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




Constitution for Aquia Ocean Communities

Home Forums Community Dreaming / Crazy Ideas / Speculation Constitution for Aquia Ocean Communities

This topic contains 90 replies, has 19 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of JLMadrigal JLMadrigal 3 years, 2 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 91 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1021
    Profile photo of JLMadrigal
    JLMadrigal
    Participant

    I would like to know what the general feelings are among this group regarding a purely capitalist constitution that serves as an umbrella for a “nation” encompasing a wide range of ocean communities. The following is my proposed constitution:

    Constitution of the Autonomous Freezone of Aquia

    Preamble

    We the proprietors and administrators of the Autonomous Freezone of Aquia, in order to guard the freedom of those who visit or settle here, do hereby ordain and establish this Constitution and impose its restrictions on ourselves and on them. We require that every person within the freezone hold the following fundamental tenets to be the supreme law of the land, inalterable and sacred.

    Article I.

    No organization affecting the residents or members of this community shall be authorized, subsidized, advanced, or continued, except by the unanimous consent and voluntary participation of every person it effects. This constitution and the rules of civil society herein identified shall be enforced privately, by each free, independent, and sovereign resident, his freely chosen arbitrators and defenders, and the invisible hand of the market.

    Article II.

    No law or legal action effecting the residents, members, or visitors in this community shall:

    1. intrude directly or indirectly, against anyone’s person, property, or mutual transactions,
    2. restrict anyone’s thoughts, or nonintrusive actions in, on, or with his person or property,
    3. dictate anyone’s thoughts, or actions concerning his person or property,
    4. take anyone’s money, property, time, labor, health, or life against his will,
    5. prevent anyone from defending his person, property, thoughts, or actions, or
    6. obstruct compensation to a victim of the above classes of aggression, or to his estate, for actual losses suffered thereby.

    Article III.

    A person, member, or enterprise that is not a resident of this Community may receive associative protections granted to local residents, organizations, and businesses by signing, dating, and continuously abiding by the Civil Order Pact which reads as follows:

    I/We will not willfully support or defend any public or private action that:

    • intrudes against anyone’s person, property, or mutual transactions,
    • restricts anyone’s thoughts, or nonintrusive actions in, on, or with his person or property,
    • dictates anyone’s thoughts, or actions concerning his person or property,
    • takes anyone’s money, property, time, labor, health, or life, against his will,
    • prevents anyone from defending his person, property, thoughts, or actions, or
    • obstructs compensation to a victim of the above classes of aggression, or to his estate, for actual losses suffered thereby.

    In order to preserve the civil reputation of this community, every person, member, and enterprise of same must abide by this Pact in individual or collective relations with foreigners. Foreign individuals may bring disputes regarding same before local arbitrators for settlement.

    Article IV.

    Any internal or external law or norm, effecting any resident of this community, directly or indirectly, individually or collectively, which is in disaccord with, or defiance of, the spirit or letter of this Constitution, is henceforth null and void. Anyone authoring or attempting to enforce the same shall share liability for any losses to persons who shall have suffered therefrom and will forfeit the protections granted under this constitution.

    #7202
    Profile photo of thief
    thief
    Participant

    Sounds like a dictatorship to me. I reccomend an elected council around the captain who can overrule him with just a majority vote.

    - Nick

    #7203
    Profile photo of wohl1917
    wohl1917
    Participant

    At the basic ‘Single Family Seastead’ level, I suppose it would seem that way which is why the age of 16 is the age of adulthood in the Republic.

    #7204
    Profile photo of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    I was thinking along the same lines. A brief Constitution,”providing minimum standards and a legal framework for the redress of grievances” (as Wohl put it), and a Unanimocracy form of self governing, (80% or more of a majority to pass any law). Good points about the Captain (Wohl) and also about “The Elected Council” (Thief). We cannot have a Captain gone megalomaniac but neither a Council in the way all the time,…since @ sea, many times, the Captain has to make quick decisions and issue orders that are to be carried on imediately, some of them a matter of life and death.

    I would suggest two political bodies:

    1. The Captainship, which is basically composed of the senior officers onboard, navigation, engine, maintenance, supplies (food,fuel,etc.), security (can read defense), and is run by the Captain(s). Their duty will be to crew and run the Seastead in a manner according to Maritime Law and the usual practices aboard seagoing vessels.
    2. The Elected Council (TEC), elected by the seasteaders. (Again, I would strongly suggest a vote based on a Unanimocratic principle). TEC represents the seasteaders will, arm and voice. TEC appoints The Captainship. The Captainship reports to TEC. TEC directs The Captainship regarding destinations (if seastead is mobile), and provide the financial, social and political tools and guidelines for The Captainship to run the Seastead. In matters non related to Maritime Law, TEC has jurisdiction over The Captainship. In matters related to Maritime Law, The Captainship has jurisdiction over TEC. In case of stalemate, Seasteaders Referendum has jurisdiction over both The Captainship and TEC.
    #7205
    Profile photo of thief
    thief
    Participant

    I agree with that mostly, but I severely oppose unanimocracy. I think any motion with more than a 50% approval rating should be carried out. I really don’t see the benefit of unanimocracy, it just stops things getting done, since you’ll very rarely have so many people agreeing.

    - Nick

    #7207
    Profile photo of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    while u might have a point regarding having things done, my view is that unanimocracy will create a smaller “opposition”, thus reducing the political and social antagonism. If in a society u have a high procentage (lets say 49%) of people who oppose the ruling majority, then u have opposition.If u have oppositio, then u have dissent. If u have dissent, then u have dissidents. If u have dissidents u have political struggle. If u have political struggle u have social unrest. If u have social unrest u have instability.Political, social and economic Instability is not desirable,…

    Also, I do have o problem with the definition of “majority”, specially here in U.S. 51% IT IS NOT A ‘MAJORITY” to me, but 1 more vote than half and half. A majority should be exactly what is suppused to be, THE BIGESTPART OF SOMETHING….If rules and laws that , lets say 100 people shud obey by are @ the discretion of 1 person (who knows, …maybe hangoverd, or drunk, or high, or biased, or bipolar, or in bed w/certain special interests, or racist, or plain nuts, or etc, @ the time of the vote), then count me out,…since I dont see anything fair about it.

    Also. less law, to me is more freedom. I think that unanimocracy will have less legislation, less dissent, therefore more freedom and stability. But this is just me.:-)

    #7209
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    If you only need 50% to make new laws you’ll end up with a welfare/nanny state. The laws will just keep adding up.

    A dictatorship is fine with me. If I don’t like the dictator I can always leave for another seastead. This will obviously keep the dictators honest as well.

    JLMadrigal’s constitution looks ok I guess, but I wonder what “land” this law covers. If it applies to a number of seasteads does it also apply to the water between them?

    And is this intended to fit within UNCLOS or do we say screw the UN and declare this unilaterally? This is not so much a critique as a general question.

    #7214
    Profile photo of thief
    thief
    Participant

    Interesting point there with “if I don’t like the dictator I’ll just leave”. I see it as if I don’t like what the majority (which, by both OCEAN’s and the actual definition, is exactly anything more than 50%, the largest part of the society) want, then I’ll just leave.

    But that’s the point of what we’re doing here, isn’t it? To allow my democracy, OCEAN’s democracy and your dictatorship to be put to the test for real. That gives me a real good feeling about this argument. These are exactly the disputes we’re working to resolve.

    - Nick

    #7215
    Profile photo of Max-Marty
    Max-Marty
    Participant

    thief wrote:

    Interesting point there with “if I don’t like the dictator I’ll just leave”. I see it as if I don’t like what the majority (which, by both OCEAN’s and the actual definition, is exactly anything more than 50%, the largest part of the society) want, then I’ll just leave.

    But that’s the point of what we’re doing here, isn’t it? To allow my democracy, OCEAN’s democracy and your dictatorship to be put to the test for real. That gives me a real good feeling about this argument. These are exactly the disputes we’re working to resolve.

    - Nick

    I think you hit the nail on the head Nick. The only generalized rules I would posit should exist aboard seasteads are something like

    1) You cannot lock people in a cage and keep them on the Seastead against their will.

    And thats about it. Other rules/regulations/policy issues/governance structures are entirely up for grabs. The whole point of this movement is that we are testing out new forms of government and governmental structure because we don’t know ex-ante what the best combination of systems is. If I had to bet, I’d say the best system to achieve growth and prosperity is a libertarian utopia, but even if thats true it won’t be true for every person or every industry. Should we have a democracy or a dictatorship? Should it be 80% of a popular vote, or should it be a republic? How about a monarchy? Should it allow guns or not? Who knows! Let the successful attempts rise to the top and the unsuccesful ones that don’t draw any customers fail.

    My apologies if you meant that this would be a good set of rules to try out on particular Seasteads, and not that it would be a set of universal rules for every Seastead.

    #7217
    Profile photo of JLMadrigal
    JLMadrigal
    Participant

    Carl,

    The constitution covers the entire aquatory or aquatories that will be initially specified and may be added, including the water between steads (if so specified).

    I would like to keep it within UNCLOS if possible. Are there any potential UNCLOS conflicts that you foresee?

    http://www.geocities.com/johnfkosanke/Civilization101.html

    #7206
    Profile photo of wohl1917
    wohl1917
    Participant

    brief ended up being 15 pages and 6,830 words! What you’ve got going there would be great as far as basic, large or multi-family Seastead management goes… The OCR’s Constitution states:

    IV.1.1 This Constitution explicitly provides that there shall be a secular, representative and Republican form of government in the Home Territorial Surface, and in each of the five Extra-Territorial Surfaces.

    IV.1.2 This Constitution explicitly provides that all the rights, duties, responsibilities, privileges and restrictions that apply to the Republic apply to the Home Territorial Surface, Extra-Territorial Surfaces, Vessels, Ships and Seastations with the exceptions and provisions stated in Article VI Section 4 of this Constitution.

    Thief, what you’re advocating is universal suffrage and democracy… Because people generally do not, could not, would not and basically cannot agree on anything democracy, except in Representative form within a Republic (subordinate to the Rule of Law), has never worked. Now, in the short run, in small groups where everyone is privy to the facts of everything that’s going on it can work but even then, on a single family seastead who’s gonna’ be in charge? ‘Dad’ with ‘Mom’s’ permission!

    #7218
    Profile photo of wohl1917
    wohl1917
    Participant

    To be in compliance with the UNCLOS you can’t make ‘claims’ and you certainly couldn’t enforce anything because the ocean is the ‘common heritage of mankind’. More importantly, UNCLOS applies only to those areas that are not already covered by various other international treaties and agreements specifically those dealing with continental shelves, territorial limits and Economic Exclusion Zones, fishing rights etc.,etc.,etc.

    #7219
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    JLM: After briefly skimming Wikipedia on UNCLOS i get the feeling that it technically does not apply to new nations, only those who have signed and ratified it. So perhaps there aren’t any conflicts for new states.

    I am also not sure there are a lot of rules in UNCLOS about the high seas. The specific rules about fishing and pollution and stuff seems to be mostly concerning the water close to the shore.

    Perhaps the real issue is getting other states to recognize your statehood, in order not to be considered a pirate. Which I guess is difficult if you have no land. As often is the case, what really matters is probably who has the biggest guns.

    The United States and a number of other countries have not ratified UNCLOS by the way. Which really makes sense when you think about it. Why limit yourself to certain conventions unless you have to?

    Perhaps this is the chink in the UNCLOS armor? If such big and powerful nations as the USA does not adhere to it, why should a seastead need to?

    #7221
    Profile photo of kbxx
    kbxx
    Participant

    Instead of claiming a whole territory in the ocean, why not claim the waters immediately surrounding fixed-position seasteads? In this way, the Freezone would encompass the positions of the seasteads, but would allow for international waters in between Freezone seasteads.

    Seasteads which want to join the Freezone and follow its laws would then be added to the Freezone administrative area.

    #7222
    Profile photo of JLMadrigal
    JLMadrigal
    Participant

    Wohl,

    What kind of claims are prohibited under UNCLOS?

    Would I need to modify any “enforcement” provisions in the constitution as written?

    Carl,

    Do you think that a flag would give Aquia a sufficient aura of statehood?

    Kbxx,

    Could you elaborate on your idea, and the logic behind it?

    http://www.geocities.com/johnfkosanke/Civilization101.html

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 91 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate