease the size of the administration – only the supply of bread and milk.

"Clean up on aisle 5," would be a reason for a tax increase.

Private, "more expensive" grocery stores would flourish, leading to a private-stores "vouchers" movement. This would be opposed, of course, by the NGA, a powerful grocers' union, even though many NGA members would be frequenting private stores simply because their fare is obviously superior and because they can afford to.

"Home-growers" would also proliferate, to the dismay of the NGA, who would openly fret about the lack of quality guarantees on the food grown by home growers.

The grocers lobby would seek to stifle the movement by the sheer weight of new state and federal regulations on home growing.

Media reports on home growing would seek to damn the movement by association, by focusing exclusively on hillbillies making white lightnin'. CNN hosts would regularly make snide comments about home growers as toothless, drunken hicks in a trailer at the end of the road, who don't know how to behave in a public grocery.

Food is more important than education. We have left the distribution of food to the private sector. Are we experiencing food distribution problems in America? No, we are not. Are we able and willing to feed people who can’t, for whatever reason feed themselves? Yes we are, with food stamps, welfare and many private charities.

I think we can agree that it is in our interest to publicly fund education. It is not in our interest to let a socialist monopoly government operation actually run it. Monopolies stifle innovation, efficiency and excellence by eliminating the choices of the marketplace.

Public funding and operating of the food stores and grocery supply as I have described is incredibly foolish. Why do we stand for it in education?

If you spend much time advocating for the Free State Project, you will soon encounter people who complain that New Hampshire was chosen as the destination state. For example:

"Because who wants to live in NH? I liked the idea of the FSP, but what's the point when you're surrounded on all sides by socialist yankees?

Pick a nicer state that people would actually want to live in that isn't surrounded by shit and we can reevaluate"

All potential states have upsides and downsides. No matter which state had been chosen, a large number of people would not like the choice.

Since it's impossible to please everyone, the question is what is the best we could do? Was the choice reasonable, given the amount of information we had at the time? IMO, the process used to select New Hampshire was reasonable and thorough. Prior to the vote, extensive amounts of data were collected and analyzed:

https://web.archive.org/web/20030605144906/http://www.freestateproject.org/state.htm

The options were limited to states that a) were small enough that 20 K activist libertarians could sway the outcomes of the elections b) had a culture that was somewhat pre-disposed to liberty. Hawaii, for example, only has a population of ~1.5 million people, but was eliminated because it's utterly dominated by the Democratic party.

Here's how the vote was taken:

https://web.archive.org/web/20031006085026/http://www.freestateproject.org/files/FSP_ECL_CertifyWhitePaper2.pdf

Here are the vote results:

1. New Hampshire
2. Wyoming
3. Montana
4. Idaho
5. Alaska
6. Maine
7. Vermont
8. Delaware
9. South Dakota
10. North Dakota

IMO, New Hampshire won because:

• NH already had one of the most pro-liberty cultures. (The state motto is "Live Free Or Die", after all.)
• Then NH Governor Craig Benson explicitly invited the FSP to choose New Hampshire. No other governor was as welcoming.
• NH House has a uniquely large legislature. Each House member only represents ~3000 people per rep, which makes it easier for motivated activists to win.
• NH has a diverse, healthy economy.
• NH has access to the sea and to Canada. (Important considerations if the US were to attempt say, a trade embargo on NH).
• NH scored highly on most quality of life metrics (low crime, high income, beautiful natural environment, good schools, etc.)

The most common complaint is that New Hampshire is cold. However, none of the other alternatives have weather that's much warmer. The #2 and #3 winners were Wyoming and Montana.

IMO, it would only make sense to re-adjudicate the destination state if new information arose that significantly increased the desirability of another state. To my knowledge, there's no reason to believe that the fundamental case for each state has changed significantly.

In addition, it takes time to build cultural and institutional support for liberty. Free Staters have started and operate many organizations in support of gun rights, separation of school and state, tax reduction, and so on. Many public offices require living in New Hampshire for several years before you're eligible to run. For example, you have to live in New Hampshire for seven years before you can run for senate. If the FSP switched to a new state, the clock would be reset, and those institutions would have to be rebuilt.

Spencer Greenberg asks: A question for you: what's something unusual on your bucket list?

My answer:

Have a 100+ children with eggs found via an ongoing program to buy eggs from the most beautiful, intelligent, and kind women in the world. Raise them on a communal seastead funded and operated by a non-profit created for the purpose.

Why?

1. Political beliefs appear to be strongly heritable. As someone with minority political views (libertarian), I'm pessimistic that libertarian policies will be enacted unless/until libertarians out-reproduce those of other political ideologies. I'd like to serve as a model for how that can be done.

2. Birth rates in general are on the decline especially among high IQ individuals. I would like to reverse that trend.

3. If you mate with only one partner, you risk that your alleles will combine to produce a disappointing child, I like the idea of having multiple egg donors, to increase the chances that at least some of the children will turn out well.

4. US family law heavily favors women, and I don't like the idea of my spouse being able to cut me off from my children basically at will.

5. If I die or become incapacitated, I like the idea of a corporate structure that can carry on to care for my children in my absence.

6. I can buy much higher quality eggs than I can win via the dating market. Women who wouldn't look twice at me as a romantic partner may still sell me their eggs for the right price.

7. I'm curious to see how my genes will combine with women from a wide variety of cultures/ethnicities. What would my offspring with an Ethiopian/Israeli/Chinese/etc. woman look like? What interesting gene combinations will result when two people who wouldn't likely mate otherwise have children?

8. I'm curious to see how people with such a large sibling network will move through the world. Will they form alliances to create political/economic dynasties? Will they be emotionally close? Will older children mentor younger children?

9. I plan to be cryopreserved if I die before uploading becomes possible. Having a lot of offspring helps ensure that at least some of them will be around to revive me.

10. If cloning becomes available, and the n becomes large enough, I can conduct interesting experiments to help answer otherwise intractable scientific questions.

Although Covid 19 is fading into memory, tech censorship continues. For example, the startup Damus announced that Apple will soon be booting the Damus app from the Apple Store.

Damus is a social networking app built on the nostr protocol. Among other things, the Damus app allows users to "zap" bitcoin to other users on the platform via the Bitcoin Lightning network. Apple says zaps are not allowed on their platform because they could be used by content creators to sell digital content.

More on the Damus ban here:

https://twitter.com/damusapp/status/1668529709867495424

Behind the scenes, large tech firms continue to collaborate with the US government and other states to censor (4) and spy upon their users (3). Search for "PRISM spy program" and "Twitter files" for more information on tech collaboration with government censorship / spying. The Congressional Dish podcast, in particular, does an excellent job of summarizing the degree to which Twitter was in bed with the government. (5)

Baliji Srinivasan points out that if the US financial system collapses, tech firms could be commandeered by the government to start keylogging and sending crypto passwords and other financial information to the government. (2) Governments could then sweep the crypto from any wallets stored on your computer without anyone noticing until it was too late.

When the Greek currency collapsed, the Greek government seized the bank accounts of 500,000 Greek citizens and drained them. (1) The Canadian government seized the bank accounts of people who donated money to the trucker protesters. (7) If the USG became desperate for cash, I could imagine the US government trying to do the same to crypto holders. Kill two birds with one stone: seize a hard asset, and hobble a hotbed of likely government dissidents.

IMO, so long as Apple, Microsoft, and Google dominate the operating system ecosystems, we're at risk of censorship and seizure from companies and apps that don't align with our financial / ideological interests.

In order to avoid such censorship / spying / theft, we need to use software that bypasses or replaces those companies.

Ideally, everyone would a) switch to Linux (on the desktop) b) switch to Calyx OS (on the phone) c) switch to progressive web apps (PWA's) that rely on WebAssembly in the browser. ( PWA applications can be deployed anywhere that can run a modern browser (such as Chrome or Firefox), thus bypassing Google/Apple/Microsoft app stores. )

For example, the company Start9 converted their Embassy Companion App to a PWA after Apple banned the app from the Apple Store in May of 2020.

"Today we are proud to announce the launch of Ambassador 0.2.0. With this release, the entire Embassy experience has been re-imagined and re-architected to resist interference from Apple and Google. It is now possible to purchase an Embassy, discover and install open source services, and use those services in total privacy from anywhere on Earth — all without permission from or reasonable means of being stopped by Apple or Google."

