This idea doesn’t strike me as super crazy, though I do dislike the focus on “having most EAs survive”, and I feel like at least the framing in the article implies too much like you can just “purchase a sovereign nation”.
That said, I think neither the idea that you can purchase a sovereign nation, nor the idea to invest in shelters for your local community, strikes me as bad. If 95%+ of the Nauruan population would prefer receiving a large cash gift in order to give substantial control over the nation to a third party, this seems like the kind of thing that a democratic nation should be allowed to do.
Separately, it seems pretty fine to me to be more motivated to save your friends and local community than to be motivated to save a random subset of humanity. I would be excited if a bunch of billionaires or nation states or religious communities or local communities decided to build shelters for themselves and their friends/allies, and would not demand entry to such shelters if I did not contribute to building them.
My guess is this is quite unlikely to break even on cost-effectiveness grounds (compared to other ways to spend money more effectively), and I don’t think this should count as a charitable intervention by normal US 501c3 standards, since it’s not for the public benefit, but only for the benefit of a specific professional community, but otherwise it seems like this plan could have been executed in a way that would have been good for the world.
That said, de facto I expect that FTX, if they had ever taken this project seriously, would have not gone ahead with this plan in a way that would have been good for the world, mostly because they have demonstrated that they weren’t very good at respecting boundaries and engaging in trades that leave all parties better off, and my guess is they would have done it in a way that would have violated some of the autonomy of the citizens of Nauru, and my guess is would have not been honest and straightforward about how this mostly benefits them and their friends.
If 95%+ of the Naura population would prefer receiving a large cash gift in order to give substantial control over the nation to a third party, this seems like the kind of thing that a democratic nation should be allowed to do.
I’ll first note that it seems incredibly unlikely that 95% of a population would agree to sell their ancestral homeland out from under themselves. But even if they did, what would happen if the next year there was some scandal and they changed their minds, and then 95% of them wanted the FTX project gone? Does the project go caput, despite the substantial investment, or does FTX continue on and override the democratic wishes of the people of Nauru?
It seems to me that the talk of buying an entire nation (instead of say, buying a plot of land inside a nation), is inherently undemocratic, for this reason. You’re not just buying land, you’re buying control over people. Fortunately, the idea is crazy for about a dozen other reasons I listed elsewhere, so it never would have gotten that far in the first place.
There are also minor citizens, and citizens not yet born. Even assuming all the adult citizens could and would validly and irrevocably sell their democratic rights, they could not validly sell those of the next generation.
Yeah, I think this is a pretty interesting question. I don’t have a super strong take here.
Parents can move to a nondemocratic country, and so already have the power to validly and irrevocably give up the democratic rights of their children. I wouldn’t currently prevent a pregnant parent from moving to China because that would give up the democratic rights of their future children, would you? It’s plausible I should, but I don’t currently feel sold on that.
(In most cases, a parent’s move to another country will not strip their citizen children of citizenship in the democratic country with the right of returning there. This is often true even for children who have not yet been born. And I think my objection would win if limited to already-born minor children only. But I’ll assume the parental action would indeed strip the child’s citizenship.)
I think you’re describing a life decision by the parent that has an incidental (albeit significant) effect on the child. Where a pregnant person lives is their decision because it is a question of their own personal autonomy. Whether to sell a child’s democratic rights is not a decision about the parent’s life and personal autonomy.
For example, one could believe that adults should be able to sell one of their kidneys for cash. (I’m not taking a position on that, but will assume it is correct for this paragraph). That doesn’t come close to implying that a parent could validly sell one of the their child’s kidneys for cash, even if the cash were securely locked up in a way that the child was guaranteed the full benefit of the payment.
(In most cases, a parent’s move to another country will not strip their citizen children of citizenship in the democratic country with the right of returning there. This is often true even for children who have not yet been born. And I think my objection would win if limited to already-born minor children only. But I’ll assume the parental action would indeed strip the child’s citizenship.)
Is this true? If a pregnant parent denounces their citizenship, I was assuming this would invalidate the citizenship of their unborn child. I should have clarified that moving alone isn’t enough, but like, parents can renounce their citizenship, and this affects the citizenship status of their future children, which seems like the same deal.
In the U.S.: you can renounce citizenship (which must be done abroad), and then have your child abroad. This should prevent the child from obtaining U.S. nationality through you, although they could still obtain it through the other parent (if any). However, I think renunication by people with prior U.S. residence is fairly uncommon—unless the renouncing person had another nationality, they would become stateless, which is not something you want to be!
Parents cannot, however, renounce the U.S. citizenship of their (born) minor children.
Countries make irrevocable decisions that influence their decedents all the time. When the colonies decided to become independent, they deprived their future generations of the benefits of British citizenship, but few people think this was an invalid decision.
I’ll first note that it seems incredibly unlikely that 95% of a population would agree to sell their ancestral homeland out from under themselves. But even if they did, what would happen if the next year there was some scandal and they changed their minds, and then 95% of them wanted the FTX project gone? Does the project go caput, despite the substantial investment, or does FTX continue on and override the democratic wishes of the people of Nauru?
I don’t know how unlikely it is. It seems like the kind of thing that probably hasn’t been tried, or at least not tried in a high-integrity way. It’s plausible to me that it couldn’t happen, but we are talking about just a few thousand people, which is small enough (though still, of course, an enormous undertaking) that you could negotiate with a huge fraction of those people individually. My sense is there have been areas with 10,000+ people who were voluntarily relocated, and where the relocation package did get a 95%+ approval, but I am not sure.
But even if they did, what would happen if the next year there was some scandal and they changed their minds, and then 95% of them wanted the FTX project gone?
The same that happens if the nation otherwise made agreements with external parties. Sometimes governments borrow money from foreign nations or corporations, and they are generally expected to pay that money back.
It is definitely the kind of thing that should be figured out as part of the contract. Having a vote where people can give back any funds they received, or some large fraction of it, but then kick out the people who gave that money, seems pretty reasonable to me.
Seems like a super messy situation, but I don’t think it’s without precedent, and it feels like the kind of thing that could be figured out.
It seems to me that the talk of buying an entire nation (instead of say, buying a plot of land inside a nation), is inherently undemocratic, for this reason.
I agree that treating the purchase of a nation as a commodity is deeply confused and probably implies a lack of respect for democratic boundaries by the writer. But a democratic nation, democratically agreeing to sell some or most of the ownership over their nation seems like a reasonable thing for a democracy to do. If it’s the will of the people, I am not going to stop them? On what basis would you prevent a nation from democratically deciding to sell their governance this way?
My sense is there have been areas with 10,000+ people who were voluntarily relocated, and where the relocation package did get a 95%+ approval, but I am not sure.
I’m sure this has happened somewhere in the US, say, but, those 10,000 people did not constitute an entire sovereign nation, with representatives in the UN and so on. They were “moving down the road”, to a different place within the same nation, where they continued to have democratic control over their own laws. The people of Nauru have lived there for 3000 years, and suffered greatly under colonial rule before finally gaining self-governance, I find it unlikely they would give it up again so lightly.
Fundamentally, I do not think it makes sense for a country to “democratically” give up it’s right to democratic self-governance. I mean, think about the people who voted “no” on the sale: their right to vote on their own governance, on their own ancestral homeland, is taken away from them without their consent. I do not see a universe where this is ethical. Even if the set of laws FTX is allowed to write are limited, they still apply to the people of the nation, who either have to obey the FTX foundation or abandon their own country and ancestral homeland.
I’m sorry if I come off as emotional here, but I find this proposal deeply troubling and it stands against every one of my principles. I really hope that it was only the one or two fools who were actually considering it.
Separately, it seems pretty fine to me to be more motivated to save your friends and local community than to be motivated to save a random subset of humanity.
Sure, it’s at a minimum better than those superyachts the other billionaires seem to favor. But any such discussions need to be light-years away from anyone involved with one’s charitable foundation. That’s not charity, that’s a personal expense like the superyachts. And, in my view, it is epistemically critical to keep one’s EA activities and one’s personal activities separate (at least at that level of massive spend).
This idea doesn’t strike me as super crazy, though I do dislike the focus on “having most EAs survive”, and I feel like at least the framing in the article implies too much like you can just “purchase a sovereign nation”.
That said, I think neither the idea that you can purchase a sovereign nation, nor the idea to invest in shelters for your local community, strikes me as bad. If 95%+ of the Nauruan population would prefer receiving a large cash gift in order to give substantial control over the nation to a third party, this seems like the kind of thing that a democratic nation should be allowed to do.
Separately, it seems pretty fine to me to be more motivated to save your friends and local community than to be motivated to save a random subset of humanity. I would be excited if a bunch of billionaires or nation states or religious communities or local communities decided to build shelters for themselves and their friends/allies, and would not demand entry to such shelters if I did not contribute to building them.
My guess is this is quite unlikely to break even on cost-effectiveness grounds (compared to other ways to spend money more effectively), and I don’t think this should count as a charitable intervention by normal US 501c3 standards, since it’s not for the public benefit, but only for the benefit of a specific professional community, but otherwise it seems like this plan could have been executed in a way that would have been good for the world.
That said, de facto I expect that FTX, if they had ever taken this project seriously, would have not gone ahead with this plan in a way that would have been good for the world, mostly because they have demonstrated that they weren’t very good at respecting boundaries and engaging in trades that leave all parties better off, and my guess is they would have done it in a way that would have violated some of the autonomy of the citizens of Nauru, and my guess is would have not been honest and straightforward about how this mostly benefits them and their friends.
I’ll first note that it seems incredibly unlikely that 95% of a population would agree to sell their ancestral homeland out from under themselves. But even if they did, what would happen if the next year there was some scandal and they changed their minds, and then 95% of them wanted the FTX project gone? Does the project go caput, despite the substantial investment, or does FTX continue on and override the democratic wishes of the people of Nauru?
It seems to me that the talk of buying an entire nation (instead of say, buying a plot of land inside a nation), is inherently undemocratic, for this reason. You’re not just buying land, you’re buying control over people. Fortunately, the idea is crazy for about a dozen other reasons I listed elsewhere, so it never would have gotten that far in the first place.
There are also minor citizens, and citizens not yet born. Even assuming all the adult citizens could and would validly and irrevocably sell their democratic rights, they could not validly sell those of the next generation.
Yeah, I think this is a pretty interesting question. I don’t have a super strong take here.
Parents can move to a nondemocratic country, and so already have the power to validly and irrevocably give up the democratic rights of their children. I wouldn’t currently prevent a pregnant parent from moving to China because that would give up the democratic rights of their future children, would you? It’s plausible I should, but I don’t currently feel sold on that.
(In most cases, a parent’s move to another country will not strip their citizen children of citizenship in the democratic country with the right of returning there. This is often true even for children who have not yet been born. And I think my objection would win if limited to already-born minor children only. But I’ll assume the parental action would indeed strip the child’s citizenship.)
I think you’re describing a life decision by the parent that has an incidental (albeit significant) effect on the child. Where a pregnant person lives is their decision because it is a question of their own personal autonomy. Whether to sell a child’s democratic rights is not a decision about the parent’s life and personal autonomy.
For example, one could believe that adults should be able to sell one of their kidneys for cash. (I’m not taking a position on that, but will assume it is correct for this paragraph). That doesn’t come close to implying that a parent could validly sell one of the their child’s kidneys for cash, even if the cash were securely locked up in a way that the child was guaranteed the full benefit of the payment.
Is this true? If a pregnant parent denounces their citizenship, I was assuming this would invalidate the citizenship of their unborn child. I should have clarified that moving alone isn’t enough, but like, parents can renounce their citizenship, and this affects the citizenship status of their future children, which seems like the same deal.
In the U.S.: you can renounce citizenship (which must be done abroad), and then have your child abroad. This should prevent the child from obtaining U.S. nationality through you, although they could still obtain it through the other parent (if any). However, I think renunication by people with prior U.S. residence is fairly uncommon—unless the renouncing person had another nationality, they would become stateless, which is not something you want to be!
Parents cannot, however, renounce the U.S. citizenship of their (born) minor children.
Countries make irrevocable decisions that influence their decedents all the time. When the colonies decided to become independent, they deprived their future generations of the benefits of British citizenship, but few people think this was an invalid decision.
I don’t know how unlikely it is. It seems like the kind of thing that probably hasn’t been tried, or at least not tried in a high-integrity way. It’s plausible to me that it couldn’t happen, but we are talking about just a few thousand people, which is small enough (though still, of course, an enormous undertaking) that you could negotiate with a huge fraction of those people individually. My sense is there have been areas with 10,000+ people who were voluntarily relocated, and where the relocation package did get a 95%+ approval, but I am not sure.
The same that happens if the nation otherwise made agreements with external parties. Sometimes governments borrow money from foreign nations or corporations, and they are generally expected to pay that money back.
It is definitely the kind of thing that should be figured out as part of the contract. Having a vote where people can give back any funds they received, or some large fraction of it, but then kick out the people who gave that money, seems pretty reasonable to me.
Seems like a super messy situation, but I don’t think it’s without precedent, and it feels like the kind of thing that could be figured out.
I agree that treating the purchase of a nation as a commodity is deeply confused and probably implies a lack of respect for democratic boundaries by the writer. But a democratic nation, democratically agreeing to sell some or most of the ownership over their nation seems like a reasonable thing for a democracy to do. If it’s the will of the people, I am not going to stop them? On what basis would you prevent a nation from democratically deciding to sell their governance this way?
I’m sure this has happened somewhere in the US, say, but, those 10,000 people did not constitute an entire sovereign nation, with representatives in the UN and so on. They were “moving down the road”, to a different place within the same nation, where they continued to have democratic control over their own laws. The people of Nauru have lived there for 3000 years, and suffered greatly under colonial rule before finally gaining self-governance, I find it unlikely they would give it up again so lightly.
Fundamentally, I do not think it makes sense for a country to “democratically” give up it’s right to democratic self-governance. I mean, think about the people who voted “no” on the sale: their right to vote on their own governance, on their own ancestral homeland, is taken away from them without their consent. I do not see a universe where this is ethical. Even if the set of laws FTX is allowed to write are limited, they still apply to the people of the nation, who either have to obey the FTX foundation or abandon their own country and ancestral homeland.
I’m sorry if I come off as emotional here, but I find this proposal deeply troubling and it stands against every one of my principles. I really hope that it was only the one or two fools who were actually considering it.
Sure, it’s at a minimum better than those superyachts the other billionaires seem to favor. But any such discussions need to be light-years away from anyone involved with one’s charitable foundation. That’s not charity, that’s a personal expense like the superyachts. And, in my view, it is epistemically critical to keep one’s EA activities and one’s personal activities separate (at least at that level of massive spend).
Totally! This seems pretty clearly non-charitable (which I tried to emphasize in my comment).