The purpose of Seasteading – what can be done with a Micronation?
June 7, 2011 at 5:46 pm #1524
A comfortable 15 family setup overall if tethered to a Seamount OUT OF LANDSTEAD territorial waters (the whole point of SSing is to kill off having to pay taxes and red tape), and seeded with mangrove and aquaponics and reefs.
In that case, why not buy land somewhere where there’s already the least amount of government interference and cheap land – Alaska and Maine spring to mind -and start your own, Autarkic, micronation? As far as I’m aware, they can’t tax transactions made in a separate currency, and since the place is private property, the people there can set up businesses as they see fit. Also, laws can be enforced simply by throwing miscreants off the property…
You’ve got to ask yourself, what do you want to seastead for? Economic freedom – which on the lower end can be quite easily gained by trading in a separate currency, and most people are going to be on the lower end? What, exactly, do you want, and do you need a steastead to achieve it?
To those who say the government would find a way… they’ll find a way whatever you do, since they’ll “suddenly realise” that “pirates” are flying under flags of convenience.June 7, 2011 at 8:54 pm #13749
Which one is better? A seastead moored on a seamount somewhere, with coral reefs and mangroves and no foreign government interference, OR a piece of land somewhere (it will be within a nation’s territory) where there is the least amount of government interference? Which one would you choose? And where is this promised land of least government interference? Definately not Alaska or Maine or US. Quite frankly, I don’t think that land exists anywhere. In US, if you own property you will have to pay property taxes. If you open a business on your property, depending on the business you might need a permit, and if you make money you will have to pay income taxes.
A seasteading oriented micronation can achieve the social, political and financial infrastructure while the seastead is under construction. (and actually finance it’s construction) Namely, the seastead future population, future government and cash. This infrastructure will be relocated on the seastead when the seastead construction is completed. Having this infrastructure in place, a seastead has far better chances of making it when operational, compared to one without it. IMHOJune 7, 2011 at 11:51 pm #13750June 8, 2011 at 6:08 am #13755
or should I say Senor el Presidente (just joking, but the question is serious),…Does the Oceanic Citizen Republic have any active citizens? And if so, how many?June 8, 2011 at 11:18 am #13756
At the moment, the Oceanic Citizens Republic has a world-wide population of one Citizen Captain and a number of prospective Citizen Captains and Subjects as defined in our Constitution. However, the Socialistic plan that you’ve proposed that the government should build Seastations (Seasteads) is well, socialist. On the other hand the Republic does promote justice and universal protection of individual human rights and establishes solidarity, fraternity, and national unity among its Citizen Captains, Subject Citizens and Subjects. The Republic encourages education and schooling, the preservation and development of culture, the preservation and maintenance of historical objects and the protection of the environment for its own intrinsic value. Most importantly of all though the Republic provides a physical and administrative framework for the Enforcement of Law. So, potentally, it does meet your other two criteria and two out of three ain’t bad! While the Republic may build Seastations, eventually, that is not its purpose.June 8, 2011 at 11:29 am #13757
every time someone creates a self declared sovereign nation and claims to be the autocratic leader of said nation, its like one giant leap for mankind… just in the wrong direction.
“Leadership and do-ership are not the same thing”June 8, 2011 at 11:49 am #13759
While it’s true that I wrote the Constitution, declared the Republic’s existence to the world on February 20, 2007, I am not it’s ‘autocratic leader’. I am the President. If, when a quorum has been attained the people, the Citizen Captains and Subject Citizens decide that they want a new President, they can vote me out!June 8, 2011 at 12:16 pm #13760
Which one is better? A seastead moored on a seamount somewhere, with coral reefs and mangroves and no foreign government interference, OR a piece of land somewhere (it will be within a nation’s territory) where there is the least amount of government interference?
Which one is more practical? Sure, you have to pay property taxes – but that’s called compromise. Sure, a seastead would be better, but at the present time it’s not practical. You can either waste your life in hope of getting everything you want, or choose to compromise now to get some of what you want.
Or, if you can persuade the Principality of Hutt River to part with, say, a square kilometer of land plus sovereignty, you can get both solid land and sovereignty. Or set up offshore of somewhere like the UK and pull a Sealand… hmm, Sealand claim the 12nm limit around their country; perhaps they would be willing to part with some of it? The respective governments of their immediate neighbours, Australia and the UK respectively, may not have given de jure recognition to them – but they’ve certainly given de facto recognition, and it’s the latter that’s the important one.
Seasteading is to Boat Living what Traction Cities are to Vandwelling – simply a matter of scale.June 9, 2011 at 12:17 am #13762
practicality is not the issue. Was is practical for the homesteaders to literally leave the know world and depart St. Louis to build a life for themselves and their families? No, it was not practical. To this day, you can follow the waggon ruts and see the graves of the people who didn’t make it. They paid with their lives for a dream of freedom. To live and die by their own hand, by their own will. The ‘Principality of Hutt River’ was and is a tax dodge. Legal under Australian law at the time but no more. Eventually George Casley will kick the bucket and his ‘Principality of Hutt River’ die with him. As for Sealand, it does NOT claim a 12nm limit: Britain claims a 12nm limit which makes Sealand wholly within ITS territorial waters. Sealand claims a 3nm zone of control for safe navigation purposes which is not the same thing. What Sealand did, when they did it, was legal under international law. Now, it’s not. Get a boat aka. ‘single family seastead’ and you’re half way there! If you actually HAVE A BOAT you will be farther along the course toward Seasteading than most of the people on this site! Is it practical? No. On the other hand, freedom isn’t practical.June 9, 2011 at 8:37 am #13767
the Socialistic plan that you’ve proposed that the government should build Seastations (Seasteads) is well, socialist.
On the Macro scale, a government obtaining funds and resources for a large public works project is not necessarily socialist. Socialism is coliquially defined as “government control of economy to provide for the livelihood of the pulbic.” More specifically, socialism is the economic practice of the government having partial or complete control of “big” businesses, such as transportation, water or electric works, food production, etc, and a large integrated welfare system (though a welfare system is not required for a socialist state). Even the most paleo-liberal states, ie the most free-market societies, have government-run public works projects. This does not denote socialism in any way, and is an incorrect inference. What he is actually referring to is a “Centerist” approach which is in no way necessarily socialist. Even the governments of the most capitalist western “democracies” are centrist in many, often most, ways.
On the Micro scale, while a nation could feasibly collect the funds and resources in a “democratic” manner, and conduct the building of their seastead along the same lines, at this stage a Centrist approach is the most effective and efficient, I believe.June 9, 2011 at 11:52 am #13769
practicality is not the issue.
Practicality is a big issue, though.
Was is practical for the homesteaders to literally leave the known world and depart St. Louis to build a life for themselves and their families? No, it was not practical.
It was more practical than trying to establish a seastead. Far more practical.
The ‘Principality of Hutt River’ was and is a tax dodge. Legal under Australian law at the time but no more. Eventually George Casley will kick the bucket and his ‘Principality of Hutt River’ die with him.
Not neccessarily; it’s tax exempt status will remain, and the current Crown Prince will take over… the simple fact is, the Principality is de facto independent – and that’s what matters. The next guy might want to sell; I’d be willing to purchase a sovereign state of my own…
As for Sealand, it does NOT claim a 12nm limit: Britain claims a 12nm limit which makes Sealand wholly within ITS territorial waters. Sealand claims a 3nm zone of control for safe navigation purposes which is not the same thing. What Sealand did, when they did it, was legal under international law. Now, it’s not.
Actually, they claim a 12nm limit; they did when Britain extended their limit from 3nm to 12nm. Sealand was outside British territorial waters when set up, therefore the British territorial waters actually curve around it (you can’t extend your territorial waters to claim islands and structures; certainly not when said structures are independent). The British courts have ruled several times that British law doesn’t apply there. Like I said, de facto independence matter more than actually being recognized as a separate country.
What Sealand did, when they did it, was legal under international law. Now, it’s not.
Seasteading is currently legal under international law. If it ever takes off, it probably won’t be. What are you going to move onto after that then? The thing with Sealand is, it established a precedent – if you setup outside territorial waters, you can have de facto independence.
I’m willing to compromise, if it means I get most of what I want rather than none of it. Mind, Seasteading isn’t actually that hard, it’s just people seem to have got so hung up over a desire to stay in one spot and not feel like they’re at sea… I could imagine a boat/ship large enough to house a small community, say a few dozen, and roving the world, that wouldn’t cost excessively to build. Say, a Catamaran, with homes in the floats and gardens on the platform; I doubt the law is going to reach over the ocean because you haven’t paid tax on the ice cream you bought, or are smoking a spliff while watching the craft travely sedately through the waves…
Seasteading is to Boat Living what Traction Cities are to Vandwelling – simply a matter of scale.June 9, 2011 at 3:17 pm #13771
it’s nothing there. In fact “space”, it’s a misnomer. It’s actually a damn cold, dark, sinister void,…IMHO. Regardless, back to the subject, socialist, capitalist, who cares? These “notions” are passe when it comes to real seasteading.(meaning sovereign floating communities @ sea)
As Wohl said, billion dollar seasteads are not gonna happen soon. And if they will happen one day they won’t be the “seasteads” some of us imagine to be,….Do you think that whoever will dump $1 billion into a floating resort will give a rats ass about “sovereignity” or “freedoms” on board? With no state jurisdiction on the high seas? No labor “laws” to respect? Ha! If you think so you got to be high on crack. This is what’s gonna happen. The “Company” will buy a flag of convenince, Panama or Cayman.Then, they will hire its front of the house crew from the formers Eastern Block nations, its navigation and engine crew from Philippines or India. They will work them like slaves in16 hours shifts, with no benefits, pay them shit wages and make $ billions for the Company and the shareholders. It’s happening as we speak in the cruising industry, and it “works”. Why change a “good” business “model”??
If we want to talk about real seateading which is in fact the process of ocean colonization, look no further than “It’s the economy, stupid!” and small floating communities here and there, to start with, as Wohl also said. In the most happiest start up scenario we could have maybe 50-100 people on a seastead, somewhere. If so, it is going to be like a “ship”, more or less. So, is it gonna to be “capitalistic”? Hell yeah! They’ll have to sell somthing to survive… Is it gonna be “socialist”? Hell yeah! Electric power production will be centralized. Healthcare will be centralized. Food supply will be cebtralized. Water supply, waste disposal will be centralized. Why? Beause it’s much cheaper this way to provide for the whole community in the context of a maritime existance. And everybody will have to chip in to make it work. Otherwise, will not work. Such is the nature of life @ sea.
Anything else it’s just pure fantasy, mates:)June 9, 2011 at 7:04 pm #13770
What you’re proposing as a ‘compromise’ is what I’ve said all along as the ‘goal’ for seasteading! Single and multi-family seasteads,aka. boats, ships and floating platforms of some kind. The multi-million, billion dollar structures depicted here and elsewhere will come eventually, but not any time soon. By then, the only place to go and be free will be ‘Space, the final frontier…’June 9, 2011 at 7:26 pm #13768
that on the small, community scale, when groups of individual come together with common cause to build a sewage treatment plant, a water works or power station it is not necessarily socialist. But what happens next most certainly is socialism: as these systems expand taxes must be paid to support them. Sewer and water lines are dug and laid, power polls are put in and ‘codes’ are established that individuals ‘must’ comply with if they want to use the ‘service’ that they’ve already paid taxes for. Oh, and they must also pay a usage fees to actually ‘use’ the sewer, water and power that they already pay taxes for. Next comes zoning to enforce ‘minimum standards’ to prevent individuals from ‘not’ using the systems that they are paying ever more taxes and use fees to support. Finally, it gets to the point where unless you are fantastically wealthy and can afford to pay the taxes for the systems that you don’t use AND still ‘go off the grid’, individuals can’t go ‘off the grid’. This is where the Centrist approach of degenerate democracies lead. This is where the United States is right NOW. A ‘Seasteading Oriented Micronation’ that started out, off of jump street building Seasteads, providing ‘infrastructure’ that well, someone is going to have to pay and get paid for…June 9, 2011 at 7:37 pm #13773
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Posted on at