I've not read the book, nor have I read arguments as to why the above is true. Regardless, that's a pretty hefty claim, one I consder to be amusing. Don't get me wrong, both would be neat. Still, consider the following. I'm not sure what "on the oceans" means. If he means a floating nation, that's an interesting concept, albeit an expensive one. A floating Objectivist nation would, by definition, be a producing nation. While it could be a focal point for information producers, not all Objectivists are capable of doing that. There would need to be some hard production of some kind, whether manufacturing, agriculture, livestock, or whatever. Living space will not be cheap. If he means an underwater nation, add the complication of bringing a living environment below the surface. That includes air and potable water. At nearly 1/2 lb pressure per square inch for each foot of depth, highly durable structures would be required even in relatively shallow water. Space is supremely expensive to reach. Once outside Earth's atmosphere, you are exposed to considerable hard radiation from the Sun, deadly radiation that is almost completely filtered by our atmosphere. Assuming an Objectivist nation would prefer to live on a body (planet or moon) versus in orbit, where would it be? Only two worlds in our Solar System could even be considered - the Moon and Mars. The Moon has no atmosphere, no life, no apparent means of easily producing energy. While Mars has a very thin atmosphere (~1/100 of ours in density), it remains hostile to Earth life. It too has no life and no apparent means of easily producing energy. Humans haven't been to the Moon in over 30 years, and we've never walked on Mars. Perchance I'm being harsh on the point about an Objectivist nation on the oceans and in space. Still, this rather extraordinary claim doesn't seem to hold to even a moment's consideration. Thoughts?