I wasn’t able to watch the Starship flight live, as I was on a business trip involving socializing and alcohol tastings. However, at the very first opportunity, I inquired about how things went and was overjoyed by the success.

In this regard, I want to reflect on a trend that has become particularly pronounced lately and is becoming a complete commonplace: in almost any state, an entrepreneur can face numerous problems related to their political stance, and the more of an innovator that entrepreneur is, the more likely it is that their political position will run counter to the mainstream — it is difficult to imagine a completely systemic innovator. Jack Ma in China, Pavel Durov in France, and Elon Musk in the USA are not even close to an exhaustive list, but merely a cross-section showing that this trend is quite global, and these entrepreneurs, for the most part, have nowhere to run.

A quite obvious question arises. Within libertarian circles, the idea of a Libertarian International wanders—an awareness of common interests among holders of libertarian values and the joint defense of these very interests, despite the individualistic nature of the libertarian ideology itself. One wonders: among entrepreneurs, who encounter systemic state opposition to the values that fuel their businesses, is there no demand for an Entrepreneurial International? What could the joint defense of common interests by entrepreneurs consist of, and are they capable of realizing them, despite the individualistic nature of any entrepreneurial activity, and especially innovative activity?

In a speculative free-market society, a person is wealthier and more respected the more benefit they bring to others. In a real society, where politics is mixed with the free market, such a person receives, in addition to wealth and respect, envy, which quickly turns into hatred—and a very active kind of hatred at that.

Of course, the most obvious move for entrepreneurs is to relocate their business to the freest possible jurisdiction. That is, to seek shelter under a politician who shares their values—someone like a hypothetical Milei. However, how many political systems can boast long-term continuity of political course? The alternation of power is a well-known democratic fetish. Therefore, an entrepreneur cannot trust a politician who lures them into their jurisdiction with promises of economic freedom. They know that in a few years, the politician will exit the stage, a leftist will crawl into their place, and will begin to demolish everything built by their predecessor. And relocating a business is a loss of time and money.

In response to all this, a libertarian will dig through a manual and provide a quite decent, well-theorized recipe: extraterritorial contractual jurisdictions. But that is also a business. And this service can only develop if there is stable, solvent demand. That is, conditional Durovs and Musks must at least signal their readiness to enter into a contract with someone who can and will agree to provide protection for their businesses from the appetites of territorial states and their greedy, envious voters. And then, perhaps, a couple of outlaws will be found who will dare to launch this honorable, yet extremely dangerous and responsible business.

Of course, variations are possible. For example, such a forceful entrepreneur might first launch their own service and only then offer their services to those in need. Or entrepreneurs might organize extraterritorial protection on their own.

For now, however, there is a feeling that entrepreneurs continue to rely on traditional political protection, funding one politician or another despite the obvious unreliability of this method. I don’t have a recipe for how to change their mindset. I am simply admiring the filigree landing of the fifth Starship booster on the launch pad and continue to marvel at how much harder social innovation is to implement than engineering…