> maybe they'll finally will build the society that will show to everyone that high taxes and planned economy are the best things.

I'm not holding my breath

Neither do i, but if some people truly believe that communism/socialism can work without iron curtain keeping people inside, they should be happy about seasteading as it will give them a way to test their hypothesis.

>When this "rich randians" make the technology for living and working in a floating city cheap, they not only will get what they want but also will make it possible for "brave marxians" to try out their ideas too, and maybe they'll finally will build the society that will show to everyone that high taxes and planned economy are the best things.

I'm looking forward to an union of floating egoists, equipped with fancy glasses, a gallant smile, and contempt for spooked randians and marxists, while unsucessfully trying to disrupt the dairy market.

> No one wants to escape the real laws, because they are proven to be necessary for the society to work, and everyone agrees about them.

There are (next to) no laws that are internationally agreed upon.

While not the exact specifics, no, but can you point to a society which actively encourages theft and murder? I'm talking not for special circumstances (ie. execution for crimes), but the straight up "I just wanted to stab a dude" murder.

>> a society which actively encourages theft and murder?

15th century England. The royal houses, and most of the entire landed aristocracy, were encouraged to murder and steal from each other regularly. Those who exercised and demonstrated the most power, the greatest capacity for violence, were promoted. That's how we picked kings.

"By the grace of god", a phrase in many constitutional documents to this day, isn't a beam of light. Victory in battle was evidence of divine approval. It means that God picked your side in whatever war was fought to put your family on the throne. Violence was the core of society then and, arguably, remains so in constitutional monarchies today. (Canada, UK, Australia etc).

15th century England had no ritual or requirements in order to lawfully murder another human being? 15th century England, which had had the beginnings of English Common Law for 2 centuries, had no laws against murder? The Magna Carta wielding English had no laws against murder?

In the Magna Carta:

"39. No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."

Although to be fair not all Englishmen in the 15th century would be freemen.

When Magna Carta was signed, there will have been a large number of villeins and other serfs. A serf is recognised in law as a person and so you can't _own_ them, indeed they can own other things. Villeins are serfs that come with land. Like you'll own a bunch of farm land, and there will be fifty people who you don't own, but they aren't allowed to leave without permission. They farm stuff, you feed them, it's... well it's not very nice, but it isn't chattel slavery, people would have voluntarily become villeins because it meant food security when famines were a possibility.

Anyway, by the 15th century there are fewer villeins, it just doesn't make as much sense as a plague has wiped a bunch of people out, making labour very valuable - but until the 1500s there are at least some left in England.

But I'm pretty sure that killing serfs was not considered OK. I dunno if they'd have executed you for it, and that period wasn't really into prisons, but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have gone "OK, that seems fine, nothing to see".

Oh yeah, the Magna Carta was certainly focused on the upper class (as the person I was responding to was as well), but it shows a respect for life and property - may that get muddied by class issues? I'm sure it did, but people they recognized as being full people (I'm simplifying the relationship a bit) were afforded the right to live.

Society, not country. Among the landed aristocracy violence was expected. Sons were trained as warriors for the inevitable family conflicts.

>> no laws against murder

Murder is a crime, an unlawful killing. A law forbidding something already defined as a crime is circular. A great many killings, those in combat, were not illegal and therefore not murder. So while murder was illegal killing was not, at least not always. And at the highest levels those who won the war, those best at killing, decided who would be punished, if anyone. The legal definitions were beside the point.

You're describing lawful combat, which had rules. For instance - you'd never see a nobleman kill a noblewoman without recourse. I'm talking the taking of another human's life without reason or justification - just a wanton disregard for human life and no need to rationalize the death.

The opposite of "we can't agree on laws" is not "we encourage the behaviour that most places have those laws in place to discourage". What you should be asking is "show me a country that doesn't have laws for what we commonly consider illegal behaviour".

So okay: slavery is horrible, and illegal (by law) in a lot of places. But not in Mali, where hundreds of thousands of people are either indentured servants, or quite literally slaves.

You're right - encourage was the wrong word. Every country will have laws that we don't like, I get that, but I'm arguing that there is a common ground there - it may not be very big, and it may be pretty basic when it comes to what it's covering, but I don't think there's a nation on earth where murder is perfectly OK. There are SOME basic elements everybody follows.

Let's go back to your use of "society" instead of country, and you pretty quickly run into things like Boko Haram or ISIL, where murder is barely a punishable offense. And these are groups who _very clearly want_ to form their own countries. (and thankfully, so far are prevented from doing so, at high cost).

So: sure, it's reasonable to assume any well-intentioned group of people will come up with some kind of basic law book, but not everyone is well-intentioned, and the question about "who runs the court?", especially for a place as tiny as this, is an excellent question to pose, because you really can't rely on common sense to lead to fair trials.

Boko Haram or ISIL are not killing people in the group they are killing outsiders who according to their views are enemies. This groups do not want to form their own countries, they want to take as many existing countries as possible and force people to live by their laws. Any examples you think of will be some crazy fanatics or remnant of some medieval traditions, and even there murder will be allowed only according to some hierarchy.

> "who runs the court?", especially for a place as tiny as this

While they are tiny they'll have to use court of an existing country.

Did the Boko Haram or ISIL kill their own in-groups?

I too would like to hear of the country where 1) Don't kill and 2) Don't steal are not in some way specified in law.

Some satanist cults come to mind. Thankfully darwinism takes care of that.

But if you re looking for a similar example take the armies. They all have lawful license to murder they just disagree on who to kill.

Satanic cults are exceedingly and aren't societies - and I'll bet they even have rules - can't kill the in-group for instance.

> They all have lawful license to murder they just disagree on who to kill.

That falls under the special circumstances, and implies that normally murder is unlawful.