This is the environment, as it exists, for hundreds of millions around the world right now. So even if your critiques are true, we're no worse for trying.
> The environment they are trying to set up makes them unaccountable and undemocratic, capable of entrapping and exploiting people to no end. The potential actual consequences are infinitely greater than condiment selection.
Explain to me what you think the difference between "undemocratic" and "people choosing things for you" is.
Do you understand that if these types of fiefdoms are built, they will be able to attract people with misleading claims or by dangling short-term economic relief in front of desperate people who they can then ruthlessly victimize?
Maybe you do, and you just think "ah fuck em"
Which is in character for the types of people who want to start a fiefdom in the ocean.
I'm gonna have to recommend you pick up BioShock, for real. It's on sale for 5 dollars.
Some people like to try new things, and they're ok taking risks to do so. They should be allowed to do that. If you want to make a rule that says "such and such amount of disclosure is required for people moving there", i'd be fine supporting something like that. But just saying "well theoretically it could be exploited in this way" is not a very strong argument against trying it.
>A lot of things work this way, in fact. When you go to a restaurant, you don't get to vote on the menu. You order what's there.
The problem isn't that someone else might choose something for you. That's not what anyone is worried about here. An incredibly silly comparison.
The environment they are trying to set up makes them unaccountable and undemocratic, capable of entrapping and exploiting people to no end. The potential actual consequences are infinitely greater than condiment selection.