• Vast amounts of empty dry land that can’t be inhabited by conventional means.
  • Thus the government may be amenable to a new approach.
  • Isolation: you can build a new civilization in western Australia without stepping on other people’s feet.
• Perovskite solar and utility scale batteries will crash the cost of energy, and western australia has 365 days of sun / year.
• Mineral Wealth
• Hopefully access to exhausted large pit mines, that we can dome over to create large indoor-outdoor spaces.
• Stable, democratic government.
• No earthquakes or other natural dangers
• Australians already feel the effects of climate change more than most developed countries, so may be more sympathetic to the goals of the project.

The arcology is an ‘alien civilization’: an attempt to break free from the conventional equity-capitalist game. Why would it be tolerated?

• Would there be ideological defense mechanisms that could attack the project?
  • Players in the current game are mostly not ideological in practice. It’s all about getting a good deal, showing a profit, getting ahead for you personally, and perhaps your company and team.
  • Thus maybe we don’t need to worry too much about ideological concerns.
• Instead, we must make sure that there is a practical interface between elements of the arcology and elements of the real world:
• The arco itself is one such interface. It would be a democratic corporation, but incorporated under the cost country’s law, with each resident actually holding an actual share.
  • The arco holds bank accounts in various currencies, files taxes returns and pays taxes according to the host country’s laws.
• Private demcos are another interface.
  • they would also have incorporation under the host country, 1 share per worker, so that they can claim limited liability wrt contracts.
  • they can hold remote bank accounts just like any other host-nation country.
• That means the arco and private demcos are free to do business with the host nation and internationally.
• thus it becomes about whether the demcos are a net benefit or a net problem for those with the power to resist the establishment of the arco.
  • who are such people?
    • members of the host nation’s federal and provincial governments.
    • local aboriginal groups who may have land claims in the area.

large businesses who could feel threatened, and who have an influence on the government.

Potential problem areas:

• Immigration: individuals would probably need to pass thru Australia’s regular immigration channels. If we want to bring new residents in en mass, this could be an issue.
• income taxes: if the host nation insists on to collect full taxes from the individuals, this would complicate things. might not be  death knell, but it might be difficult. In that case, being a small city, the arcology would be able to insist that the government pay for hospitals and public schools, and the other services normally covered by taxes,  within the arcology.

• It would be much better if a deal could be struck with the host nation, whereby the internal economy gets taxed in demcos, and those demcos go to pay for local public services directly.
• then only taxes for national services, like defense, foreign relations, national elections etc would need to be taxed in dollars, and perhaps the tax could be levied directly on the arco itself.
  • question: how likely would any host nation be to agree to this?
  • I think the default answer would be: “no way”
  • Even if it made sense economically, bringing in net advantages to Australia vs not having any arcos at all, the government might be very worried about this setting a dangerous precedent. What happens when the next crazy anarcho-libertarian group steps up and demands the same deal?
    • Also, it’s likely not something that could be done administratively. An exception would probably need to be carved out in law, and get thru parliament.
      • this would mean it could get killed by simple ignorance or ideology among parliamentarians.
      • a law benefitting a vanishingly small special interest group, rarely get passed, unless there’s corruption involved.
• I wonder if there could generally be a rule: if credits flow thru an economy faster than dollars, would dollars always be harder to obtain than credits?

 

Relationship with Australia

(or hosting government)

• The city-state would ideally be treated as a semi-autonomous zone, since it would be providing most of the social services itself, and uses a different currency and a different form of capitalism.
• Hopefully the city-corp and the Australian government can strike a deal where the government taxes the city-corp itself, instead of the people, and taxes are limited to reflect the services actually consumed by the city-corp, such as national defense, international diplomacy etc…
  • Given the land is basically unused, the government would have very little to lose in giving it a try.

 

What’s in it for Australia?

• Lots of new business for Australian companies.
• A new tax base.
  • More money for defense, increases sovereignty and Australia’s presence and power on the international stage.
• A way to exploit mineral resources in the outback that’s not currently viable
• A new shipping port perhaps
• A new means of supporting greater immigration without straining existing city infrastructure
• Expanded mining industry.

Offsetting Australia’s Concerns

• Loss of sovereignty in the outback
  • If the arcos get too large and powerful, they may want to declare independence.
  • One easy way to manage this is a pledge, guarantee that the arcos will never acquire arms beyond what’s needed by a local police force.
  • Australian controlled military bases could be situated close by.
    • In fact such bases would be more affordable with support from the arcos.
• Relations with Aboriginals
  • Open question. Not clear what aboriginal communities would think of arcologies. The environmental sustainability would likely be appreciated, but the increased mining activity would likely be frowned on.