Now, I'm aware that switching operating systems on all of your devices is a big step, and not likely to be done by most people. However, it doesn't have to be an all or nothing affair. And not all apps are equally subject to censorship / theft. In most cases, you can continue to use your familiar apps and operating systems as before.

However, for your crypto holdings, and for apps/services that are politically sensitive (such as donations to politicians or non-profits working against efforts to censor/expropriate you), you can do the following:

• buy an inexpensive laptop (an adequate laptop can be had for $200 or so)
• install Ubuntu Linux
• install Tails Linux on a thumb drive
• install the wallets of interest on Tails/thumb drive

Use this laptop for your trades, creating your cold storage wallets, etc. Yes, I know it's a cumbersome process. But given how governments have behaved recently (unrepentant censorship of dissidents, asset forfeiture, 15% or more inflation), it's worth the hassle.

(1) https://cointelegraph.com/news/greece-seizes-500000-bank-accounts-worth-euro-16-bln-escape-with-bitcoin

(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Lantern_(software)

(3) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/19/us-tech-giants-knew-nsa-data-collection-rajesh-de

(4) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/07/right-or-left-you-should-be-worried-about-big-tech-censorship

(5) https://congressionaldish.com/cd270-the-twitter-files/

(6) https://start9labs.medium.com/becoming-uncancellable-9f14071a8d8d

(7) https://archive.is/ESALg

Increasing immigration rates would benefit both US citizens and immigrants alike. However, many native citizens believe immigrants impose more costs than benefits, by increasing crime, consuming welfare services, and changing the culture. So they naturally oppose increasing immigration rates. Sponsored immigration incents citizens to support increased immigration by a) giving them a personal choice in who they allow to immigrate b)a direct financial stake in the immigrant's long-term success.

Why increase immigration?

Humanitarian Reasons

In June 1939, the German ocean liner St. Louis and its 937 passengers, almost all Jewish, were turned away from the port of Miami, forcing the ship to return to Europe. More than a quarter subsequently died in the Holocaust. (1)

Such deaths due to immigration restrictions continue into the present. According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM) "With 3,771 deaths, 2015 was the deadliest year on record for migrants and refugees crossing the Mediterranean trying to reach Europe, reports IOM in a year-end summary. By comparison 3,279 deaths were recorded in the Mediterranean in 2014. " (2)

Economic Reasons

Although lost lives are the most poignant, immigration restrictions also cost money to immigrants and natives alike. University of Wisconsin's John Keenan estimated that completely opening global borders would increase the average developing country worker's salary from $8,903 to $19,272 — more than double.(3) Harvard economist Lant Pritchett estimates that open borders would increase world GDP by $65 trillion. (4)

Why Do People Oppose Immigration?

Given all the humanitarian and economic reasons for supporting increased immigration, why are so many people hostile to increasing immigration?

Many people believe that immigrants:

Outcompete natives for jobs.

Consume more in social services (welfare, public schools) than they contribute in taxes.

Commit more crime than natives.

Vote themselves more welfare.

Bring conservative religious values to the US (hostility to women, gays, atheists).

Harm the environment (by creating increased demand for water, land, and other resources).

Launch terrorist attacks.

In brief, the citizens of host countries think that immigrants impose more costs on natives than are offset by compensating benefits. Therefore, they're naturally reluctant to increase the number of immigrants.

Although most economists strongly disagree with that assessment, and believe that increased immigration results in many more benefits than costs, they haven't made much headway in persuading the public to believe them. This is because many of the benefits are indirect, and not readily visible to average voter. They take the form of increased innovation (many immigrants go on to develop new scientific, engineering, and medical advances), increased entrepreneurship (many of the top fastest growing companies were founded by immigrants), and better, less expensive access to skilled workers (many of the best and brightest from other countries come to the US and become doctors, lawyers, engineers, and other highly skilled professionals).

To counter this bias against immigrants, this proposal attempts to incentivize US voters to support much higher rates of immigration, by creating an immigration program that provides clear, direct benefits to every adult citizen in the U.S.

How sponsored immigration works

Give every existing citizen over the age of 18 the right to sponsor one immigrant of their choosing.

The immigrant must purchase a $1 million lifetime insurance policy, which pays out to the extant that the immigrant commits any crime or makes use of any welfare services.

The immigrant must pay an entry fee of 10% of the median household income in the U.S. For example, if the median household income is $50 K, then the immigrant must pay an entry fee of $5 K. Half this amount ($2.5 K) goes to the sponsoring citizen, and half ($2.5 K) goes into a pool to provide integration services to arriving immigrants.

The immigrant and their children must pay 10% of their income each year as an immigration tax. Half of the tax revenue goes to the sponsoring citizen (or their estate), and half goes into the integration pool.

The sponsoring citizen can sell and/or delegate their sponsorship rights to someone else.

Immigrants can become citizens themselves when they meet all of the following criteria: a) their income exceeds at the median household income for at least three consecutive years b) they pass a test of English proficiency c) they pass a test of US cultural literacy

Someone can sponsor another immigrant once their previously sponsored immigrant has become a citizen.

How natives and immigrants alike will benefit from sponsored immigration

Every citizen would receive a lump sum payment of $2.5 K plus the rights to a lifetime stream of 5% of the immigrant's annual income (and their children). A very direct and visible benefit of supporting immigration reform.

Since existing citizens receive a portion of the immigrant's lifetime revenue stream, they have a strong incentive to select immigrants who will be the most productive and peaceful. Imagine how much money could be earned by a sponsor if one of their sponsored immigrants proves to be the next Steve Jobs.

The immigration tax and insurance policy would help alleviate the burden that new immigrants might place on existing social services. Since each citizen can only sponsor another immigrant once the first immigrant has become a citizen, sponsors have strong incentive to help their sponsored immigrant to integrate and become a citizen.

The rate of immigration can only grow to the extant that previous immigrants achieve at least the median income in the US, have integrated into US culture (as measured by their English skills, and cultural literacy knowledge, and become citizens themselves.

Citizens have control over who gets invited to the US, not some distant and uncaring bureaucracy. However, if some citizens don't want to be bothered to do the selection themselves, they can also sell their sponsorship rights to someone else. Or, if they so choose, not invite anyone at all.

Citizens have strong incentives to increase the immigrant's productivity (since the more the immigrant makes, the greater the existing citizen's revenue stream).

Immigrants have a strong incentive to become citizens themselves, since they would then be able sponsor immigrants of their own. Immigrants would benefit by being able to escape from terrible policies in their home country.

Immigrants would be able to make more money, which they could send back to their home country.

Immigrants would not be able to vote themselves additional welfare benefits, or change the policies of the US until they were proven to be as productive as the existing median citizen. High risk immigrants would pay a higher insurance premium.

Immigrants would not be discriminated against based on their education level, country of origin, religion, age, occupation, or language. Only their ability to pay the entry fee, insurance costs, and their ability to persuade someone to sponsor them. As the proposal above has never been tried before that I'm aware of, there will not doubt be bugs and unintended consequences.

Please feel free to offer questions, comments, suggestions. However, I think this incentive program, or something like it, provides a pathway to a much richer, more free, and safer world.

Downtown Dubai, the most cosmopolitan city in the world.

(1) The U.S. Government Turned Away Thousands of Jewish Refugees, Fearing That They Were Nazi Spies By Daniel A. Gross

(2) IOM Counts 3,771 Migrant Fatalities in Mediterranean in 2015 by Daniel Esdras, et al.

(3) Want a global economic boom? Open the borders by Dylan Matthews

(4) The Cliff at the Border by Lant Pritchett

This is my collection of the features I want in my "dream" home. Now, I realize most people are constrained by money, time, and attention, including myself. Good design is all about making intelligent trade-offs. However, I'd like to keep them in mind, and incorporate as many of them as I can should I ever have the opportunity to build.

See also this design brief for a eco-friendly seastead:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OTK4bQhWDy-LSGZO7S1WvVB_JOv_wgWWGyAnEEFuEww/edit?usp=sharing

• all the plumbing fixtures to be arranged in a vertical column. The kitchen sink and every bathroom will all be arranged around this column that extends from basement/foundation through the top floor. This column will be a human-accessible shaft with a ladder and a French drain at the bottom. So if a plumbing fixture ever bursts or breaks, all the water will flow directly downward, into the drain. And the bathroom and kitchen floors will have drains that feed into this shaft."
• all surfaces--walls, floors, ceiling--be made of a pressure washable material (such as ferrocement).
• all corners all be coved (no sharp corners to collect hair/dust). And the central drain be very wide with a large surface area.
• all furniture / cabinetry / appliances be on french cleats and/or wheeled carts
• only removable, machine washable carpets allowed
• all hardware (screws, bolts, hinges) made of 316 stainless steel or aluminum
• raceways for all power / plumbing / communication lines (preferably waist height)
• fiber, 115 and 240 V power lines to all rooms
• punch-outs at 4' interval for all power and internet lines
• 3-4' of cement/closed cell perlite insulation in all walls
• Tefzel triple-paned windows
• electric on-demand water heater at point of dispensing in kitchen and bathroom
• blackout curtains
• prison grade sinks / toilets
• prefer furniture made of cement, 316 stainless steel, aluminum, or fiberglass
• touchless electronic locks on all doors that fail open + non-electric deadbolt with keypad
• floor sink in all rooms
• wheel chair width hallways / doorways
• wheel chair accessible shower / tub
• independent ventilation system for each room connected to central shaft
• oversized drain lines with easily accessible clear outs
• high ceilings (12' ft) with utility levels (6.5' ceiling ) between floors
• mineral paint used for all wall coatings
• USB-A, USB-C, ethernet ports on all outlets
• all outlets in waterproof, lockable, stainless steel enclosure
• commercial kitchen stainless steel sink with deep, wide bowl
• walk in freezer
• walk in pantry
• touch free drawers
• elbow controlled knobs on all sinks
• induction stove with crevice free top
• generously sized oven vent / fan
• combination dehydrator / oven (full sheet pan sized)
• freeze dryer
• sealed, polished, concrete counter tops
• Finnish cabinetry for dishware
• chicken / rabbit / fish abbatoir
• rainwater cistern on roof (building is basically a water tower)
• rainwater collection system on roof
• bolt on panels for walls
• heat recirculating shower
• manual / electric dumbwaiter
• maybe put the wet wall on same exterior wall. Then the stairs / ladder could also double as a balcony / emergency exit
• PAHS warming / cooling system (Dirsksen, 2018-05-27)
• trash burning hot water system
• EPIC mix wall insulation (Archerships, 2019)
• bow roof gothic arch enclosure (Tefzel film)
• biogas sewage treatment
• greenhouse enclosure (Kaseco, 2021)
• 2X commercial washing machine and dryers
• undercounter refrigerator
• dog / fish / child wash station (with shower) at the entrances
• automatic door closures
• stair lighting
• nugget ice maker

References:

1. (Archerships, 2019) https://www.facebook.com/archerships/posts/10158074080210312
2. (Kaseco, 2021) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atc6-JCVIOs
3. (Dirsksen, 2018-05-27) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD_3_gsgsnk

Me: "What makes Haugen a hero? Facebook is flawed in many ways, but I don't see how giving the government more power is going to improve matters."

Progressive: "Government powers are limited by the constitution and will of the people, not by corporations doing terrible things being able to keep their actions secret."

Me: "Yes, that's the theory. In practice, voters are both deeply ignorant and irrational. They know almost nothing about how government works or what it's doing. So how can they act as an effective check on its behavior?

https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil3600/Huemer1.pdf

Progressive: "A perusal of your posts suggests you aren’t interested in the answer to your question."

Me: Yes, I have a point of view. But it's not an ill-informed one. If you perused my posts, then perhaps you saw my link to this Techcrunch article, which suggests that GDPR regulations actually harmed the smaller competitors of Google and Facebook much more than the tech giants themselves:

https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/17/regulate-facebook/

The article also details how Facebook has lobbied for a whole host of industry regulations. Facebook supported the FOSTA/SESTA regulations, and supports "reforming" section 230 altogether. And they're using this "whistleblower" to call more of the same:

https://www.facebook.com/Logicologist/posts/10111239105334619

Haugen was part of Facebook's Civil Integrity team in 2020, and was likely part of--among other things-- Facebook's suppression of the Hunter Biden story at a critical juncture in the election.

As someone who supports freedom of speech, I'm angered by FB's ongoing paternalistic suppression of heterodox points of view, and I'm alarmed that someone who was a supporter of those restrictions is now apparently trying to get the government to impose them industry wide.

The level of detail on the Kandaria Mahadev Temple is astonishing.