Either accept another regime's rules or arm ourselves to defend our own rules.
No existing regime will sell a viable place to be an independent competing country.
Here is an example of a very remote possibility.
Tonga and Fiji are still fighting over this "island" group that is sometimes above high tide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minerva_Ree...
Are there "surface" atolls that can be settled and defended?

A seastead established with 'permission' or in a 'free trade zone' is still subject to that regime's control. We'd be just as well off to establish a 'seastead' on a rural riverbank in a 'friendly' country/state, and the cost of infrastructure would be much lower. Taxes on floating/moveable housing are much harder to enforce.

I love the idea. JBrenner and I talked about it and thought it would be too expensive, but I can't remember why. The website puts the cost in the $400/sqft range. That puts it in a range where it could work but will be hard to get started and get to critical mass. Undeveloped existing land in remote locations can be had for a few cents a sq ft.

Then I start thinking it shouldn't be remote b/c it needs easy access to talent and supplies but somehow remote enough to fly under the radar of authorities. That pushes me toward a small island near a population center, which is more expensive than a seasted.

I hope people separately pursue the different options, and loose federation of semi-stateless enclaves (Gulches) crops up.

This Seasteading link is the same one Robbie found about a year ago. Peter Thiel of PayPal has put $500 K into seasteading.