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




Legal problem with the whole seasteading concept

Home Forums Research Law and Politics Legal problem with the whole seasteading concept

This topic contains 108 replies, has 30 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of  Anonymous 5 years, 3 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 109 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #5554
    Profile photo of Eelco
    Eelco
    Participant

    Off hand, I can think of no countries (possibly excepting the Vatican, and the tiny nation-states like Luxembourg) that don’t owe their sovereignity to political or military firepower. And the further down the food chain a nation is, the more likely it seems that they will use that firepower to bully another nation or their own people. Case in point right now is N. Korea, a “Nation”: that cannot feed it’s own people but insists on trying to bully both their neighbor and the nation that is willing to give them the most food.

    Or, if you prefer, Zimbabwe: force of arms terrorizing their own citizens….Iran, building nuclear weapons. The list is endless.

    Most countries are small as measured on a global scale. My own country, the netherlands, has been upsurped countless times in history. Now thats a low standard to aim for, but in the end, its still on the map.

    how to start your own country‘ is a book exploring these issues: patri gave me a copy once. Its a pretty good read.

    #5572
    Profile photo of libertariandoc
    libertariandoc
    Participant

    Eelco wrote:

    Off hand, I can think of no countries (possibly excepting the Vatican, and the tiny nation-states like Luxembourg) that don’t owe their sovereignity to political or military firepower. And the further down the food chain a nation is, the more likely it seems that they will use that firepower to bully another nation or their own people. Case in point right now is N. Korea, a “Nation”: that cannot feed it’s own people but insists on trying to bully both their neighbor and the nation that is willing to give them the most food.

    Or, if you prefer, Zimbabwe: force of arms terrorizing their own citizens….Iran, building nuclear weapons. The list is endless.

    Most countries are small as measured on a global scale. My own country, the netherlands, has been upsurped countless times in history. Now thats a low standard to aim for, but in the end, its still on the map.

    how to start your own country‘ is a book exploring these issues: patri gave me a copy once. Its a pretty good read.

    [/quote]

    Where do you think the Netherlands would be today, had they not been so compliant? The reason that the Netherlands exists at all today is because the Allied Powers in 1939-1945 fought so that the Netherlands would exist today. Diplomacy against the force of thugs didn’t work, did it? The Netherlands (and most of the rest of Western Europe) lacked a sufficiently strong capability to withstand Germany, hoping that diplomacy would prevail.

    It didn’t. In fact, diplomacy is what started the first World War, and allowed Nazi Germany to become as large and powerful as they did in for the second. The United Nations is responsible for most of the killings since then, but still ‘diplomacy’ in action.

    #5575
    Profile photo of Eelco
    Eelco
    Participant

    Eelco wrote:

    Off hand, I can think of no countries (possibly excepting the Vatican, and the tiny nation-states like Luxembourg) that don’t owe their sovereignity to political or military firepower. And the further down the food chain a nation is, the more likely it seems that they will use that firepower to bully another nation or their own people. Case in point right now is N. Korea, a “Nation”: that cannot feed it’s own people but insists on trying to bully both their neighbor and the nation that is willing to give them the most food.

    Or, if you prefer, Zimbabwe: force of arms terrorizing their own citizens….Iran, building nuclear weapons. The list is endless.

    Most countries are small as measured on a global scale. My own country, the netherlands, has been upsurped countless times in history. Now thats a low standard to aim for, but in the end, its still on the map.

    ‘how to start your own country’ is a book exploring these issues: patri gave me a copy once. Its a pretty good read.

    [/quote]

    Where do you think the Netherlands would be today, had they not been so compliant? The reason that the Netherlands exists at all today is because the Allied Powers in 1939-1945 fought so that the Netherlands would exist today. Diplomacy against the force of thugs didn’t work, did it? The Netherlands (and most of the rest of Western Europe) lacked a sufficiently strong capability to withstand Germany, hoping that diplomacy would prevail.

    It didn’t. In fact, diplomacy is what started the first World War, and allowed Nazi Germany to become as large and powerful as they did in for the second. The United Nations is responsible for most of the killings since then, but still ‘diplomacy’ in action.

    [/quote]

    Regaining independence was a matter of diplomacy. We had the right friends, who did the fighting for us. We had no military power, and we came out alive. Happened a few times too many for it to be called luck. You are merely proving my point; i myself consider my own point a weak one, but your argument is only reinforcing it.

    #5583
    Profile photo of libertariandoc
    libertariandoc
    Participant

    Eelco wrote:

    Eelco wrote:

    Off hand, I can think of no countries (possibly excepting the Vatican, and the tiny nation-states like Luxembourg) that don’t owe their sovereignity to political or military firepower. And the further down the food chain a nation is, the more likely it seems that they will use that firepower to bully another nation or their own people. Case in point right now is N. Korea, a “Nation”: that cannot feed it’s own people but insists on trying to bully both their neighbor and the nation that is willing to give them the most food.

    Or, if you prefer, Zimbabwe: force of arms terrorizing their own citizens….Iran, building nuclear weapons. The list is endless.

    Most countries are small as measured on a global scale. My own country, the netherlands, has been upsurped countless times in history. Now thats a low standard to aim for, but in the end, its still on the map.

    ‘how to start your own country’ is a book exploring these issues: patri gave me a copy once. Its a pretty good read.

    [/quote]

    Where do you think the Netherlands would be today, had they not been so compliant? The reason that the Netherlands exists at all today is because the Allied Powers in 1939-1945 fought so that the Netherlands would exist today. Diplomacy against the force of thugs didn’t work, did it? The Netherlands (and most of the rest of Western Europe) lacked a sufficiently strong capability to withstand Germany, hoping that diplomacy would prevail.

    It didn’t. In fact, diplomacy is what started the first World War, and allowed Nazi Germany to become as large and powerful as they did in for the second. The United Nations is responsible for most of the killings since then, but still ‘diplomacy’ in action.

    [/quote]

    Regaining independence was a matter of diplomacy. We had the right friends, who did the fighting for us. We had no military power, and we came out alive. Happened a few times too many for it to be called luck. You are merely proving my point; i myself consider my own point a weak one, but your argument is only reinforcing it.

    [/quote]

    And I choose not to rely on the kindness of strangers. Those friends who did the fighting for the Netherlands also threw the Sudetenland under the boot heel of the Nazis….if diplomacy had gone a different way with Chamberlin staying in charge, the world would be very different today. And the only words for someone who would rely on others doing for them what they should do for themselves is cowardly leech.

    #5587
    Profile photo of cthulhujunior
    cthulhujunior
    Participant

    I just thought I’d point out that there aren’t really any historical precedents for going straight from scrap metal to country. Few colonies have been founded with the full intention of making a new country (New England Puritans and maybe the Mormons), and NONE have done it entirely in the name of liberty. Furthermore, all colonies/homesteading/fronteering has been done under the flag of a “mother nation,” which usually provides the defense. I’m not saying it can’t be done; in fact, this works to our advantage, as the world will take some time to figure out what to do with us, and thus give us time to test out the waters so to speak. We won’t be automatically a part of any international organizations (UN, etc.) so we’ll be out of anyone’s jurisdiction as far as meddling goes. Furthermore, despite what politicians and activists say about the horrors of countries abroad, it is in few governments’ interest to meddle with the forms and laws of other countries. As long as we don’t piss anyone off (call ourselves Communists, Fascists, go around blowing up other people’s stuff, etc.) the states should be secure.

    This does lead me to a sticky question, though: Where will ‘steads dock for maintenance? The whole purpose is to stay permanently away from landlocked countries; vessels (especially big metal ones) need dry dock for maintenance, repainting, etc. Thanks.

    #5588
    Profile photo of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    The hull shud be built of ferrocement, therefore maintenance free. The rest of the repairs shud be performed @ sea. Or at least thats how i look at it.

    #5590
    Profile photo of Eelco
    Eelco
    Participant

    And I choose not to rely on the kindness of strangers. Those friends who did the fighting for the Netherlands also threw the Sudetenland under the boot heel of the Nazis….if diplomacy had gone a different way with Chamberlin staying in charge, the world would be very different today. And the only words for someone who would rely on others doing for them what they should do for themselves is cowardly leech.

    Not sure what you mean with Sudetenland: the netherlands was one of the last places to be liberated, and as far as i know, the Nazis were completely wiped off the map a few months later.

    The Netherlands did put up something resembling a fight, by the way. But the bottom line is: the military odds were zero. The dimplomatic odds were nonzero.

    Note that these strategies are not mutually exclusive, but im personally more inclined to invest in diplomacy than firepower.

    #5594
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    The hull shud be built of ferrocement, therefore maintenance free. The rest of the repairs shud be performed @ sea. Or at least thats how i look at it.

    I agree. Seasteads should be built maintenance-free or in a way that makes maintenance possible while in the water.

    If not there is always the option of calling for one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Blue_Marlin

    Building with aluminium is another mostly maintenance-free option, I think.

    How about steel hulls, can they be serviced in the water? Painting? Changing anodes?

    On the defense discussion, I guess one must arm oneself in such a way that survival is made most likely, all things considered. This probably means a deterrant against common criminals. Having weapons that will deter a large nation state is likely to get you killed rather than ensure your survival.

    #5595
    Profile photo of libertariandoc
    libertariandoc
    Participant

    Carl wrote:

    On the defense discussion, I guess one must arm oneself in such a way that survival is made most likely, all things considered. This probably means a deterrant against common criminals. Having weapons that will deter a large nation state is likely to get you killed rather than ensure your survival.

    And not having them means you’re a pushover for whoever comes along with a bigger rock.

    #5596
    Profile photo of libertariandoc
    libertariandoc
    Participant

    Eelco wrote:

    And I choose not to rely on the kindness of strangers. Those friends who did the fighting for the Netherlands also threw the Sudetenland under the boot heel of the Nazis….if diplomacy had gone a different way with Chamberlin staying in charge, the world would be very different today. And the only words for someone who would rely on others doing for them what they should do for themselves is cowardly leech.

    Not sure what you mean with Sudetenland: the netherlands was one of the last places to be liberated, and as far as i know, the Nazis were completely wiped off the map a few months later.

    The Netherlands did put up something resembling a fight, by the way. But the bottom line is: the military odds were zero. The dimplomatic odds were nonzero.

    Note that these strategies are not mutually exclusive, but im personally more inclined to invest in diplomacy than firepower.

    [/quote]

    Diplomacy is two equal powers negotiating. Not equal? Not negotiating, the weaker power will do as told or suffer the consequences.

    As far as Sudentenland, look up what Chamberlain gave away to Hitler. He called it diplomacy, and a year later the world was at war.

    #5597
    Profile photo of libertariandoc
    libertariandoc
    Participant

    Eelco wrote:

    And I choose not to rely on the kindness of strangers. Those friends who did the fighting for the Netherlands also threw the Sudetenland under the boot heel of the Nazis….if diplomacy had gone a different way with Chamberlin staying in charge, the world would be very different today. And the only words for someone who would rely on others doing for them what they should do for themselves is cowardly leech.

    Not sure what you mean with Sudetenland: the netherlands was one of the last places to be liberated, and as far as i know, the Nazis were completely wiped off the map a few months later.

    The Netherlands did put up something resembling a fight, by the way. But the bottom line is: the military odds were zero. The dimplomatic odds were nonzero.

    Note that these strategies are not mutually exclusive, but im personally more inclined to invest in diplomacy than firepower.

    [/quote]

    #5599
    Profile photo of cthulhujunior
    cthulhujunior
    Participant

    It looks to me as if there are too many variables to say for sure what the world will do to seasteads that arm themselves in specific ways. Furthermore, there are bound to be people who want to use different approaches to dealing with other countries. Why not let them experiment? After all, that’s what the big mission statement says: “to enable experimentation and innovation with diverse social, political, and legal systems.” So, why not experiment? Eelco-land will try to negotiate its way out of everything; libertarian-doc-land will try to build a couple MOABs; and I’ll stick to a couple AK’s and maybe a bazooka. (If anyone thinks of a way to base national defense on anvils and banana peels, let me know.) I also got the impression that experimentation was the goal with structural designs, too. We all try different things, using the site to get and share ideas; best of luck to all of us.

    #5601
    Profile photo of Eelco
    Eelco
    Participant

    It looks to me as if there are too many variables to say for sure what the world will do to seasteads that arm themselves in specific ways. Furthermore, there are bound to be people who want to use different approaches to dealing with other countries. Why not let them experiment? After all, that’s what the big mission statement says: “to enable experimentation and innovation with diverse social, political, and legal systems.” So, why not experiment? Eelco-land will try to negotiate its way out of everything; libertarian-doc-land will try to build a couple MOABs; and I’ll stick to a couple AK’s and maybe a bazooka. (If anyone thinks of a way to base national defense on anvils and banana peels, let me know.) I also got the impression that experimentation was the goal with structural designs, too. We all try different things, using the site to get and share ideas; best of luck to all of us.

    Not everything. Id opt for some AK’s and bazookas as well, the deter minor external threaths, and to stabilize internal seasteading affairs. (no, im not a pacifist)

    But unless things go absurdly fast, there is no way im going to be able to make a credible fist against the US navy within my lifetime. Better to play nice, and play the big guys against eachother. Its not because of its military that finland stayed neutral during the cold war, but because neither superpower had any interest in destabilizing the balance of power.

    If you get yourself in a situation where the US feels threathened if we are attacked by China, and vice versa, thats one of the best places to be in, imo.

    #5647
    Profile photo of Pastor_Jason
    Pastor_Jason
    Participant

    Don’t produce anything of overt value that makes us a target. Submersible seastead help “disappear” in the wider ocean. Don’t go messing with other nations… with one exception.

    After launching, sail straight to the coast of Somalia. When attacked by pirates, turn on your video camera…. then blow them to pieces. Pick-up the survivors, patch them up and release them on Somali territory again with instructions that every seastead will respond in like manner. Publish the video on You-tube.

    I know… doesn’t sound like something I should be saying, right? I’ll be darned if my little girls have to grow up and worry about pirates.

    Live Well!

    -Jason

    #5649
    Profile photo of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    The only problem with not producing anything of value is that I assume the entire colony’s economic wealth will be onboard. We will need to purchase things that we cannot make ourselves…electronics, ammo, etc. For that we will need money, and I assume most here will rely on gold or another commodity. All that gold will have to be onboard, which will paint a HUGE target. Unless the plan is to keep all that wealth somewhere else and use it as needed?

    The other problem is that the pirates do not seem interested in the cargo as much as the people onboard to use as hostages and for ransom.

    But I LOVE your idea for keeping them in check…once they know you are serious they will look for easier fish to bother.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 109 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate