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




Occupy vs. Seasteading

Home Forums Community General Chat Occupy vs. Seasteading

This topic contains 79 replies, has 11 voices, and was last updated by Avatar of elspru elspru 2 years, 9 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 80 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #16019
    Avatar of elspru
    elspru
    Participant

    Ken wrote:

    chadsims wrote:

    In my oppinion… the OWS movement comes down to Greedy Corporations against Entitled People. Both are in the wrong. People shouldn’t just be Entitled to things. They should have to work for them. And the Corporations shouldn’t get tax payer dollars when they mess up. In capitalism they should be allowed to fail, not buy government support and save themselves.

    We probably aren’t related, but we ought to be!

    [/quote]

    The purpose of entitlements is to supress rebellion,

    from taking away people’s ability to live naturally, i.e. homesteading.

    The whole purpose of seasteading, at least in my view, is the opportunity to live naturally i.e. homestead on the sea.

    To avoid the “tradgedy of the commons” we must allow predation, and thereby piracy.

    Russia is a good example of Capitalism gone wild, there is so much violence, you’d think it’s being invaded.

    it’s the 6th most violent country in the world, by the peace-index, more violent than pakistan, which actually is being invaded by america.

    Much of the violence that happens in Russia, is due to people not being able to pay off their debts, they are then killed and burried in a shallow grave, sometimes not in that order. The practice of execution is so common, that the phrase “test shot” refers to the second shot to the head at point blank range, to make certain of death.

    They actually have population decline, due to these phenomena,

    in combination with forcing most people to live in over-crowded highly-polluted cities.

    We with You are a Network, our goal to become technologically-enabled reproducible family communities. http://weyounet.info

    #16023
    Avatar of chadsims
    chadsims
    Participant

    Oceanopolis… you might be a genius.

    ‘Lead, Follow, or get out of my way.’ -Unknown

    #16031
    Avatar of tusavision
    tusavision
    Participant

    In engineering, when you depart too far from a working solution and the result is a broken system, you can go back to the last known working state and see if it still works(god help you if it doesn’t) or you can remove one new addition at a time until you return to a working state.

    Unfortunately for us humans, I don’t know if there’s an example of a “working state” in all of human history. Discontent with the status quo is the driving force behind our continued progress.

    I wish luck to anyone trying to find consensus on a period in the past that constitutes a “working state”.

    #16032
    Avatar of elspru
    elspru
    Participant

    tusavision wrote:
    In engineering, when you depart too far from a working solution and the result is a broken system, you can go back to the last known working state and see if it still works(god help you if it doesn’t) or you can remove one new addition at a time until you return to a working state. Unfortunately for us humans, I don’t know if there’s an example of a “working state” in all of human history. Discontent with the status quo is the driving force behind our continued progress. I wish luck to anyone trying to find consensus on a period in the past that constitutes a “working state”.

    and recent example would be 1950′s United States where most people were working in the state.

    However I’d say that a “working state” is far from ideal, I’d say a functioning ecosystem is much better.

    We have plenty of examples of functioning ecosystems, islands, continents, oceans, lakes, aquariums, terrariums. There is much we can learn about parenting from mammals, and can learn about large communities from swarming organisms like bee’s and ants.

    We with You are a Network, our goal to become technologically-enabled reproducible family communities. http://weyounet.info

    #16034
    Avatar of tusavision
    tusavision
    Participant
    elspru wrote:
    tusavision wrote:

    In engineering, when you depart too far from a working solution and the result is a broken system, you can go back to the last known working state and see if it still works(god help you if it doesn’t) or you can remove one new addition at a time until you return to a working state. Unfortunately for us humans, I don’t know if there’s an example of a “working state” in all of human history. Discontent with the status quo is the driving force behind our continued progress. I wish luck to anyone trying to find consensus on a period in the past that constitutes a “working state”.

    and recent example would be 1950′s United States where most people were working in the state.

    However I’d say that a “working state” is far from ideal, I’d say a functioning ecosystem is much better.

    We have plenty of examples of functioning ecosystems, islands, continents, oceans, lakes, aquariums, terrariums. There is much we can learn about parenting from mammals, and can learn about large communities from swarming organisms like bee’s and ants.

    We with You are a Network, our goal to become technologically-enabled reproducible family communities. http://weyounet.info

    [/quote]

    That’s the whole point though. What is “working”? What about an ecosystem makes it “functioning”? Equilibrium/stability results in stagnation and eventual collapse. Your competition is constantly evolving.

    It’s a question of goals. What exactly is it you are trying to get from the “system”? Not everyone can agree on what the purpose of the system should be, so how can they hope to accomplish a purpose?

    Is tribalism and segregation the answer? Increased mobility solves the geographic problems of those issues, but mobility defies efficiency.

    Is independence the answer? I used to think so, but “divided we fall”. The most agile competitive 1% seem to effectively accumulate all of the commodities/resources when everyone is an equally independent island.

    Is interdependence the answer? I don’t think so. Free trade and globalization have eliminated large wars of nations in favor of smaller military enforcements of the NWO agenda. Meanwhile social mobility and the wealth gap get undeniably increasingly regressive.

    The populous as a whole is retarded and I’m not sure “human dignity” is significant justification to try to save them from themselves. The flip side of that coin is that the minority of plutocrats as a whole seem to be evil, if not by intention then through misplaced ideological fallout.

    Everyone thinks they’re “self-made” and entitled to all the fruits of their labor, yet they rarely appreciate the externalities their empire was built upon or the extent of the subsidies they received while building it.

    How do you eliminate externalities without stifling progress or establishing authoritarian enforcement infrastructure? The “free-rider problem” may be a justification for imposing projected needs on to others, but how will we prevent an asteroid from destroying civilization? By holding hands & singing Kumbaya?

    As far as I can tell, the medicine is worse than the disease regarding the hazards of independance/libertarianism. To me, this looks like cheap concrete/acrylic/polycarbonate submarines(even if they can only dive to 30m(100ft).

    I am curious what this collection of captain nemo’s plans to do about pollution of the ocean, space junk, and asteroids though.

    #16035
    Avatar of chadsims
    chadsims
    Participant

    elspru wrote:
    There is much we can learn about parenting from mammals, and can learn about large communities from swarming organisms like bee’s and ants.

    We’ve tried making societies like Ants and Bees, with a ‘queen’ singular person in charge. The problem is that Humans are only SIMI-social creatures. We’re not really pack animals, and neither are we solitary, though some humans are examples of both. I’m more solitary for instance and others happen to be more pack driven… Like you’re average Teenage Girl. :D

    So, long story short to take a note from either a pack animal or a swarm animal, has been done and has always failed. Humans can not work ‘for the greater good’. But niether can a society work that doesn’t take greater good into effect at all like anarchism. We’re to varried, some people, and cultures, like Russia, actually are happy to be controlled, but even then, the entire populous doesn’t fall into that discription only large potion of it. (I think about 60% of russians would be happy with a ‘queen bee’ designed society. Americans for the counter tend to be the opposite, the solo-oriented people. (though the ‘social’ movements have been pushing ‘entitlment’ and creating a subculture of america that is enslaved to the government))

    Long story short. humans are to varried for any type of government designed off of the animal kingdom. (Fromrule of the strongest for wolves, to everyone working for the greater good under one ruler)

    ‘Lead, Follow, or get out of my way.’ -Unknown

    #16038
    Avatar of shredder7753
    shredder7753
    Participant

    we need a technological singularity

    ____________

    My Work II

    “Leadership and do-ership are not the same thing”

    #16040
    Avatar of chadsims
    chadsims
    Participant

    shredder7753 wrote:

    we need a technological singularity

    ____________

    My Work II

    “Leadership and do-ership are not the same thing”

    Interesting , had never heard that term (Dispite my love of SF) but looked it up. The real question would be… would that help any? Would humans be inetlligent enough to recognize if it happened? One thing you can always count on is Humans to be arrogant. I know, I am often. :D :P (Sorry in advance if any of my posts come off as arrogant. :P )

    An additional danger would be if that Intelligence had sympathy. It might look upon the world and device a way to clean it of the ‘human inffestation’.

    ‘Lead, Follow, or get out of my way.’ -Unknown

    #16048
    Avatar of tusavision
    tusavision
    Participant
    chadsims wrote:
    elspru wrote:

    There is much we can learn about parenting from mammals, and can learn about large communities from swarming organisms like bee’s and ants.

    We’ve tried making societies like Ants and Bees, with a ‘queen’ singular person in charge. The problem is that Humans are only SIMI-social creatures. We’re not really pack animals, and neither are we solitary, though some humans are examples of both. I’m more solitary for instance and others happen to be more pack driven… Like you’re average Teenage Girl. :D

    So, long story short to take a note from either a pack animal or a swarm animal, has been done and has always failed. Humans can not work ‘for the greater good’. But niether can a society work that doesn’t take greater good into effect at all like anarchism. We’re to varried, some people, and cultures, like Russia, actually are happy to be controlled, but even then, the entire populous doesn’t fall into that discription only large potion of it. (I think about 60% of russians would be happy with a ‘queen bee’ designed society. Americans for the counter tend to be the opposite, the solo-oriented people. (though the ‘social’ movements have been pushing ‘entitlment’ and creating a subculture of america that is enslaved to the government))

    Long story short. humans are to varried for any type of government designed off of the animal kingdom. (Fromrule of the strongest for wolves, to everyone working for the greater good under one ruler)

    ‘Lead, Follow, or get out of my way.’ -Unknown

    [/quote]

    I think this is pretty insightful, no “one size fits all” solution seems possible(other than unlimited food, water, electricity, and sex robots). Maybe if robots are showering us in material wealth and there’s no competition for sexual partners we’ll all mellow out.

    In the mean time, most goals including the mission statement of this site seem dedicated to providing enough diversity of options that “don’t be a douche-bag” standards of morality are easily achievable for everyone under all definitions of “acting like a douche-bag”.

    #16075
    Avatar of wohl1917
    wohl1917
    Participant

    OCEANOPOLIS wrote:

    that might explain why seasteading hasn’t been done yet. It could be because:

    1. Too many libertarians woked on it.
    2. Not enough libertarians worked on it.

    LOL Ocean, I have to with Chadsims on that one: That was brilliant observation!

    < http://ocr.wikia.com/wiki/Oceanic_Citizens_Republic_Wiki>

    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    that might explain why seasteading hasn’t been done yet. It could be because:

    1. Too many libertarians worked on it.
    2. Not enough libertarians worked on it.
    #16080
    Avatar of chadsims
    chadsims
    Participant

    tusavision wrote:

    I think this is pretty insightful, no “one size fits all” solution seems possible(other than unlimited food, water, electricity, and sex robots). Maybe if robots are showering us in material wealth and there’s no competition for sexual partners we’ll all mellow out. In the mean time, most goals including the mission statement of this site seem dedicated to providing enough diversity of options that “don’t be a douche-bag” standards of morality are easily achievable for everyone under all definitions of “acting like a douche-bag”.

    Thanks, I try. That’s why I’m libertarian, in my society, if a group of sheep (read Athoritarians) in my comunity wanted to form a group of homes and contribute for the greater good amung themselves and such, they could. They could still be part of my greater group with their own inner laws and regulations, anyone who doesn’t like the laws could move away from their group and connect to others. Sort of like a housing develoupment with charges to live in that area. The advantage of course is the houses might chip in to get a ‘comunity’ center for their group. I’d stay far way from them for sure, but I wouldn’t stop them.

    ‘Lead, Follow, or get out of my way.’ -Unknown

    #16088
    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    Yes, in a free society, a group of people can form a collectivist society with progressive values, they just can’t force others at gun point to be a part of it. Good luck trying to get them to come out and admit it, that they need to be able to coerce productive people to be a part of their society, or it will fail.

    #16148
    Avatar of GenSeneca
    GenSeneca
    Participant

    You guys certainly have been engaged in a lively discussion about this topic, sorry I came late to the party.

    The basic principle behind the entitlement state is that a person’s need entitles him to other people’s wealth. It’s that you have a duty to spend some irreplaceable part of your life laboring, not for the sake of your own life and happiness, but for the sake of others. If you are productive and self-supporting, then according to the entitlement state, you are in hock to those who aren’t.

    I have never heard the mindset of the Left more succinctly describe then it is in those few words and reading the demands made by the Flea Party make it clear they are truly the result of an entitlment state mentality.

    “It is not the man who has too little, but the man who craves more, that is poor.”Lucius Annaeus Seneca

    #16149
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty. Plainly, the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of liberty.
    Abraham Lincoln

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 80 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate