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




International tensions

Home Forums Research Law and Politics International tensions

This topic contains 46 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of Chad Chad 6 months, 2 weeks ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 47 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #22819
    Profile photo of Ancient Man
    Ancient Man
    Member

    Yet for usa military bases, Afghanistan and Iraq have said “no”, Israel has said “no”, Egypt has said “no”, Lybia has said “no”, Japan is trying to say “no”. England has usa bases, but has said “no” to certain military activities the usa has done. New Zealand has said “come visit, but no nuke ships allowed”. Australia has generally cooperated, the usa had bases there periodically, but Oz needs no usa assistance.

    How did Afghanistan and Iraq say no, if they’re full of US troops? Of course, US is pulling out, because its global politics changed: those in power decided that the strategy of fixing failed states from outside doesn’t work. Libya wasn’t occupied because of that. There is a base in Egypt, actually. Japan can try all it wants, I doubt US would pull out, very good location for PRC détente. Israel was never at war with US, so I’m not sure what’s the point here. You really like to throw around random examples. What’s the deal with all those countries that you named? The situation has changed. Back then it was Cold War starting. No one even knew that it would be Cold War and not a real war. It would be sheer madness to just pull out troops and watch how USSR includes Western Europe in the Soviet block. US was so afraid of communists coming to power in Western Europe, that it continued that policy for a really long time:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
    CIA was supporting terrorists in Europe for tens of years after occupation, as you can read in that article.


    Almost every country wants usa presence reduced or eliminated, it’s why the usa is trying to make jets and cruise missiles able to travel anywhere in 4 hours or less from conus, the usa is hearing “no” a lot more often for forward basing. Even inside the usa, states are refusing federal financial assistance to avoid the strings and bilateral interactions with the feds.

    USA doesn’t care about “no”, it’s militarily stronger then the rest of the world combined. I’m not sure why would states inside US matter. They were subjugated by federals back in Civil War. Federal government does what it wishes, it’s a reality. It spies on own people like Stalin, it has Guantanamo where it detains anyone without law, it occupies countries for years, it sponsors terrorists. The list can be continued.


    This topic has little do do with seasteading, unless you have the possibility of usa federal funding, tax breaks, or you are equating a large donation from a “team member” with assistance from the usa gov. If you are equating it, then you are proving Oceanopolus’s arguement correct about trust, The Golden Rule: “those with all the money make the rules”.

    I’m simply saying that those who can’t make money can’t rule the country. Of course, running the country takes much more then making money, but making money is included. Random dudes can’t run the country, would you fly a plane that was engineered by random people or would you use medicine that was created by a guy you met on the street?

    #22820
    Profile photo of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    By “not trusting” I was referring to a representative democracy system vs. a direct, referendum based democracy. Anyway, personally I don’t care about a team prior to seasteading or how they made their money.

    Also, in particular for the project I am working on, the way is gonna start is as a nonprofit 501(c)(10), a fraternal domestic association. It can make money for operating and is much easier to get people in (or out). As for the founders, the process will be pretty simple and straight forward: this is the goal, this are the rules, this is what you get, this is how much is gonna cost. You’re either in or out.

    Operate as a nonprofit for a little while to get things going and at some point in time get together and decide what’s next. That’s it.

    #22821
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    A “fraternal domestic association”? Men only?

    #22822
    Profile photo of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    Lol,…”men only”… Of course not. http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-076-017.html

    #22823
    Profile photo of Ancient Man
    Ancient Man
    Member

    OCEANOPOLIS

    By “not trusting” I was referring to a representative democracy system vs. a direct, referendum based democracy.

    I’m actually against democracy. The seastead is a property of founders, so they can decide between themselves how to rule it, who receives the right to be in the senate etc. If people want some problem to be solved, they can report it through internet by using National Problem Tracker and smaller scale Local Problem Trackers. They can vote for problems and founders or the senate will decide what to do with top voted problems. If someone doesn’t like seastead, they should not come aboard. Or if they stopped liking it, then they may leave for some democratic country if they wish.


    Anyway, personally I don’t care about a team prior to seasteading or how they made their money.

    Well, as for me, I always research who is who. I know who makes my operating systems, installed programs, my computer, all my things like clothes or cosmetics, who made the country I live in, who rules it, who are the friends of those who rule it etc.


    Operate as a nonprofit for a little while to get things going and at some point in time get together and decide what’s next. That’s it.

    I’m not against non-profit, actually I prefer it. I just think it’s important to know who exactly is in the non-profit, because it influences what comes next. Bad people can turn non-profit into profit with time.

    #22824
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous
    #22825
    Profile photo of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    Kat,

    I am aware of what “fraternal” means :) But in the case of a 501(c)(10) it shouldn’t be taken ad litteram. The “fraternal purpose” means that membership “is based on common tie or the pursuit of a common objective and must be operated for religious, charitable, scientific, literary and educational purposes”, which in my case will be the ocean habitation scientific research objective and purpose.

    There is no stipulation in the IRC 501(c)(10) regarding being of one gender only. I’ll talk to a lawyer, the idea is new to me… But I do like the “umbrella” that it provides as a nonprofit, plus the fact that you can operate certain for-profit activities as long as they are members related and you can get charitable donations as long as they are used for your non-profit activities.

    Ancient,

    I would say I am against “bad democracy”…Yes, of course the founder will make the rules, but they will have to organize themselves somehow, no matter if it’s for or not for profit. There will be bylaws and there will be a decision making process where the founders will yea or nay for this or that. A “democratic” process will be involved…how else you gonna self-govern politically or financially?

    Of course we’ll have to know who we’ll partner with as founders, I totally agree. What I was trying to say is that a founder can be of any professional background prior to joining in, as long as he is willing to participate and become a team player in the project.

    #22826
    Profile photo of Ancient Man
    Ancient Man
    Member

    OCEANOPOLIS

    I would say I am against “bad democracy”…Yes, of course the founder will make the rules, but they will have to organize themselves somehow, no matter if it’s for or not for profit. There will be bylaws and there will be a decision making process where the founders will yea or nay for this or that. A “democratic” process will be involved…how else you gonna self-govern politically or financially?

    I was speaking about democracy as related to general citizens. If we discuss founders, then, of course, it should be direct democracy. Representative democracy was invented for dealing with situations when there are massive quantities of voters. For a limited number of voters it’s not an issue.


    Of course we’ll have to know who we’ll partner with as founders, I totally agree. What I was trying to say is that a founder can be of any professional background prior to joining in, as long as he is willing to participate and become a team player in the project.

    No doubt, a country needs all kinds of specialists. I was talking how people should know what they’re doing. A founder must be very skillful or willing to become skillful. Otherwise, the country probably won’t be successful…

    #22830
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    I would prefer a Seastead to have the minimum possible “Government”, it’s sole pupose should be to create a safe and equitable place for people to live and prosper, the trouble with all current governments is that they have people who are corrupt, self serving and/or incompetant, meddling in things they do not understand.
    The Seastead needs a Constitution, A “bill of rights and responsibilities” a minimal set of laws and direct democracy to handle unforeseen developments, working on the principal of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.
    I do not like the sound of ancient man’s seastead where residents would be subjected to the will of the founders, how long before everyone is enslaved?
    You cannot leave if the founders won’t let you go.

    #22831
    Profile photo of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    Ssteve,

    I totally agree. And not only “the minimum possible Government” but also the minimum possible legislation.

    “Freedom defined is freedom denied.”

    And only direct democracy can achieve such freedom. BUT not just a simple majority direct democracy. That will still create a huge percentage of opposition. (lets say that a law passes by 51%, than the 49% who voted against it will be in opposition and will be FORCED to live under a law that they don’t agree with. That’s a dictatorship of a majority)

    A unanimocracy will do. Unanimocracy, as defined by me :), is a referendum based democracy in which a high percentage absolute supermajority vote is required for any legislation to become law. If this high percentage number is not reached, THAN THERE IS NO LAW.

    I firmly believe that the unanimocracy system will create a smaller government, fewer laws and also diminish political opposition, thus reducing social antagonism. Smaller government, fewer laws and less social antagonism combined, will result in better preserved individual freedoms and a better, more stable and fair political system.

    Consequently, such a society we will generate a very high degree of entrepreneurship and upward economic mobility. Imagine being able to develop a product or service in a “system” that has the least Government interference…compared to the same scenario but in a heavily regulated one…

    Now, I don’t know Ancient personally and I haven’t met him face to face, but judging by his posts I don’t think he meant to endorse a dictatorship of the Founders. My reading is more like a “prerogative” of the Founders to set up a sociopolitical system of their choice on the seastead that they financed and built.

    If that system is a fascist dictatorship (just saying…), I guess we shouldn’t worry at all since it will last as long as the duration of the flight of a guided missile send by the Mossad to blow it to pieces…

    If the system is decent, it will prosper.

    #22832
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    It’s a tricky balancing act, if it needs say 75% of voters to decide something it will only require 25% to oppose it, so the opposition are in a much stronger position.
    I would like to think that if the constition, bill of rights and small set of laws have been sufficiently well thought out, there may be little for the democratic process to do, they might even be limited in what they could do and how often they could make a change to some aspect of life on the Seastead.
    I do not believe that most people care about democracy unless it is making their life harder, they just want to be left alone to get on with the necessary aspects of day to day life, direct democracy could take the form of a forum where issues concerning some people can be discussed, fears alleviated or a concensus arrived at that something needs to be done, the forum then moves on to developing what in fact needs to be done to alleviate the percieved problem whilst not being in any way ” draconian”, such decisions must not violate the Constitution or bill of rights.
    Maybe the democratic process could be limited to one “meddle” per year, since that democracy would be every bit as incompetant as any other.

    #22833
    Profile photo of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    Balancing, yes, tricky…I wouldn’t say so. Let’s say 75% is the norm. But, to start with, by what “mechanism” do we put “propositions” on the ballot? If 75% is the norm to pass a law, than 75% should also be the norm to have anything on the ballot,…Otherwise, if it’s not a 75% majority of the people agreeing to waste their time voting on some silly law, than just forget about it.

    But lets say somebody wants to put on the ballot a law making marijuana illegal. If that proposition doesn’t get 75% approval to be on the ballot, than we won’t vote on that. Therefore, marijuana smoking, possession, cultivation, etc, has no STATUE. Since it’s not legislated, it’s FREE, or whatever,… not to be cared of…

    Same with a lot of staff that we really don’t need legislation for,…

    Now, you might say that 25% is too strong of an opposing position…But when the time will come that some freak party would want to impose a draconian law upon the collective, that 25% will prove itself really handy,…Check and balances, my friend…

    On the other hand, you’re right. If people are left alone, they’ll do a sort of “socialized capitalism” taking care of their family needs first, helping their neighbor if they can, etc, and overall not giving to much of a a shit about the so called “democratic process” but solving their differences on a moral-spiritual set of universal, unwritten laws…On which I might be wrong due to my Christian upbringing..Therefore the need for written LAW :)

    I wouldn’t limit the democratic process,…why bother? The 75% or 70% or 66% will do the job. I think that under such circumstances, people will learn very fast how to govern themselves, be less dependent on any “authority”, be more self-sufficient and most important, be happier.

    #22834
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    “….solving their differences on a moral-spiritual set of universal, unwritten laws…On which I might be wrong due to my Christian upbringing. Therefore the need for written LAW.”

    You are right, most people can be brought up to want to treat people as they themselves would want to be treated which is why I do not think we need many laws.

    My concern is that if people think they should make laws then they will make unnecessary laws, laws that do not make anyone’s life better, next they will want to be paid for all the “good” work they are doing for the community.

    #22835
    Profile photo of Ancient Man
    Ancient Man
    Member

    ssteve

    I would prefer a Seastead to have the minimum possible “Government”, it’s sole pupose should be to create a safe and equitable place for people to live and prosper, the trouble with all current governments is that they have people who are corrupt, self serving and/or incompetant, meddling in things they do not understand.

    It’s easy to say that, but it’s hard to achieve in practice. Present your plan, how it’s possible to create a country like that. I’ve presented mine, it’s based on industrial exploitation of sovereignty like Asian Tigers did, and it heavily depends on the specific people who rule the country. Instead of trying to depend on no-name democratic puppets, in my plan citizens depend on well-known founders who decide on the issues like who becomes senator (can be anyone from citizens), approve decisions of senators regarding the problems that people have reported through online problem trackers, choose who leads national and local militia etc.


    The Seastead needs a Constitution, A “bill of rights and responsibilities” a minimal set of laws and direct democracy to handle unforeseen developments, working on the principal of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.

    If people followed the principle of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, then we would still live in caves. People like new things, like experiments. For the case of breakdown, a backup should be made.


    I do not like the sound of ancient man’s seastead where residents would be subjected to the will of the founders, how long before everyone is enslaved?

    You cannot leave if the founders won’t let you go.

    If you think people won’t be able to go away, then I present Nazi German history, it was quite clear that something awful is coming, in fact there was a somewhat long period after the beginning of Jew discrimination and before the beginning of Holocaust. During this period, anyone with a head on their shoulders could and did get out of the country. I’m not defending Nazis, only saying that there’s very little possibility of an event where suddenly all the citizens wake up and find themselves slaves, it’s usually an extended period.



