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 Avatar of Jeff-Chan Jeff-Chan 5 years, 1 month ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 109 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #7504
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    commonly acknowledged organizations

    My favorite is the International Seabed Authority.

    many ways to bypass ‘international’ legislation

    Make sure you share! ;) Plenty of us on this site want info on how to bypass that stuff!

    #7510
    Avatar of jtg423
    jtg423
    Participant

    Just recently joined and not fully versed in law, legalities, corportate bussiness, or engineering…

    But I think that you all have come up with very real problems and very plausible solutions.

    Somethings I like would be the thoughts of providing needed services to the world in general and specifically to countries/peoples that are being affected by the rising ocean. This I think would be the largest factor to be a viable entity. Aquaculture being one that I personally would advocate strongly and I dont think anyone here would oppose that. Recycling would be a good idea too, as I have heard that there are large amounts of floating garbage in the Oceans, we would recieve high credit if we were to have some sort of ongoing clean up “patrol.” Acting as “fire-watch” for pirates (NOT AS AN ARMED DETERENT OR POLICING AGENCY, except in our own defense) where by we could alert countries/companies of pirate activity or pirate strongholds. Actively researching and using alternative methods for energy production. The ways we can ingrate our selves with the large nations of the world which will then act as a deterent for any smaller nation that may want to harrass us for any reason.

    One side note. I do not believe (and strongly hope/wish) that our seasteads will ever have to build our own “Navy” for defense. Each one of our steadings should be equiped to some extent, but I actually think that the pirate model, turned around to act a strong defense, would be our best line of defense. ie fast “attack” boats swarming and/or using alot of stealth. I also think that Pastor Jason’s idea of submersible steadings, even if these only “dip” (15-30 ft) below the surface would lend to very solid defense. Couple that with some very simple stradegies for sinking large vessels with well placed charges on the hull should provide plenty of a defense against most assailants.

    Thank you

    Joe

    Live Love & Laugh

    #7513
    Avatar of Jeff-Chan
    Jeff-Chan
    Participant

    i_is_j_smith wrote:
    There has been no difinitive study showing that an increase or decrease in firearms has a direct impact on crime rates. For every study that someone can cite showing one thing, I can cite another study that shows the opposite. There are just too many variables. For instance, everyone always shows how the homicide rate in Washington D.C. skyrockted after the 1976 ban on firearms. But a 1991 New England Journal of Medicine study showed how homicide and suicide rates involving firearms DROPPED after the ban…and that other cities showed the same increase in crime rates even though they didn’t have a weapons ban.

    The New England Journal of Medicine is famous for amazingly biased articles against firearms. Many of the claims are refuted by subsequent research. Why the NEJM allowed these obviously biased pieces is unclear, though an anti-gun political bias would be the most obvious answer. In any case it’s probably best not to ask politically-motivated doctors for criminology advice and instead refer to the work of actual criminologists.

    I will agree 100% that gun control laws do not stop violent crime. I believe those laws decrease the rates, since criminals who normally want to get a gun might find it much more difficult and decide not to commit the crime. But there will always be individuals who can get the weapons if they want them bad enough.

    Criminals get guns in prison. It does not stand to reason that gun bans would prevent criminals from getting guns. Most privately owned guns are banned in the U.K., but the U.K. is awash in crime guns from Eastern Europe. Guns are durable, small, and easily smuggled. Guns and ammunition can easily last a hundred years.

    But my point was about guns being a deterrent, not their being able to stop a violent crime in progress. If every person in your country is armed and well-trained then you would see a deterrent effect. But that will never be the case, and I don’t think you will ever even get a significant majority to carry firearms. If only 2% are carrying a weapon, what are the chances in a state the size of Florida that one of those folks will be around when I decide to commit my crime? There are over 18.3 million people in Florida, that means only 366000 CAN carry (they might all not be carrying on a particular day). That gives me, as a criminal, pretty good odds. Now if 90% of the population were carrying then everyone you see becomes a potential crimestopper.

    Crime and crime patterns in Florida changed significantly after CCW reform was passed. Criminals started targeting tourists by noting rental car license plates in order to avoid targeting Florida residents who were much more likely to be armed. The 2% CCW holders provided a much greater benefit to the Florida population in general.

    Much better to ban firearms completely and allow unlimited carrying of less-than-lethal weapon systems. Make the possession, sale, use, or importing of firearms a high crime punishable by death/exile/life imprisonment and enforce it mercilously. Now you can put an X-26 or C2 taser in the hands of every man, woman, and child and the entire populace can act as a police force with huge decreases in the number of accidental or intentional deaths.

    The punishment for one unauthorized round of .22 ammunition in Mexico is effectively many years in prison. Mexico has extremely strict, prohibitive gun laws. Yet Mexican gangs have no problem getting fully-automatic AK-47s from Central America, or arms stolen from the police or military. Again, strict gun bans do not affect the criminals, but they do disarm the law-abading and make them much, much easier targets for the criminals. It’s probably a major reason for the rampant crime there. This is what happens when you force people to be effectively defenseless.

    You will still need a small, elite force trained in the use of firearms…something like a national SWAT team that responds to such things like invasion, pirate attack, etc. But these people will be highly trained and only used in these extreme circumstances.

    How is a small, elite force going to protect you from crime? You would need 3 bodyguards (8 hour shifts each) for every man, woman, and child to have complete protection, assuming the bodyguards were completly infallable.

    How would you prevent the small, elite force from taking over your country if they were the only ones with firearms?

    #7514
    Avatar of Jeff-Chan
    Jeff-Chan
    Participant

    jtg423 wrote:
    I do not believe (and strongly hope/wish) that our seasteads will ever have to build our own “Navy” for defense. Each one of our steadings should be equiped to some extent, but I actually think that the pirate model, turned around to act a strong defense, would be our best line of defense. ie fast “attack” boats swarming and/or using alot of stealth. I also think that Pastor Jason’s idea of submersible steadings, even if these only “dip” (15-30 ft) below the surface would lend to very solid defense. Couple that with some very simple stradegies for sinking large vessels with well placed charges on the hull should provide plenty of a defense against most assailants.

    Ultimately, no navy = no freedom. Submersing would just make easy targets for navy torpedoes. After the Cole attack, no Navy will let boats near their warships. And they don’t just sit around wating for you to put explosives on their hulls. (They’re too busy having their own divers put explosives and sensors on your hulls.) They’re also working on countermeasures to swarming attacks.

    Regarding aquaculture, alternative energy, peaceful trade and commerce, art and science, etc., I’m certainly in favor of all those things. Private pirate detection could be an interesting business, but hard to make a profit. And it had better be armed, or the pirates will just hijack and kidnap or kill it.

    Unfortunately, at least some of the plastic garbage in the ocean has photodegraded into microscopic particles, and it’s not clear how to remove them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch

    #7515
    Avatar of Jeff-Chan
    Jeff-Chan
    Participant

    Adam wrote:
    Actually had a research internship at IMO and have learned that there are many ways to bypass ‘international’ legislation :)

    We’d certainly like to hear more about it. The problem is that loopholes that get successfully exploited tend to get plugged later. Or looked at another way, no good deed goes unpunished.

    Regarding UNCLOS, it does define territory as essentially natural land that can support habitation. Floating platforms anchored under water would not count.

    #7516
    Avatar of Jeff-Chan
    Jeff-Chan
    Participant

    Carl wrote:
    Excellent point. We shouldn’t go overboard trying to follow UNCLOS etc to a tee when there is nobody to enforce it anyway. Instead we should probably first and foremost aim for being good neighbors and not ruffling any feathers we don’t have to. Use common sense, be peaceful, and be aware that we are the new kids on the block.

    Unfortunately being a good neighbor isn’t enough to stop the existing nations from crushing you. See Minerva Reefs and New Atlantis. Neither of those efforts posed any real threat to the nations around them, but they were snuffed out anyway (both at the request of the United States, BTW).

    #7517
    Avatar of Jeff-Chan
    Jeff-Chan
    Participant

    Adam wrote:
    3. The possibility of buying islands? Has anyone thought of that? Imagine the following scenario: We buy a small island and then build a seasteding city around it? Territory issue resolved??

    It’s a good idea except that no nation is likely to sell you an island or territory and full soveriegnty. Nor will they allow peaceful seccession. Devolution may be possible, but countries that break up into smaller peices usually do so on long-existing cultural, religious, tribal, ethnic lines.

    If I offered to buy your right leg, would you sell it to me? Most people probably would not.

    #7520
    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    Jeff wrote:

    Carl wrote:

    Excellent point. We shouldn’t go overboard trying to follow UNCLOS etc to a tee when there is nobody to enforce it anyway. Instead we should probably first and foremost aim for being good neighbors and not ruffling any feathers we don’t have to. Use common sense, be peaceful, and be aware that we are the new kids on the block.

    Unfortunately being a good neighbor isn’t enough to stop the existing nations from crushing you. See Minerva Reefs and New Atlantis. Neither of those efforts posed any real threat to the nations around them, but they were snuffed out anyway (both at the request of the United States, BTW).

    [/quote]

    I get the feeling that a couple of guys with small arms could have defended the Minerva reefs, if they had really wanted to. I haven’t read that much about it though. What’s this about the US involvement?

    #7521
    Avatar of Jeff-Chan
    Jeff-Chan
    Participant

    Carl wrote:
    I get the feeling that a couple of guys with small arms could have defended the Minerva reefs, if they had really wanted to. I haven’t read that much about it though. What’s this about the US involvement?

    The Tongan Navy probably had larger guns and would have won. The Wikipedia page for the Republic of Minerva has some pretty good coverage. It’s often the first world powers who “encourage” the smaller nations like Tonga an Haiti to not allow new nations in their area. I think Strauss mentions this.

    In a nutshell, new nations, even (especially?) the smallest, most harmless ones simply are not tolerated by the existing powers. One might assume that they are trying to preserve their monopoly on power.

    It’s only plausible to declare nationhood when it’s possible to defend it, unless one wants to get driven off, killed and/or destroyed (not in any particular order).

    #7523
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    I get the feeling that a couple of guys with small arms could have defended the Minerva reefs

    I don’t know…I read that there were over 100 people in this Tongan Defense Force that landed on the reef. I read that they were all taken from the prison population, though…and I don’t know how well they were armed but I doubt they all had firearms.

    If they were intercepted before they could land then they probably could have defended it without too much problem. Plus if they were just prisoners then putting a few automatic rounds into the air might have chased them off. I will never understand why they went through all that trouble to build up the reef and then just left it there undefended. They said that they were surprised by the Tongan interest, since they had already asked them if they wanted the reef and the Tongan king said no. But that’s no excuse to leave your new nation undefended and ripe for the picking.

    #7524
    Avatar of Eelco
    Eelco
    Participant

    With regard to gun control: im suspicious of anyone claiming there exists clear data either way. Its a murky political issue: i honestly wouldnt know the precise effect.

    Which is all i need to know really. Allowing guns certainly has no disastrous effects. The kind of differences we are talking about are minor compared to other risk we calculate and tolerate, such as automobiles.

    The right to bear arms as a fundamental individual liberty, in my opinion clearly trumps these pragmatic concerns.

    People die, the question is: how do you live?

    #7530
    Avatar of Jeff-Chan
    Jeff-Chan
    Participant

    Eelco wrote:
    With regard to gun control: im suspicious of anyone claiming there exists clear data either way. Its a murky political issue: i honestly wouldnt know the precise effect.

    Violent crime rates in the U.K. have risen since guns were banned. How many more disarmed crime victims do we need before the fairly obvious point is acepted?

    If there’s any murkiness it’s because politicians have spent so much time and effort lying about it. Disarmed, helpless victims are perfect chattel for a state monopoly on force and very safe prey for criminals.

    The crime data are clear.

    Violent crime in Australia has also increased following its gun bans. Making the law-abiding defenseless does not reduce crime; it encourages it. Disarming the law-abding makes crime safer for criminals.

    #7531
    Avatar of Eelco
    Eelco
    Participant

    Jeff wrote:

    Eelco wrote:

    With regard to gun control: im suspicious of anyone claiming there exists clear data either way. Its a murky political issue: i honestly wouldnt know the precise effect.

    Violent crime rates in the U.K. have risen since guns were banned. How many more disarmed crime victims do we need before the fairly obvious point is acepted?

    If there’s any murkiness it’s because politicians have spent so much time and effort lying about it. Disarmed, helpless victims are perfect chattel for a state monopoly on force and very safe prey for criminals.

    The crime data are clear.

    Violent crime in Australia has also increased following its gun bans. Making the law-abiding defenseless does not reduce crime; it encourages it. Disarming the law-abding makes crime safer for criminals.

    [/quote]

    Congratulations, im now suspicious of you.

    Im not sure what you are trying to accomplish here: we already share a conclusion.

    I think causual mechanism proposed (armed citizens form a higher risk for criminals) is very plausible, but the suggestion that this kind of data tells anything conclusive is only believed by those who feel they need it to arrive at one conclusion or the other (and notice how it works equally well both ways).

    #7533
    Avatar of Jeff-Chan
    Jeff-Chan
    Participant

    Do you have any data that proves otherwise, except from people who want to ban guns and are willing to lie and distort in order to do it?

    Where is the data, from correctly controlled studies, that proves that making law-abiding people disarmed, defenseless and helpless somehow decreases crime?

    #7535
    Avatar of Eelco
    Eelco
    Participant

    Jeff wrote:

    Do you have any data that proves otherwise, except from people who want to ban guns and are willing to lie and distort in order to do it?

    Where is the data, from correctly controlled studies, that proves that making law-abiding people disarmed, defenseless and helpless somehow decreases crime?

    Who are you talking to? Certainly not me?

    I just explicitly stated Ive never seen such data, and that I dont expect to ever see any.

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 109 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate