Our lives are already nearly fully dependent on technology. Some of the projections for casualties in the months following a high-altitude EMP (or solar flare) are pretty staggering. Just losing computers means that most people die of starvation within a few months as global supply chains completely collapse.
And you're being unnecessarily adversarial. The comment you're replying to didn't say anything about disregarding the well-being of life on Earth. Interpreting it that way is uncharitable.
It'd be great to see the beneficiaries of tech wealth commit to building intentional, public physical learning spaces (again [0]).
Libraries may look different in the 21st century, and have more than books, but their purpose of making knowledge accessible remains the same and as important as ever.
You would like to watch yet another step towards the dismantling of representative democracy in the United States as an experiment? There is enough happening right now that demands your attention.
What an incredibly bad faith response to someone simply expressing their desire to see an idea experimentally validated. That's really the only way we can know if a political system is viable.
Eg. both communism and socialism seemed plausible until multiple independent experiments proved otherwise. It would be interesting to see how a modern day laissez faire city-state would fair.
You're right --- what the article describes and what proponents have in mind is actually more extreme and far worse.
But just like in "company towns", corporate overlords are the only real authority as they proclaim their independence yet still mooch services from the surrounding area as needed.
The take away discovery from similar experiments in the past has typically been --- there is no free lunch. Isolated authoritarianism (masquerading as libertarianism or mislabeled as "freedom") is just as far from a utopia as any other system --- and maybe even more so.
Slowly but surely, even the cowboys on a cattle ranch come to realize that the ranch isn't being run for their benefit. And being branded a "company man" doesn't really impart "freedom" but instead takes it away.
What the article describes is pretty sensationalized and full of bias.
Obviously there is plenty of room for it to go wrong but I don't think it's automatically the case that somehow paradoxically, giving the government less control over a region will make that region more authoritarian. I would expect the null hypothesis to be the opposite.
What do you propose to do with life on Earth while you put all your unlimited resources into your flight plan, let it burn?