    OCEANOPOLIS

    if it’s not a 75% majority of the people agreeing to waste their time voting on some silly law, than just forget about it.
    But lets say somebody wants to put on the ballot a law making marijuana illegal. If that proposition doesn’t get 75% approval to be on the ballot, than we won’t vote on that. Therefore, marijuana smoking, possession, cultivation, etc, has no STATUE. Since it’s not legislated, it’s FREE, or whatever,… not to be cared of…
    Same with a lot of staff that we really don’t need legislation for,…

    There is a danger here. If many of these issues accumulate, then the situation can get out of control. So I wouldn’t call voting on silly laws a waste of time. The mere fact of discussing an issue can shed a light on its importance. Discussion is a foundation of democracy. While ~70% unanimity is fine, I’d say for making propositions to the Senate 30% (reverse of 70%) is good.


    Now, I don’t know Ancient personally and I haven’t met him face to face, but judging by his posts I don’t think he meant to endorse a dictatorship of the Founders. My reading is more like a “prerogative” of the Founders to set up a sociopolitical system of their choice on the seastead that they financed and built.

    In my opinion, the best guarantee for prosperity isn’t putting a label of democracy or freedom on the seastead, but putting democratic people in charge of the country. Most people in state bureaucracy don’t have their opinion. They submit to their superiors. Most general population doesn’t have opinion. It’s formed by media, by their friends and family and so on. The only way for prosperity, for me, is to make people who have strong free ideology the leaders of the country. I don’t see how else can long-term freedom be guaranteed. Those people then can find other free people amongst general citizens and make them senators, put them in other important offices, the founders can choose who is to replace a founder, if one of them decides to leave seastead or falls ill. In other words, I see the strongest guarantee of freedom not in written words like constitution and not in political institutions, but in specific people who are at the top of the pyramid. Like Plato said, good people don’t need laws, and bad people don’t care about laws. I’m not saying all laws are unneeded or that some form of constitution is unnecessary, but that the priority should be placed on leaders not on abstract concepts.


    I wouldn’t limit the democratic process,…why bother? The 75% or 70% or 66% will do the job. I think that under such circumstances, people will learn very fast how to govern themselves, be less dependent on any “authority”, be more self-sufficient and most important, be happier.

    There will always be smarter and less smart people, more active and less active people, more optimistic and less optimistic… It’s not bad and not good, only a simple fact of life, we can’t get away from it. So a rule by a team of founders will always be more effective then a rule by general population or by a single benevolent dictator.


    If that system is a fascist dictatorship (just saying…), I guess we shouldn’t worry at all since it will last as long as the duration of the flight of a guided missile send by the Mossad to blow it to pieces…

    Well, the same can be said about democratic seastead, it can be destroyed by missile from USA or Russia. I’ve already presented my thoughts on the military protection of the seastead. It doesn’t matter if seastead is democratic or fascist, it can exist or it can be destroyed, it depends entirely on the seastead diplomacy. The world isn’t black and white, for example, Nazis were protecting nature and health, while Churchill represented a nation that committed no less genocides than the Nazis, and US was occupying the Philippines at the time.

    #22836
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    Ancientman said : and US was occupying the Philippines at the time.

    When i was born, Hawaii and Alaska were also occupied by the usa, neither was a state. The Hawaiian natives got nothing, and the usa paid the Russians, not the natives, for Alaska. Immediately after ww2, the usa occupied almost every island nation that the Japanese had conquored. Puerto Rico has no chance of becoming a state, but it’s still occupied. The Marshall Islands didn’t get their sovereignty back until 1986, and the usa still has a base there, and many islands are off-limits to the natives, and will be till the 2050 timeframe at the earliest. Forty-three nuclear bombs were fired at Enewetak from 1948 to 1958, without permission. The UK “owns” some islands in the Indian Ocean, they rent Diego Garcia to the usa as a military base, the natives would like to return to those islands they were removed from, same as the Marshallese. Gibraltar is still occupied by the UK, under a thin veneer of a “self governing parliment” they organised, but Spain would still like their property back.

    Note i didn’t argue for or against anything any nation did later on the land they expelled the owners from, i just said they did it, and are still doing it.

    You guys are discussing a government for a country when i bet half of you don’t own a boat, and cannot afford to go live on a seastead. I want to see two of you go out to sea and tie your boats together and agree on anything for a year.

    As for the international tensions on the seastead when you get there, as far as the elephants on this planet are concerned, if they cannot legislate you out of the way, and cannot buy you, then they will move in the military. Your international tensions won’t last long.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 47 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate