1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar




Antartica

This topic contains 61 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by Avatar of Ancient Man Ancient Man 8 months, 2 weeks ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 62 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #22539
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    And you seem to forgot that your’re barking at the wrong tree here.

    #22544
    Avatar of Ancient Man
    Ancient Man
    Member

    OCEANOPOLIS

    Therefore, recognition by whatever “other entities” seemed to be irrelevant, as long as I determined that I exist.

    De facto — yes, de jure — if the law doesn’t recognize you as a person, then you aren’t a person. And vice contra, the law counts corporations as persons in many cases.

    The law that we play by is very clear here

    There are many laws, not all countries approve all international laws or regional laws, sometimes internal laws are in direct contradiction to international laws etc. The Convention only provides a country the right to try and self-determine itself, it doesn’t make other countries automatically recognize you. Look at the world, there are many unrecognized countries that claim to be sovereign. I bet you don’t want your seastead to become like Kosovo. Or to find itself in an economic blockade due to the fact that if one is not recognized, then one cannot be traded with as effectively as with a recognized country. Or consider Taiwan, it doesn’t have a seat in UN or many diplomatic relations. Also while United States signed Montevideo Convention, they do not abide by it, as can be seen precisely in the case of Taiwan.
    Pretending that no recognition is needed is like being a solipsist and claiming that others do not exist. Seasteading doesn’t by itself create a sovereign country, even though maybe in one of the old and abstract regional laws like Montevideo it does. For it to change, the international laws of country creation have to be standardized first and approved by major powers, right now it’s a mess. And if they’re standardized then surely demand and supply will arise, and the islands with sovereign rights will start to be sold, and they will become cheaper than now because of competition with seasteading. So I don’t see how with pure seasteading it’s easier to be sovereign than with an island or with a mix of islands and ships. Maybe islands are more expensive, but that’s without counting risk of failure. Look at how much time and money was already spent in different attempts, yet with zero political results.

    shredder7753

    But it won’t change the fact that a naval crew from a recognized country can freely board your vessel and take charge if you have no flag.

    They can do the same with a vessel or an island from some small recognized country too. Or even from a big country. Look at the Falkland Islands conflict, for example. Sovereignty isn’t that simple, if it was, there wouldn’t be that much fighting… Actually, if one looks back in history, some international treaties were made exactly to respect each other’s sovereignty, in order to reduce wars. Peace of Westphalia comes in mind.

    #22549
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    Well, I said “autonomous” for a good reason. You said “why sovereignty is almost impossible?” but now, “the major powers” don’t respect the LAW, etc. Nothing new under the sun,… A battle that can’t be won should not be fought. And to start, I am not going to fight over ONE word :) and for sure not over achieving an “absolute” sovereignty or a “relative” autonomy. Recognized or not by the major or minor asshole of the world don’t mean a damn thing-de facto or de jure, solipsism or not, as long as the people on that particular seastead have the freedom, liberty, justice and wealth that they wished for, and are happy about it.

    There is nothing in this world that can stop like minded people from building a floating artificial island, fly their own flag and sail into the sunset, while governing themselves as they please, respect international and maritime law in the process and making sure that they can stand their ground.

    All those comments about “…a naval crew…can freely board your vessel and take charge if you have no flag” are just pure nonsense in the context of me already saying that there IS a flag flying up there and it is recognized by the people who hoisted it up there, who built and who are living/crewing on that vessel, on the high seas, just minding their own business. Nobody’s boarding this vessel under those circumstances. Any attempt to do so will only lead to conflict. If you cannot protect what you own, than why bother owning it? Specially 1000 nm offshore.

    I’ve also heard the statement that the navies of the world are all up in arms to “get” you if you float something out there. Really?? There is no such precedent, that let’s say, 100 people just sail out on “something” that they built and just stayed out there, but already “the experts” know the outcome:

    “It’s doomed to fail even before thinking about it, dude.” OK, whatever dudes, trip on.

    #22551
    Avatar of Ancient Man
    Ancient Man
    Member

    You said “why sovereignty is almost impossible?” but now, “the major powers” don’t respect the LAW, etc. Nothing new under the sun,… A battle that can’t be won should not be fought

    It’s possible to achieve sovereignty because the countries do not always disrespect the law. Sometimes they do, sometimes not. Internal and regional laws are often better defined than truly international. All I’m saying is that there is no absolute international law that will automatically give sovereignty. Each case should be different, first get recognition from one country, then from another (according to their particular laws) etc. And if the battle isn’t fought then nothing would ever change. The incentive for big powers to make codex of country creation will only appear if there’s a big movement for it, like Greenpeace for environmental protection.

    And to start, I am not going to fight over ONE word :) and for sure not over achieving an “absolute” sovereignty or a “relative” autonomy. Recognized or not by the major or minor asshole of the world don’t mean a damn thing-de facto or de jure, solipsism or not, as long as the people on that particular seastead have the freedom, liberty, justice and wealth that they wished for, and are happy about it.

    This one word is what divides freedom from slavery. I don’t see how much more freedom you can get in an autonomy, if you still have to follow the host country’s laws and judicial system. Sure, you may introduce some laws, but I doubt they will be allowed to contradict original laws. Of course, you can get wealth. Because that’s what autonomy is: you pay tribute to the king in charge, he allows you to levy taxes from the people who you govern in the autonomy. It’s basically executive outsourcing.
    Also I doubt you would be able to stop people from coming to live on your platform. One thing when it’s a private property, another thing if it’s a political autonomy. So you’ll either have to discriminate against citizens of the host country, or allow everyone on-board, even those who do not care about seasteading. There are many other caveats. And I don’t think mobility will help in this case, the host country will do everything to stop you from moving out of its jurisdiction, no one lets autonomous territory just sail away.
    As an example of what awaits autonomous seasteading I present Freetown Christiania. It is located in one of the most democratic countries, Denmark, yet the government doesn’t allow more liberty there than there’s already in the host country. Basically, the strategy of peaceful autonomy is “sit quiet and hope something happens so that it’s possible to receive sovereignty, like world war, civil war or new decolonization”. It can work, but this strategy is totally different compared to buying sovereignty.
    Another point: think about it, Christiania created an autonomy, Lykov family lived as hermits… Land is equal to sea in the ways of living independently, so there are no advantages in pure seasteading compared to mixed seasteading, especially in the case of an autonomy.

    There is nothing in this world that can stop like minded people from building a floating artificial island, fly their own flag and sail into the sunset, while governing themselves as they please, respect international and maritime law in the process and making sure that they can stand their ground.

    There is, it’s called greed. It’s the reason why patent trolls exist etc. For example, what would you do when some patent troll sees you are making profit and sues you? And it doesn’t matter if you can navigate, patent trolls will attack you in the new jurisdiction, that is if you are allowed to move in the new jurisdiction while you are being sued.
    Then there’s law. The law doesn’t care if you self-govern or not, as soon as something slightly illegal (according to internal laws) happens the host country can and probably will intervene.

    All those comments about “…a naval crew…can freely board your vessel and take charge if you have no flag” are just pure nonsense in the context of me already saying that there IS a flag flying up there and it is recognized by the people who hoisted it up there, who built and who are living/crewing on that vessel, on the high seas, just minding their own business. Nobody’s boarding this vessel under those circumstances. Any attempt to do so will only lead to conflict. If you cannot protect what you own, than why bother owning it? Specially 1000 nm offshore.

    If it’s not recognized by the government in charge of the attackers, then the flag doesn’t mean anything. The vessel will be considered illegal, pirate or dangerous by any navy. There’s no law that makes everyone recognize random flags as sovereign vessels. Conflict doesn’t stop anyone, it’s enough for 1 illegal internet deal involving US citizen to happen, and US will intentionally tear down your platform to pieces and will put founders in Guantanamo for 10 years without any trial.
    And if you want protecting your autonomous vessel, think again, even some sovereign countries are not allowed to have army, like Japan.

    I’ve also heard the statement that the navies of the world are all up in arms to “get” you if you float something out there. Really?? There is no such precedent, that let’s say, 100 people just sail out on “something” that they built and just stayed out there, but already “the experts” know the outcome:
    “It’s doomed to fail even before thinking about it, dude.”

    So you are willing to risk lives of 100 people to find out if it’s true or not?
    That’s if we forget that there actually are a lot of precedents. Like USS Liberty incident. The Jews attacked the US Navy ship in international waters because they “couldn’t discern a flag” and killed 34 people, many more were wounded. You still think someone will hesitate attacking a random platform with illegal flag?

    #22552
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    USS Liberty attack was an abominable act of treason.

    No, I don’t think that someone will hesitate to attack such platform. That’s why I said that such platform should have the capability to protect herself. The so called “illegal flag” it’s a matter of perception. If 100 people decided it’s their flag, that decision should be respected by all entities. If out of 100 people, men, women and children, a 30 strong “armed force” is democratically assigned to protect their freedom and liberty, and if I’ll be in charge, I won’t hesitate one second to do my duty and protect them by any necessary means, if diplomacy fails.

    In this day and age, to say that a navy ship of any government navigating on the high seas will attack, unprovoked and without any proof of piracy or other wrongdoings, a peacefully navigating platform under an unknown flag, it’s really fictitious. (no disrespect implied) The real scenario of an encounter between a man of war and such platform its totally different. Do you really think that a captain of a navy destroyer (lets say) would open fire on such platform? Out of the blue sky? Risking killing innocent people, Americans, British, Spanish, etc nationals? Do you really think that any captain in his right mind would risk his career, and an international incident, for what? 100 people who just want to be left alone on the high seas?

    It ain’t the LAPD out there. In fact, most of the ships (man of war or otherwise) won’t even bother to stop.

    In terms of greed, in our case, I think greed is good and greed is on the seasteading side since there are billions to be made out there. Another incentive to seasteading?

    When I said that sovereignty is almost impossible, I was referring to international legal sovereignty – formal recognition by other sovereign states. On a mobile floating platform, domestic sovereignty – actual control over a territory exercised by an authority organized within a state, is guaranteed since there is no host country or original laws. You are the host country and people make their own laws on their territory. For now, I will be happy with just the domestic sovereignty,…

    LOL, I don’t think paying tribute to the king is autonomy.

    Autonomy (Ancient Greek: αὐτονομία autonomia from αὐτόνομος autonomos from αὐτο- auto- “self” + νόμος nomos, “law”, hence when combined understood to mean “one who gives oneself their own law”) is a concept found in moral, political, and bioethical philosophy. Within these contexts, it is the capacity of a rational individual to make an informed, un-coerced decision. In moral and political philosophy, autonomy is often used as the basis for determining moral responsibility and accountability for one’s actions. One of the best known philosophical theories of autonomy was developed by Kant. In medicine, respect for the autonomy of patients is an important goal, though it can conflict with a competing ethical principle, namely beneficence. Autonomy is also used to refer to the self-government of the people.

    #22553
    Avatar of Ancient Man
    Ancient Man
    Member

    No, I don’t think that someone will hesitate to attack such platform. That’s why I said that such platform should have the capability to protect herself.

    If a platform that’s not recognized will start to behave like a sovereign entity and at the same time start buying arms in mass quantities, it will most probably be treated as a terrorist formation. Why would major powers allow on the high seas for the existence of a random structure full with armed and determined people?

    USS Liberty attack was an abominable act of treason.
    In this day and age, to say that a navy ship of any government navigating on the high seas will attack, unprovoked and without any proof of piracy or other wrongdoings, a peacefully navigating platform under an unknown flag, it’s really fictitious.

    The platform can also be abominably betrayed. Besides, how is it peaceful, from the point of view of existing states, if it has arms and is not recognized by anyone? Consider what Israel did with Gaza Freedom Flotilla. And there are a lot of somewhat similar accidents. For example, Yinhe incident in 1993. Navy does it with known flags, unknown flag is even worse from this point of view. Wrongdoing is a really stretched term this days, look how proof was fabricated against Saddam Hussein.

    The so called “illegal flag” it’s a matter of perception. If 100 people decided it’s their flag, that decision should be respected by all entities.

    It’s a matter of law, not perception. The entities don’t care about what 100 people think the entities should do, the entities behave themselves according to their own needs, laws etc. The more platforms out there, the less states will be willing to tolerate them. It’s one case when there’s one unrecognized platform, another case when it’s ten or more of them who claim they don’t care about recognition and at the same time “promise” they won’t break any laws. Under current circumstances, recognition is needed, to change this fact — international laws will have to be standardized to allow automatic recognition.

    The real scenario of an encounter between a man of war and such platform its totally different. Do you really think that a captain of a navy destroyer (lets say) would open fire on such platform? Out of the blue sky? Risking killing innocent people, Americans, British, Spanish, etc nationals? Do you really think that any captain in his right mind would risk his career, and an international incident, for what? 100 people who just want to be left alone on the high seas? It ain’t the LAPD out there. In fact, most of the ships (man of war or otherwise) won’t even bother to stop.

    What do you mean by being left alone? Are we talking about hermits? Then it’s a totally different case. I’m speaking about a situation when there are a lot of skilled people with strong beliefs on-board, who trade with other countries, who make business, who use Internet etc. That’s not being left alone in my book. It’s all about being included in the world economy. In such circumstances the platform is a potentially dangerous structure, especially if it has arms. If the captain suspects any danger to his crew when his ship sails near the platform, he will at least issue a warning to it, at most attack right away. Even if there’s no imminent danger to the Navy ship, the states will be highly suspicious of such formation that is not respecting sovereign law, isn’t paying taxes to no one, has a lot of high-profile activity and arms etc. One mistake, any mistake, and they bring it down. That’s not to say they won’t tolerate for a bit of time 1 or 2 such platforms, but not much more. Yet the goal of TSI is enabling everyone to create countries. It’s just not viable long-term.

    If out of 100 people, men, women and children, a 30 strong “armed force” is democratically assigned to protect their freedom and liberty, and if I’ll be in charge, I won’t hesitate one second to do my duty and protect them by any necessary means, if diplomacy fails.

    It didn’t help Falkland Islands though.

    In terms of greed, in our case, I think greed is good and greed is on the seasteading side since there are billions to be made out there. Another incentive to seasteading?

    Yes, billions of incentives to keep seasteads inside EEZ, especially if it is not sovereign. Make business all the way you want, like Blueseed, but try political emancipation and the situation turns upside down.

    When I said that sovereignty is almost impossible, I was referring to international legal sovereignty – formal recognition by other sovereign states. On a mobile floating platform, domestic sovereignty – actual control over a territory exercised by an authority organized within a state, is guaranteed since there is no host country or original laws. You are the host country and people make their own laws on their territory. For now, I will be happy with just the domestic sovereignty,…

    I presented some examples how small countries in Pacific have gained independence. So I don’t see what’s impossible here. Also, I wouldn’t say autonomy equals to domestic sovereignty, it’s two different things.
    About domestic sovereignty: when the unrecognized platform starts to develop itself, then all sorts of problems will arise with other nations, because they don’t know what to expect: the country declares that it’s legal, yet it doesn’t seek legal recognition from others. It’s a contradiction, how can it be called good faith if certain laws are ignored from the start. Why not seek recognition, if you are legal?

    LOL, I don’t think paying tribute to the king is autonomy.

    Why not? In state politics, autonomy is only partial self-governance. So it depends on the king, if he is benevolent, you are more independent, if malevolent — then less. Usually autonomies don’t have the right for exit and have to pay tributes to federal government. So I doubt it’ll be easy for a seastead to peacefully obtain sovereignty from being an autonomous entity within a bigger country. The strategy for becoming sovereign from being autonomous entity is totally different compared with buying sovereign land.
    I should note one thing, if a seastead becomes an autonomous entity within another country or forms confederation with it, then said country legally recognizes seastead as a certain political structure. It’s not the same as getting domestic sovereignty, when a seastead has full authority over itself, yet isn’t recognized in any way by anyone.

    #22558
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    I never talked about autonomy within another entity. My comments here are mostly related to mobile floating islands (platforms). If you want to define “paying tribute to the king” as “autonomy”, it’s up to you. But to me that’s vassalage not autonomy.

    I never said a domestic sovereign platform should not seek international sovereignty. Of course it should. All I said is that @ this point in time of seasteading (without a seastead on the horizon in the near future), international sovereignty is not my priority.

    “Make business all the way you want, like Blueseed, but try political emancipation and the situation turns upside down.” You don’t know how it will turn until you try. It will turn positive if you are wise and diplomatic about it. It will turn negative if you are stupid and arrogant about it.

    At the time of the so called Falklands War, the Falkland Islands were British oversea territory (whatever that is in this day and age) and Argentina invaded and occupied the islands. The Brits send the Navy and beat the shit out oh the Argentinians. The moral here? Don’t fuck with the people who have domestic sovereignty and who can kick your ass.

    “Left alone” meant “not to be interfered with their actions”. As for “perceived as terrorist formation”, this is just your assumption.

    “Even if there’s no imminent danger to the Navy ship, the states will be highly suspicious of such formation that is not respecting sovereign law, isn’t paying taxes to no one, has a lot of high-profile activity and arms etc.” The states are highly suspicious of an old lady sitting on a bench in the park and eating ice cream. They are suspicious of EVERYBODY and EVERYTHING nowadays. They are all paranoid. How you gonna change that? If the platform applies for state recognition to the UN, why do you say that the platform is not respecting sovereignty law or international laws? Why should the platform pay taxes to anybody outside their own internal taxation system, if one in place, which is their own problem? How can 100 people platform have a “high-profile activity”, and what “high-profile” are you referring to? What “arms in mass quantity” are we talking about for a 30 strong armed force, lol? I can legally buy part of the platform’s “needs” to defend itself @ Walmart today and the rest of the heavier hardware at any gun show in Florida this weekend.

    The platform can be armed and peaceful and it should always be like that. Not because of fear that the other States will fuck with you. It’s the “little guy” we should keep an eye on, the “entrepreneurial pirate” with AK-47s, and a 50 caliber on the bow of a high speed boat.

    Anyway, I am not here to impose my views on seasteading or to put a gun to somebody’s head demanding they must follow my lead. Very far from it. I’m just expressing my opinions and my points of view and trying to built a consensus with people who share the same ideals of seasteading as mine.

    But as a general rule, I think we should not start planning seasteading (in whatever form and shape) with fear of failure, or being ridiculed, or categorized as “outlaws”, separatists, etc. Fear is not going to take us anywhere.

    Wishing TSI staff and all you guys trying to seastead, A Happy New Year!

    #22562
    Avatar of Ancient Man
    Ancient Man
    Member

    I never talked about autonomy within another entity. My comments here are mostly related to mobile floating islands (platforms). If you want to define “paying tribute to the king” as “autonomy”, it’s up to you. But to me that’s vassalage not autonomy.

    I already told you, in state politics discourse the concept of autonomy means partial (sometimes more, sometimes less) self-governance. It’s you who redefines the common term:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_administrative_division
    Full self-governance is called sovereignty. If you are speaking about autonomous floating platform, then, according to current political terminology, it’s a part of some bigger state.
    About the king, I was speaking metaphorically, I thought you understand metaphors.

    I never said a domestic sovereign platform should not seek international sovereignty. Of course it should.
    If the platform applies for state recognition to the UN, why do you say that the platform is not respecting sovereignty law or international laws?

    Because I don’t understand your plan, you have everything mixed up, one paragraph you talk about autonomy, another one about domestic sovereignty, before that about not caring about recognition, now you say you are wanting to work towards recognition. It’s either you don’t work towards recognition, or you do, one or the other, no third choice.

    All I said is that @ this point in time of seasteading (without a seastead on the horizon in the near future), international sovereignty is not my priority.

    Then you are not speaking about autonomy, you are speaking about domestic sovereignty in an unrecognized state. The seastead will become like Palestine or Kosovo, highly militarized and behaving itself like a sovereign country even though it’s not recognized as such by many countries.

    The Brits send the Navy and beat the shit out oh the Argentinians. The moral here? Don’t fuck with the people who have domestic sovereignty and who can kick your ass.

    The moral is that it was a war, I thought you wanted peace, and now you are speaking about kicking asses.

    What “arms in mass quantity” are we talking about for a 30 strong armed force, lol?

    It’s high quantity when seen relative to total population. 30 people army out of 100 people is 30% militarization of general population. Very high for a democratic state. And existing states will think the same. They will perceive this formation as a dangerous highly mobile unrecognized military state.

    As for “perceived as terrorist formation”, this is just your assumption.
    The states are highly suspicious of an old lady sitting on a bench in the park and eating ice cream. They are suspicious of EVERYBODY and EVERYTHING nowadays. They are all paranoid. How you gonna change that?
    The platform can be armed and peaceful and it should always be like that. Not because of fear that the other States will fuck with you. It’s the “little guy” we should keep an eye on, the “entrepreneurial pirate” with AK-47s, and a 50 caliber on the bow of a high speed boat.
    I can legally buy part of the platform’s “needs” to defend itself @ Walmart today and the rest of the heavier hardware at any gun show in Florida this weekend.

    Police in the US shoots in any suspicious situation without questions, if they think they see a gun. In fact, you are asking to be killed by someone’s army if you try to militarize an unrecognized movable political formation. First, be recognized at least by some big countries, then buy arms, that’s how to go, if you ask me. That’s if we are still talking about peaceful solutions and not about Palestine or freedom fighters. Arms in Walmart are sold to common people, not to those who are claiming unrecognized sovereignty or autonomy.

    Why should the platform pay taxes to anybody outside their own internal taxation system, if one in place, which is their own problem?

    The platform is doing business with others, and if its tax system is lax, it would be considered tax haven. And there’s a political war going on with tax havens.

    You don’t know how it will turn until you try. It will turn positive if you are wise and diplomatic about it. It will turn negative if you are stupid and arrogant about it.

    Of course, I don’t know, but I’m doing basic risk analysis.

    “Left alone” meant “not to be interfered with their actions”.
    How can 100 people platform have a “high-profile activity”, and what “high-profile” are you referring to

    There’s no such thing as a country being left alone in the age of economic globalization. Either you are a hermit, or you are bothered by others. I thought we were speaking about creating high-tech entity like Singapore, now we are back to discussing hermits on the backyard of the world that don’t do export/import, don’t do diplomacy, don’t do alternative energy or innovative engineering etc.

    But as a general rule, I think we should not start planning seasteading (in whatever form and shape) with fear of failure, or being ridiculed, or categorized as “outlaws”, separatists, etc. Fear is not going to take us anywhere.

    I don’t have any fear, buying sovereign land is not illegal and has been done in history. On the other hand, right now in the world we have tons of unrecognized political entities that claim sovereignty and buy arms, and they are often not in peace with their neighbors. I don’t see what’s the difference here on the conceptual level with an unrecognized militarized seastead. Existing states won’t care that it is in international waters, it’s a danger for them, because there are smart people on-board who do high-profile things and buy arms, who can navigate anywhere, and who explicitly state that they are going to directly compete with existing governments. Moreover, as soon as such platforms start to appear, I’m sure after 1 or 2 such unrecognized platforms new laws will be introduced that will regulate this sphere, like with Bitcoin or other innovative ideas. I don’t see how this can be a long-term strategy.

    #22564
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    “30 strong armed force” was just an example. It can be more, or less. This number is not up to me or you. I am not (and don’t plan of becoming) a dictator and I hope that you are not either. I mentioned that those people are DEMOCRATICALLY assigned by the people to do that particular job. And the number it’s about right, consider the fact that this 30 people are also the crew (captain, first mates, engineers, sailors, etc). They have a dual role of operating the platform and also defending her.

    According to you, 100 people will be total defenseless until they will be recognize by a major power, since “that’s how to go” according to your own belief? Allow me to put this decision on the ballot,…and vote NO.

    “Not to be interfered with their actions” is noninterference by another state in the internal political affairs, not being a political and socioeconomic “hermit”. It’s not up to me or you to choose a model of economic prosperity. People living aboard the platform will open and operate whatever businesses they want to. More likely they will be related to, tourism, alternative energy production at sea, fishing, salvage, aquaponics, marine transportation, etc.

    I told you my plan few posts ago (on December 22, 2013 at 12:10). I will repeat it:

    “To Ancient Man
    I think we are on the same page here, with few minor differences.
    My plan is as follows:
    First, forget about investing for a little while and start networking with like minded individuals interested in seasteading.
    Second, immediately start an online “seasteading micronation”, as the “headquarter” of the whole project. That’s where all those individuals interested in participating can congregate and interact in order to decide on the political and socioeconomic “infrastructure” of the seastead they envision to built. I would keep their number small, up to 13 individuals, no more (there is a reason for 13). Those individuals are the founders.
    Third, when the founders had figured out the whole “infrastructure” they will be the one investing their money in order to:
    a. Build a small (up to 200′ LOA if enough funds) modular capable (for future development) artificial floating island (my first choice).
    b. Purchase an island somewhere. (my second choice). An atoll in South Pacific, maybe?
    Forth, when done building (or upon purchase), relocate the whole “infrastructure” there.”

    Like it or not, it’s OK by me. What is your long-term seasteading strategy?

    #22565
    Avatar of Ancient Man
    Ancient Man
    Member

    I mentioned that those people are DEMOCRATICALLY assigned by the people to do that particular job. And the number it’s about right

    You’ve misunderstood me, I’m not saying 30 people army is bad. It’s OK if no one is forced in it. But for other states it will seem like a militarized entity. Look at how many states criticize US for arms legalization. If some unrecognized entity does the same and even more, like more kinds of arms or recruit a lot of people in the army, then it’s bound to cause a lot of concerns. Even sovereign countries like Japan are sometimes devoid of army. I just don’t see how it’s possible to gather army for an unrecognized seastead and still stay peaceful. High chances that it will cause conflicts.

    According to you, 100 people will be total defenseless until they will be recognize by a major power, since “that’s how to go” according to your own belief?

    It’s possible to pay for some military agency to protect the seastead till a couple of big countries recognize the formation. Simple as that. And probably won’t cause objections from other states, because the agency has reputation. For example, on independence, Singapore was protected by two British regiments.

    “Not to be interfered with their actions” is noninterference by another state in the internal political affairs

    Why shouldn’t they want to interfere if some illegal, according to them, and quite dangerous formation appears on the horizon?

    It’s not up to me or you to choose a model of economic prosperity. People living aboard the platform will open and operate whatever businesses they want to.

    I can’t agree with this, it’s a founders’ seastead, so they should have the power to prohibit certain businesses from operating, if they wish to do so. I’m not saying all seasteads should do that, it’s up to the owners to establish rules. If I was a founder, then I would vote that some businesses are prohibited, like the production of harmful clothes or freemium model, because they can’t bring any good to the world.

    Like it or not, it’s OK by me. What is your long-term seasteading strategy?

    I’ve told my strategy too. The part I don’t get in your plan is about recognition. You stated first that

    recognition by whatever “other entities” seemed to be irrelevant, as long as I determined that I exist.

    then you say that you agree that work is needed to get recognition. I’m not saying without international recognition seastead can’t exist, only that it’s better to achieve it fast (so it’s of the high priority) and try not to cause massive displeasure until enough recognition is received. What I mean is the degree of “radical” behavior should scale proportionally to the amount of received recognition.

    #22566
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    How would the fact that we pay for 30 mercenaries or 30 “of our own people” would really change anybody’s perception, specially if that perception is already as a “militarized entity”? Also, it is your assumption that we will be perceived as a “militarized entity”. Plus, there will be haters no matter what we do. Please don’t get me wrong, I am not naive, and I do realize that there is certain truth in your overall assumption here. But security of the seastead, any seastead, is paramount. There will be $ millions invested and lives at stake there and CANNOT be left unprotected.

    As a rule of thumb, I operate under the theory that “Freedom defined is freedom denied”. Of course I would be against sweat shops with kids working 16 hours a day operating on the seastead, or any business harmful to the environment aboard. I should have expressed myself more clearly. What works in Singapore or San Francisco business wise might not work on a seastead 1000 nm offshore or on a small island in the South Pacific. We shouldn’t rush to generalize and advertise that “we want to be like Mike”. We should do what works in the micro business environment we are operating in.

    “Recognition by whatever “other entities” seemed to be irrelevant, as long as I determined that I exist.” Yes, it’s a fact. As an example. If you tell me right now that you don’t recognize me and I don’t exist as an entity, your comment is irrelevant to me and I will consider you crazy out of your mind, for the simple reason that your lived under the impression that you exchanged ideas with a hologram, all this time. Yes, I said that work is needed to get recognition because I’m flexible and diplomatic and because it is so. That doesn’t mean that I care for it right now. It is of no importance to me as we speak.

    If you consider international recognition of high priority and as an indispensable ingredient to start seasteading, you should start working on it right away. If I can, I will support you here and there, if you need help. Just don’t expect me to spend a lot of time on it.

    It’s not gonna be a seastead of clones. Not yet :) If we’ll have a seastead in the near future it will be built by imperfect humans, who for sure will not agree on everything under the sun.

    #22567
    Avatar of Ancient Man
    Ancient Man
    Member

    How would the fact that we pay for 30 mercenaries or 30 “of our own people” would really change anybody’s perception, specially if that perception is already as a “militarized entity”?

    The perception of a militarized entity arises when an unrecognized seastead gathers army. It’s dangerous by default, because it doesn’t differ on a conceptual level from any group of freedom fighters. The only difference is that it’s sailing on high seas. Any military officer will think about pirates or terrorists when you tell him that there’s an unrecognized mobile platform with armed people on it who claim sovereignty and hate existing governments.
    When the protection stems from mercenaries or foreign personnel, then it’s much less headache for such an officer, because mercenaries and military personnel are members of legal corporations under jurisdiction of their own recognized countries (and the users of the platform are civilians). Contrary to the case of people under unclear jurisdiction who claim their own sovereignty and who don’t abide most of approved statehood law.

    But security of the seastead, any seastead, is paramount. There will be $ millions invested and lives at stake there and CANNOT be left unprotected.

    Singapore wasn’t left unprotected, as I showed. And now it has one of the most effective militaries in the region.

    Yes, it’s a fact. As an example. If you tell me right now that you don’t recognize me and I don’t exist as an entity, your comment is irrelevant to me and I will consider you crazy out of your mind, for the simple reason that your lived under the impression that you exchanged ideas with a hologram, all this time.

    You speak in philosophical terms, yet the law has clear definitions of persons, entities etc. Law can say that a person isn’t a person, and it will be so.

    Also, it is your assumption that we will be perceived as a “militarized entity”.

    Everything we talk about here is an assumption. It is an assumption that a seastead will be built at all. You use this argument often, but I fail to see its significance, unless there’s a possibility of computing statistical probabilities of the events which we discuss.

    If you consider international recognition of high priority and as an indispensable ingredient to start seasteading, you should start working on it right away.

    I do not agree peaceful domestic sovereignty of startup countries is possible without recognition. And I don’t see what’s there to work on currently, no democratic and legal seastead to recognize for the world, and no people who want to have one.

    #22568
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    There are people who are working on building an artificial floating island and they will. You are just unaware of that fact.

    #22569
    Avatar of Ancient Man
    Ancient Man
    Member

    I am aware of the fact that nothing has to be built to gain sovereignty. They can build all they want, it’s not directly tied to being recognized. Therefore, those are not world politics projects… Local community level at best, or even maybe only business/engineering.

    #22571
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    If you believe that nothing has to be built to gain sovereignty, than don’t. Best of luck to you.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 62 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate