Possible Solution of UN recognition
August 31, 2009 at 12:17 am #1057
We all know the problem with international law is that it was never designed to allow a new sovereignty to come into existence. But what would happen if we take a media/human interest favorite like the Tibetian government and put them on the first Seastead? Then helped them gain international recognition?
In my mind this solves 2 problems;
1) International Recognition
2) Funding. There would literally be millions of individuals willing to contribute towards seeing their dream of nationhood re-realized.
Any thoughts?August 31, 2009 at 12:37 am #7632
Diversification is certainly one way of increasing the chances of recognition of sovereignty. It may be (relatively) rich Americans and Europeans who start this project, but certainly there are persons facing political or financial difficulties around the world who are not finding it easy to immigrate to America, Europe, or other places. Seasteads would provide a new frontier for all humanity, and could ease tensions in many locales: for instance, both Palestinians and Israeli Jews might want to opt for seasteads, rather than continue a conflict over a small amount of land – and the smaller numbers occupying the land on both sides would benefit both sides, even as both parties could wildly increase their numbers on the high seas, while creating new technologies that might eventually help us spread out and fill the whole galaxy with Life. At the same time, seasteads would create both new markets and new sources of supplies for all the world, with a minimum of inconvenience for the existing players.
There are lots of reasons why existing nations should welcome seasteads. It is less clear, however, regarding despots – whether individual or oligarchic. Despots tend to fear what they don’t control, without regard to the harm that fear does to them.August 31, 2009 at 2:42 pm #7643
If we could get the Tibetans on board with it and the same could be said for the Palestinians and Israelis. The trouble I see there is that these folks and all the rest like them, already have literal dirt they have a stake in. For the Dolly Lama to move to seasteading would, could be played up by the Chinese Propaganda machine as a betrayal of his home land and people. As for the Palestinians and Israelis, they see they’re land and the possession of it as a mandate from Almighty God! I don’t think that any of these peoples would ‘choose’ to turn to seasteading unless they had to. On the other hand, if sea levels continue to rise as they are predicted to do, there’s going to be literally millions and millions of people who WILL be forced to seastead or drown. These peoples are going to be on the water. TSI could be the way to provide them a place to go…September 1, 2009 at 6:46 am #7647wohl1917 wrote:
If we could get the Tibetans on board with it and the same could be said for the Palestinians and Israelis. The trouble I see there is that these folks and all the rest like them, already have literal dirt they have a stake in. For the Dolly Lama to move to seasteading would, could be played up by the Chinese Propaganda machine as a betrayal of his home land and people. As for the Palestinians and Israelis, they see they’re land and the possession of it as a mandate from Almighty God! I don’t think that any of these peoples would ‘choose’ to turn to seasteading unless they had to.
The Dalai Lama has already left Tibet, and the Tibetan people understand that that is not a betrayal. As for the Israelis and Palestinians – a few of them have religious reasons for living there, but most have been pushed there by circumstances beyond their control. Many would gladly move out if they had someplace to go, but most countries have closed their borders to all but a handful of refugees. A chance at peace and a normal life for their family would be sufficient for a great many on both sides.
That said, the seas or other frontiers would have to become a great deal more affordable before many could go that route.September 2, 2009 at 9:28 pm #7653
As for the Palestinians and Israelis, they see they’re land and the possession of it as a mandate from Almighty God!
Interesting Biblical connection. These are definitely the “end times,” when there is no land left for people to escape to to be free. In the old days if you were being oppressed, you just moved to the fronteir where there was no government. Now governments are turning in on their people. Ironically, Israel stealing Palestine from the Palestinians is truly an indication of the “end times” in a metaphorical Biblical sense. The world suddenly become completely mapped out, and Zionism marked the beginning of a new era of collectively justified theft, the beginning of increasingly corrupt demodictatorships. The “end time” crazies are actually right in a way, Israel’s creating marked the beginning of a new era, but not in the way they think it did. Seasteading and experiments in new governments may be an important process that keeps us out of an inevetable armageddon.
As for UN recognition, it looks like a delicate game of alignment. Find a group of countries whose interest it serves to take down American hegomony in particular, and you may find a movement.September 3, 2009 at 2:00 pm #7662
Interesting feedback, are there any other nations that might be partial to living on a floating island? Particularly ones that are susceptable to rising sea levels? Singapore’s out, we’ve announced plans to build massive levies Dutch style. And personally, I’d like to have as little to do with my government as possible :pSeptember 3, 2009 at 11:57 pm #7663
My view is that it would be good to go after “the usual suspects,” like Venezuela, Iran, Syria; places that are balking at the NWO. Any place that is heavily influenced by the US would be problematic because obviously the US government doesn’t want this.September 4, 2009 at 7:54 pm #7665
When the Dalia Lama originally left and the PRC played the betrayal card the people of Tibet saw through it because they knew he left to maintain his, and by extension their, religious freedom. Now, I think if he were to move the government in exile to a Seastead as a permanent fixture seeking diplomatic recognition, the betrayal card would have a bit more weight. As for your take on the Israeli/Palestinian issue, sorry Dude, I just have to flatly disagree. In 1948 when Ben Gurion announced the creation of the State of Israel, to a large degree for most of the survivors of the holocaust, it may have been true that they had no place else to go but that’s no longer true. For the Palestinian people, their refugee problem is one that they created almost by themselves. You and I and I dare say most of the people on this site and around the world live in places where we don’t have to worry about getting shot or blown up on a daily basis, or having to step over dead bodies to go to work/school. For the Israelis and Palestinians, their faith allows them to endure it and keep enduring it. As for those who do leave, they carry their hatred with them like a poison disguised as love for ‘their’ homeland! Abandon ‘Their’ promised land given them by Almighty God for which they have sacrificed so much and killed so many for? Not a chance!
Horton, I don’t believe that these are the ‘End Times’. Period. While there are a lot of people who do, most of them believe and repeat what they hear out of ignorance rather than reading the scriptures for themselves. “This to shall pass…”
Xnsdvd, I think the countries to look at would be the countries and places that already have so-called ‘Sea People’ Myanmar, Malaya, Indonesia and the ones that will have them like Bangladesh, Thailand, Philippines even Singapore (leaves not with standing) and all the rest that have large shore based populations with no money to buy land inland. These people WILL be displaced, somewhere. At sea is a logical choice!September 5, 2009 at 12:41 am #7667
Besides the survivors of the holocaust, there are also the many Israelis who were forced to leave their homes in various Arab states, those who fled the Soviet Union, and those who have fled other places. Sure, there are nations that would be willing to take in some of them, but which nation is willing to let all of them immigrate?
The religious zealots are a small but powerful minority among Israeli Jews, and for that matter most Palestinians are not religious zealots either. The religious zealots on both sides get support when the situation seems hopeless and they appear to be the only ones taking a hard line, but that does not mean that they have the full, unqualified support of the public. Give people another realistic opportunity and I expect many on both sides would be willing to emigrate.
Don’t believe all the rhetoric about religious wars. Wars are seldom about religion, and mostly about economics – but it’s hard to get soldiers to kill and die for someone else’s profits. Look at the Thirty Years War – officially it was Catholic versus Protestant, but there were Catholics and Protestants fighting on both sides, and a good deal of changing sides. The only constant was that everyone was looking out for the bottom line.September 5, 2009 at 4:53 am #7668
Hey guys. Why not get an existing country to make an extension of itself- not a complete transfer, but an addition of territory. Almost all countries are looking to expand their territory. Convincing one to make their own probably wouldn’t be hard, especially if you agree to provide the funding, technology, materials, people, and pay a small fee for them to leave you alone and represent you in the case of war. Hell, you might even get the UN themselves to handle colonial defence- they get some actual territory (and legitimacy as a world government, not that I want that, but they do), and we get a distant, relatively powerless leader we can overthrow later (and preferably not replace… probably shouldn’t open that can of worms here). We’ll have to find a country just strong enough to represent us internationally and to defend us from most countries, but not strong enough to regulate internal affairs. Colonies cannot withstand meddling- they MUST be independent to be survive. Hence, even with a government in name and possibly in defence, they wouldn’t be able to repress all that well. Private methods of ensuring the peace would be required. Especially if you get a weak country desparate for any expansion at all to be your backer. We’ll just have to keep the plan to get rid of that backer to ourselves.
Hope this helps.September 5, 2009 at 3:39 pm #7672
Why would UN recognition be at all desireable, or even necessary? No nation that matters gives a care about what the UN says, they will do what they want to do anyway. The UN is not some sort of international supercop that gets to impose it’s will on anyone, unless (at a minimum) the 5 permanent security council members agree.
I won’t be wronged. I won’t be insulted. I won’t be laid a-hand on. I don’t do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.September 5, 2009 at 3:43 pm #7673
while I agree with your take on war in general and past ‘religious’ wars in particular, those wars were fought by ‘sane’ people. Let’s just leave it at that. If Israelis and/or Palestinians could come in peace, they could and would certainly be welcomed along with anyone else.
Junior, if seasteading can be made to work there’s no way they won’t come which is why we have to beat them to it!September 6, 2009 at 3:01 am #7677
I don’t actually want much government help, involvement, or even interaction. I envision special long-term yachts that a single person can operate and use to scrape a liveable, if not comfortable, existence on his own while maybe sailing from port to port having fun and evading the taxman. It excites me because I think, if you make social interactions voluntary, you take away the need to interact with people you don’t want (i.e. authoritarians, assholes, douchebags, etc.). Thus, freedom becomes a viable option, and there’s one less excuse for mass-meddling. However, if you must have government involvement, support, or help, you’d might as well go all the way. I was basically thinking the Colonial American model, in which a super power establishes profitable, independent colonies, gets distracted by wars and treats those colonies like crap to fund those wars, and, while strapped for resources by those wars, the colonies successfully secede because they’re tired of being treated like crap. Or, a quicker route, a govt. establishes colonies, they do a couple neat things, but eventually mismanage the project and leave it alone while a private entity goes and does the same thing, better. Think NASA vs Spaceship 1. I agree, though, it’d be best to beat the govt. to the catch and do it ourselves.September 8, 2009 at 12:12 am #7685
The first source should be a number of existing “Island Nations”, including ones who’ve complained recently they are losing land to “Global Warming”.
What is most needed is a “SeaSteading” identity. A meme, a goal.
I say: “To be alive is not the same as to live.”
I call my vision “Oseana” but I’m not ramming anything down anyone’s throat. I believe that anyone should be able to do anything they want on their seasteads, only answerable to their partners/tribe members. I also believe that we should support and enforce a larger “Oseanic” viewpoint. In the past, nation states crushed tribal groups by playing them against each other. A simple line shall be drawn that even if they are fighting right now, they turn the “Spears” against any nation state attacker and that any tribe that supports the nation states over the other tribes becomes “Outsider”.
We go to these nations, build them SeaSteads with the labor of their inhabitants and become a larger nation of independant tribes, based around our mobile seasteads. We become self-sufficient, but also we can become independant trade partners, such as with our technology (we’ll be a super “Brain Drain” from the other nations), growing MJ and food to sell to passing ships, and many other options. The UN recognition keeps the larger nation states that fight with each other off our back until we can prepare a “Plan B” they don’t want to face.September 10, 2009 at 12:02 pm #7695
Why would UN recognition be at all desireable, or even necessary? No nation that matters gives a care about what the UN says, they will do what they want to do anyway. The UN is not some sort of international supercop that gets to impose it’s will on anyone
No, but it would like to be: http://rkba.org/federal/state/freedom_war.html
Note that the U.S. State Department currently disavows their 1961 document, but it’s pretty clear where the intentions lie: world government supremacy over all people.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Posted on at