The purpose of Seasteading – what can be done with a Micronation?
June 9, 2011 at 9:19 pm #13778
“Leadership and do-ership are not the same thing”June 10, 2011 at 2:14 pm #13785
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,….
there are already oil rigs, those are multi billion dollar.
If some get decomissioned, sold or abandoned they could be reoutfitted as seasteads.
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”??
agreed, this seems to be the end result of fiat currency.
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…
what does Sealand “sell”?
Explain why no rocks, plants, animals, and the vast majority of star-beings, live contendedly without currency.
and yet you claim it’s necessary .
Yes we know you and much of society is under heavy mind-control from mass media,
but remember mass-media also has near 0 useful knowledge, most of it is f*king crazy, sex and violence.
Remember that money is just pieces of paper,
ideally their serial numbers lead to transaction records.
It is people with physical-bodies that actually get things accomplished.
Some of them are motivated by shiny jewels, precious metals, or old discolored pieces of paper.
However studies have shown that physical rewards are only useful for physical labour.
The newer more useful form of motivation is autonomy, mastery, and purpose.
Autonomy: The urge to direct our own lives.
Mastery: The desire to get better at something that matters.
Purpose: The yearning to do what we do in the service of something larger than ourselves.
I do agree that Excretion is necessary for survival, for single-celled organisms and above.
selling your excretions is optional however, could be beneficial in a monetary habitat.
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.
yes of course, within an atom-tribe or biological-cell there are specialized components that co-operate to make the whole function.
Anything else it’s just pure fantasy, mates:)
anything that can be imagined can also be experienced.
calm aware desire choice love express intuit moveJune 10, 2011 at 3:20 pm #13789
Do you think that whoever will dump $1 billion into a floating resort will give a rats ass about “sovereignity” or “freedoms” on board?
It depends on who it is. I know that if I had $1B I would use it to build a huge floating sovereign city with plenty of freedoms. Maybe the seasteading community is courting the wrong people…focusing on “business plans” and “economic viability” rather than philosophical ideals.elspru wrote:
Explain why no rocks, plants, animals, and the vast majority of star-beings, live contendedly without currency.
Just the other day I spoke with a star-being, and she said that she needed more currency to purchase overpriced candy and popcorn at the theater after having spent the last of her currency on the overpriced tickets to see The Hangover 2. That doesn’t sound like “living contendly” to me. Maybe the star-beings you hang out with have simpler tastes.
As for the rocks on my property, I haven’t had time to check with them yet. I’ll get back to you…June 10, 2011 at 6:21 pm #13788
The problem with those decommissioned oil rigs and the like is that they would still cost many hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions to purchase and many thousands of dollars to maintain. They would require, as Ocean said at least, ‘…50 to 100 people…’ to foot those bills and work round the clock just to keep up with the routine preventive maintenance setting aside anything major that might happen. As ocean said, ‘…they’ll have to sell something [just] to survive…’. It’s for these reasons I’ve always suggested that the people should put to sea in boats, ships and floating platforms as big as they can safely handle and afford to maintain. Just like the Homesteaders of the old west, Seasteaders won’t set out with a ready made ‘town’ aka. Seastead or Seastation to set up. That came and/or will come, later. In principle Spru, I agree with you about the money. On the other hand we are not the ‘birds of the air’ or the ‘lilies of the field’ to get along without toiling and spinning to make money! ‘We’ gotta’ have it!June 11, 2011 at 12:35 am #13794
I spend most of my time on the internet discussing politics, Capitalism in particular, so I can’t resist entering this conversation…emmettvm wrote:
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.
There are two definitions for Socialism, one is Socialism as an economic system, which you have used, the other is for Socialism as a social system:
Socialism, System of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control. – Encyclopedia Britannica
Additionally, there are no “free-market” societies, the closest are all Mixed Market economies:
Mixed economy: an economy that includes a variety of private and public control, reflecting characteristics of both capitalism and socialism. Most mixed economies can be described as market economies with strong regulatory oversight, in addition to having a variety of government-sponsored aspects. – Wiki
Every nation in the world exercises Socialism to some degree. Both the public ownership of certain services, such as utilities and mass transit, as well as private ownersip of property that’s subject to social control, such as zoning laws, are both examples of Socialism; the first in the economic sense of the word and the latter in the social context.emmettvm wrote:
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.
Actually, Centrism is in many ways Socialist… as it seeks to combine elements of both Socialism and Capitalism to form it’s “Centrist” positions.
And just as there are no Free Markets, the world also lacks Capitalist countries… Capitalism is a social system based on individual rights, it limits the role of government to protecting those rights, and requires that all property be privately owned. Capitalism is not an economic system, despite the many misuses of the word suggesting otherwise. When Capitalism is used to describe an economic system, it’s being used as a synomym for a Free Market economy. This is mainly due to the fact that a Free Market economic system cannot exist outside of a Capitalist social system and vice versa, however the two words are not synonymous. Both concepts have their own very different meanings.emmettvm wrote:
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.
I’d try for a purely Capitalist nation where the the role of government is strictly limited to protecting its citizens from force and fraud while allowing them the freedom to figure out everything else for themselves. If the citizens of a micro nation want to pool their money to accomplish a task, government should have no role outside of making sure the rights of everyone involved are protected. That, to me, is the most effective and efficient approach to ensuring the success of a micro nation.June 11, 2011 at 6:00 am #13797
“I’d try for a purely Capitalist nation where the the role of government is strictly limited to protecting its citizens from force and fraud while allowing them the freedom to figure out everything else for themselves. If the citizens of a micro nation want to pool their money to accomplish a task, government should have no role outside of making sure the rights of everyone involved are protected. That, to me, is the most effective and efficient approach to ensuring the success of a micro nation.”
Also, we have to model such micronation according to the realities of life at sea, which are very different then a land based existence. In many terms, life at sea is very “socialized” and well structured. For “how to”, we have to look at the merchant marine. On any ship of any nation, cargo, ro-ro, tanker, cruiseship, etc there are the same set of rules and standards of maritime law regarding operation, navigation, life aboard, safety, conduct, etc. For example: food is free of charge, lodging is free of charge, there is free medical care on board (mostly limited to emergency and light medical procedures, but still there), the pay is good and according to the degree of hazards involved (tanker’s crew are paid almost double then a general cargo’s crew), labor is unionized with good benefits and retirement plans, and in general, there is fairness in pay range between the able sailor and the captain, around 1:5-6. (how much a dishwasher is making compared to the CEO of the same corporation, 1:500?). What’s really interesting (and funny somehow) is the fact that some modern maritime laws were influenced a lot by the Pirate Code. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_code. By the way, I kinda’ of a like the name “Articles of Agrement”, instead of “Constitution”:)
What I am trying to say is that “capitalism”or ‘socialism” will be just empty words 1500 nm offshore,..The “population” will be in fact a crew, the “nation”, a community, the “government”, a handfull of democratically selected few, and what will really matter is what floats the boat, feeding the crew, putting good money in their pocket, keeping them free and happy. IMHO.June 11, 2011 at 2:53 pm #13800
The fact that I’m a Capitalist leads people to believe I’m opposed to Socialism, that’s not necessarily true. Socialism can work, and work well, but it requires volitional consent. Government has a monopoly on the legal use of force, so using government to implement Socialism erases what Socialism needs to function, volitional consent, which is why Socialism fails as a system of government and why I oppose Socialist forms of government.
As I pointed out, Capitalism would restrict the actions of the government to protecting the citizens from force and fraud, that’s it. Under such a system, the citizens could freely choose to follow the merchant marine model and figure out a way to offer free food, lodging, healthcare, and anything else they want… They would have the freedom to do so, they just couldn’t use government’s monopoly on the legal use of force to compel everyone to participate, e.g. passing laws to raise taxes on everyone in order to pay for these things.
So far from being empty words, I consider ensuring that a society be based on volitional consent and mutually beneficial exchange to be paramount for its success.June 12, 2011 at 12:50 am #13803
Maybe “empty words” was a poor choice of my part. Should have said “somehow irrelevant” for seasteading purposes. And in no way was intended as criticism, since I do agree with your statements. Also, I was trying to suggest that using “capitalist” or “socialist” to describe whatever seasteading will become, might not be the right “labeling” here. Since all the data suggests that seasteads, in order to survive and prosper, will be none of the two, but a mix of them with a long splash of maritime law on top of it, then we should avoid labeling this new form of political, social and economic “venture” using terminology that doesn’t do justice to it. IMHO.
Of course, no matter what, there will be some calling us commies or capitalistic pigs
Back to the micronatuon subject now. I personaly think that the main purpose of a seasteading oriented micronation will be to raise funds for building a seastead, rather then dealing to much with the politics of it. Realistically speaking, how much “government” and “law” will 100 people need to rule themselvs? Maybe 10 people in charge, or less and a handfull of down to earth “laws”?
There will be only 2 ways to built seasteads:
- Financed by one person’s money. Single ownership.
- Financed by few partner’s money. Multiple ownership.
No matter what, whoever will want to join, they’ll have to buy into it somehow. If #1, it will be buying, leasing, or as workforce. If #2, self-explanatory. Which one is better and which one will it be? Are people waiting for “Mr. Big Wallet” to come along and build a seastead and hope that he/she might find it in its heart to have a democratic system aboard and a decent price to join in? Yes. This seems to be the norm so far. Good luck to all waiting for that to happen. Will people join a micronation, form a partnerships, network and work together to build a seastead? Not yet, but they might if such venture is on the table. Regardless, it will be based only on volitional consent and mutual benefit.June 13, 2011 at 7:58 am #13818
Dont worry, Gen, I dont hate you. I always value well-thought opinions and perspectives, even and especially opposition ones. If we all agreed with each other all of the time, not much of anything would get done.
I dont have much time to reply here, and its off topic anyhow, so if you want to take this conversation further send me a private message and I’ll drop you my email.
Also, its not even noon here yet and Ive already had an exhausting day – one that somehow managed to begin before midnight last night, dammit – and Im sleep deprived as hell, so perhaps I wont be my most elequent either. Whatever, I’ll just touch a few points, then time for lunch.
First off, while there are a number of different perspectives from which one can approach this topic, Ive mostly been using the coliquial perspective – partly because it allows for the easiest explanations, and partly because, well, not many people really care about politics and economics very much. Thus, while you have caught me abusing terms somewhat, I was not speaking from an entirely academic standpoint.
That having been said, since economics, politics, and the other social studies have given us so many terms and words, lets use them for their specific meanings, rather than using some of the words and terms as descriptions of broad categories. Yes, it is true that most people speak of societies in terms of how “socialist” or “capitalists” they are, but it is not proper to use them in such ways. To quote Aristotle, though, “that such ignorance may call them by such terms is no excuse for learned men.” The pundits love to paint things in terms of shades of left and right because it allows them to confuse issues. Academia has taken such painstaking care to create definitions for so many “shades” beacuse common definition is the first requirement of communication.
If you are speaking coloquially then yes, you can say that socialism is alternatively a social or an economic construct. Speaking specifically, though, socialism and capitalism BOTH are ONLY economic constructs. They both refer to the means of ownership of resources. Anything further that we infer from or imply with the terms is a technically incorrect usage. It is true to say, coliquially, that Centrism has a great deal of socialism in it. It is incorrect to say that Centrism is a Socialist method. It is not. It is exactly what it is defined to be.
You did catch me in talkng about “most free market societies.” I made the same error I am above describing. I can only say that this was because I was, again, speaking coloquially at that time. My error, and I opologize. It needs not agreement that there are no free-market societies, just as there are no communist societies. By definition, neither exists in any appreicable size on this planet.
When saying that every nation exercises Socialism (or Capitalism) to some degree, it would be accurate to say that every nation exercises social-ownership and private-ownership in combination.
Speaking specifially about Socialism and Capitalism NOT beign social constructs…. I reiterate this point because, again, we already have terms for this. Socialism, purely and completely, as a social construct is Authoritariansim (subject to argument, of course). Capitalism, purely and completely, could be a good number more of different things, but most people identify it with Democraices or Republics – of course, you know why these are insufficient approximations, though. I would personally choose Anarchism as the most appropriate counter point, but it is, as with the other, subject to argument.
Aaaaand, Ive lost my train of thought. So, story time!
So yeah, we got hit by a number of rockets last night (no big deal sharing this, no casualties or damage, and its wide knowledge that the Iraqi insurgents LOVE their rockets). This happened between “a few” and “some” hours before midnight, and my platoon got tasked with finding the launch site. Well, I had only gotten about 20 minutes of sleep the night before, and it meant that the 2 hours Id managed to nab before the indirect fire would have to do for this particular night. So, we are driving around, walking around, and searching the myriad of grids that higher-up has given us. Well, Im REALLY tired during all of this. And I started hallucinating. I swear, I freaking SWEAR I saw a WalMart. And I dont mean out of the corner of my eye… I told my driver to swerve so he wouldnt hit the cars parked out front of the building. Yeah. Then, later, I was equally sure that I was seeing GIANT vacuum cleaners in the middle of the road. I realized this time that they werent really there, and just started swearing. My guys were a TAD bit confused as to why I just launched into a string of vulgarity, but I thought the explanation would be worse. So now I get 4 sweet hours, and I CANT FUCKING SLEEP! (I dont think I’ll even remember writing this later, lol)June 13, 2011 at 11:38 pm #13823emmettvm wrote:
Speaking specifically, though, socialism and capitalism BOTH are ONLY economic constructs.
I’ll commit the fallacy of false surrender by saying we can agree to disagree about this… I post on another forum for the discussion of politics and really didn’t want to derail any topics or create unnecessary friction on this forum. I’m used to hearing much the same from both sides of the isle concerning Capitalism and usually defend it to the death, but I’m here to discuss seasteading, not politics, so we’ll leave it at that.emmettvm wrote:
I started hallucinating.
Iraq is like Mexico, don’t drink the water!
Seriously though… Thanks for your service and be safe out there.June 14, 2011 at 2:00 am #13824
This is not a battle,…We are just talking about things. Usually, friction is the neccesary “evil” to keep the wheel moving and generate change. And I don’t think that we can really talk about seasteading in general if we won’t talk about the politics of seasteading, in particular. Just as an observation and judging by their definition, capitalism and socialism ARE economic systems.
And I will leave it at that
Talking about seasteading now, I think it can do better than just capitalism or socialism. This is an excerpt from my micronation pages:
“….is founded on Free Market Distributism economic guidelines.
Free Market Distributism, as defined by us, is a social-economic philosophy alternative to socialism and capitalism. According to free market distributism, ownership of private property, productive property and wealth is highly desirable for all the members of a society, with the means of production ideally being spread as widely as possible among the general populace, rather than being centralized under the control of the state (socialism) or a few large businesses or wealthy private individuals (capitalism).
Free market distributism seeks to subordinate economic activity to human life as a whole, to our spiritual life, our intellectual life, our family life.”June 14, 2011 at 4:10 am #13827OCEANOPOLIS wrote:
No need to surrender, Gen
It’s a false surrender.OCEANOPOLIS wrote:
Just as an observation and judging by their definition, capitalism and socialism ARE economic systems.
It all depends on your source…
Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.
The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control. – Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand.
And of course…
What is Capitalism?
Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights. The term capitalism is used here in the broader philosophical political sense, and not in the narrower economic sense, i.e. a free-market. – http://www.Capitalism.org
You wouldn’t ask a marine biologist to explain string theory… Or a Democrat to explain the Republican party platform… So I think it’s silly to accept the non-capitalist’s, or even anti-capitalist’s, “definition” of Capitalism. If you want to know about Capitalism, what it means, what it stands for, ask a Capitalist.June 14, 2011 at 6:57 am #13832
Of course it all depends on the source,…Mine was Wikipedia Of course that a Capitalist will explain capitalism,…and also shine some spot lights on it, play some music and bring some cheerleaders to the party. Who knows, he might be able to sell something. But Ayn Rand definition it’s a bit hard to swallow. So, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, etc are not capitalistic since they are NOT placing retaliatory use of force under objective control? Hmmm. I’d say they are capitalistic dictatorships and capitalistic islamic monarchy. How about China? Are they capitalistic, socialists or communists? ’cause regardless what they are they seem to be better then us @ it since they are holding the note,…I’d say that if people would be left alone, with minimum government interference, they will do a better capitalism and find better ways to deal with social issues and governance than many.
Paradoxically, the problems that capitalism faces nowadays it’s not too many capitalists, as one might belive, but too few capitalists.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Posted on at