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




Rights of SeaSteads, Dependence on SeaSteads

Home Forums Research Law and Politics Rights of SeaSteads, Dependence on SeaSteads

This topic contains 17 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of Tholan Tholan 5 years, 4 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #989
    Profile photo of JLMadrigal
    JLMadrigal
    Participant

    Tholan brought up two important questions that need to be discussed:

    1) How to legally insure that the right to exist of seasteads (either under a flag of conveyence or sovereign) is maintained.

    2) How to ensure that a seastead will be able to provide a service that Land dwellers can not live without?

    How do we legally insure that the right to exist of seasteads (either under a flag of conveyence or sovereign) is maintained?

    In order for fledgeling seasteads to avoid being snuffed out by big brother, they will find it in their best interest to not appear to be anything resembling states. Of course, as anarcho-capitalist societies, they should never resemble states anyway.

    How do we ensure that a seastead will be able to provide a service that Land dwellers can not live without?

    If a seasteading service can be discovered that is so valuable that nonseasteaders will come to depend on it, the tables will indeed have been turned. Maybe the private defense agency industry is just the ticket.

    #6820
    Profile photo of thief
    thief
    Participant

    I think you’ve answered Q1 perfectly well.

    As for Q2, I don’t believe we need to provide something vital. The surplus of our own industries should be enough to buy any nesseceties that we can’t produce.

    As for private defence, do we want to be seen as primarily a military force? And morally, do we want to give control of the seas to the highest bidder?

    - Nick

    #6822
    Profile photo of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    1) How to legally insure that the right to exist of seasteads (either under a flag of conveyence or sovereign) is maintained.

    We have to define what “legally” means, in the context of seasteading. The way I look @ it, since a seastead will “exist” in international waters, “legally” will pertain to international law and maritime law. Since the high seas are under no goverment of any nation jurisdiction, a seastead “right” to exist as a physical entity in the international waters is guarateed. The flags of convenience have very little to do with sovereignty. A ship is said to be flying a flag of convenience if it is registered in a foreign country “for purposes of reducing operating costs or avoiding government regulations”. It is basically a business tool,…

    I would disagree w/” they will find it in their best interest to not appear to be anything resembling states.” I think that in order to maintain sovereignty seasteads should become states. The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States has been accepted as part of customary international law. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Montevideo_Convention Under Article 1 and 3 alone, seasteads have a lot going for them. Combined w/maritime law on their side, I think statehood looks very good for seasteads and may be the best way to adress the above question. So my view is pretty simple(:-): build it, and build it big (I mean bigger than “Knock Nevis” who’s holding the record @ half a million tons DWT and 1504 feet long), populate it, decide on some form of goverment ( a minuscule one to please the libertarians), design a flag, set sail, raise the flag, declare statehood.

    2) How to ensure that a seastead will be able to provide a service that Land dwellers can not live without?

    This is a good one….I can imagine people thinking,..”If I’d knew the answer I’d keep it to myself and make millions.” My oppinion goes along the line of building it big. People go to Vegas to gamble and get married. To NY for the Statue of Liberty. To China for the Great Wall. To Egypt tor The Pyramids. Make it into a must see, top of the Bucket List. A vacation destination of a lifetime. An island resort, waterpark, eco-nation. @ 1505 feet long it can be the world largest floating structure and easily acomodate 5000 guest and 3000+ crew at any time. We can modestly estimate an average $200.00 net profit a day/person. If the occupancy can be kept @ 5000 level yearlong, a $1 Mil/day net ain’t to bad even for a bunch of ancharco-capitalistic hogs like us.

    Or, talk to Hawkins and grow mushrooms, either one,..

    #6823
    Profile photo of JLMadrigal
    JLMadrigal
    Participant

    Regarding private defense agencies as an indispensible service that SeaSteads can provide, Thief made the following statement:

    As for private defence, do we want to be seen as primarily a military force? And morally, do we want to give control of the seas to the highest bidder?

    A rudimentary understanding of the dynamics of free-market economics should quell any concern that a competing private defense industry would resemble a military force. And this is the entire point. Private security companies are today serious competitors to public police forces. Alternative dispute resolution agencies are serious competetors to monopolistic state-based legal systems. Competing insurance companies challange the state’s role in public welfare. All of these industries bring down the cost and increase the quality of service. If any of these services were provided without state interference, a new standard would be set.

    #6824
    Profile photo of thief
    thief
    Participant

    I may be too much of a layman to understand your point, but you didn’t seem to adress either of my concerns…

    - Nick

    #6825
    Profile photo of Eelco
    Eelco
    Participant

    JLMadrigal wrote:

    How do we legally insure that the right to exist of seasteads (either under a flag of conveyence or sovereign) is maintained?

    Dunno. You can try praying. If, say, the US decides seasteading is never going to happen, then its never going to happen. Apathy is our friend. If that doesnt work, you can always try it north-korea style

    How do we ensure that a seastead will be able to provide a service that Land dwellers can not live without?

    I dont think well need to. Some trade barriers are to be expected, but i do not expect a worldwide embargo. Ill find someone willing to sell me food, and ill find someone willing to buy my services. Any bureocrat who thinks he can outsmart me, is welcome to bring it on.

    #6826
    Profile photo of Tholan
    Tholan
    Participant

    Ok. y="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 2">

    #6827
    Profile photo of Tholan
    Tholan
    Participant

    Eelco wrote:

    I dont think well need to. Some trade barriers are to be expected, but i do not expect a worldwide embargo. Ill find someone willing to sell me food, and ill find someone willing to buy my services. Any bureocrat who thinks he can outsmart me, is welcome to bring it on.

    I am pointing out that everyone here should be aware that the US (and others) can and wil make dealing with their countries and in their currency impossible. And thanks to recent events, international banking and money issues will be an impedement to commerce. As pointed out in other threads, money is a tool. A tool that seasteads will be denied. It is inot a question of if, but when. Bartering will rule the market in seasteads unless a secure digital currency can be established. Bartering for gold is still bartering all you gold brickers out there (much love to the Austrians out there). I suppose there could be a digital currency, but it would need to be secure. We might have the greatest computer scientists on the planet on the seasteads, but the governments of the world will do all they can to hack the system. If they do not hack it they wil result to overt operations to destroy it.

    You are right about apathy. It is both why seasteaders wish to leave and what will allow them to do so.

    #6828
    Profile photo of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    Why would you think that:

    1) US would be against seasteads? I would see US welcoming seasteads in order to ally w/them an put more military bases here and there. Care to comment?

    2)How can US stop anybody from building a seastead? I do live in US and if I want (and I will) built a seastead, nobody can stop me. People build their boats here all the time and sail away. and nobody stopped them.

    #6829
    Profile photo of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    This is off the subject. I have noticed that you live in Riviera Beach. I am in Lake Worth. If you want to meet and chat about seasteading, or forming a cell here on the East Coast, let me know by writing a private message.

    #6838
    Profile photo of Tholan
    Tholan
    Participant

    OCEANOPOLIS wrote:

    Why would you think that:

    1) US would be against seasteads? I would see US welcoming seasteads in order to ally w/them an put more military bases here and there. Care to comment?

    2)How can US stop anybody from building a seastead? I do live in US and if I want (and I will) built a seastead, nobody can stop me. People build their boats here all the time and sail away. and nobody stopped them.

    The US could deny license to any seastead, and then seize an unlicensed vessel. That’s at least how I understand the US government would operate against things they don’t understand or things they are afraid of.

    Take any activity the US government uses against a drug smuggler or unlicensed fishing vessal and understand that a corrupt judge will allow these activities to be used against a seastead.

    Take any activity the US government uses against communes and religious groups and understand that a corrupt judge will allow these activities to be used against a seastead.

    That is why establishing the legal frame work under which the seasteads can freely be built and put to sea is of paramount importance. No matter what nation they are being constructed in.

    I have every hope that the government will be apathetic. I just don’t think it will happen. This is a government that taxes people who renounce their citizenship as though they had died. A government that does not care for individuals or for individual possessions.

    The US will not establish a military presence on seasteads. Thats what Marine Tasks Forces are for. The navy would just float on boats where-ever they need to be.

    #6843
    Profile photo of GoldfishAuthor
    GoldfishAuthor
    Participant

    Tholan wrote:

    OCEANOPOLIS wrote:

    Why would you think that:

    1) US would be against seasteads? I would see US welcoming seasteads in order to ally w/them an put more military bases here and there. Care to comment?

    2)How can US stop anybody from building a seastead? I do live in US and if I want (and I will) built a seastead, nobody can stop me. People build their boats here all the time and sail away. and nobody stopped them.

    The US could deny license to any seastead, and then seize an unlicensed vessel. That’s at least how I understand the US government would operate against things they don’t understand or things they are afraid of.

    Take any activity the US government uses against a drug smuggler or unlicensed fishing vessal and understand that a corrupt judge will allow these activities to be used against a seastead.

    Take any activity the US government uses against communes and religious groups and understand that a corrupt judge will allow these activities to be used against a seastead.

    That is why establishing the legal frame work under which the seasteads can freely be built and put to sea is of paramount importance. No matter what nation they are being constructed in.

    I have every hope that the government will be apathetic. I just don’t think it will happen. This is a government that taxes people who renounce their citizenship as though they had died. A government that does not care for individuals or for individual possessions.

    The US will not establish a military presence on seasteads. Thats what Marine Tasks Forces are for. The navy would just float on boats where-ever they need to be.

    [/quote]

    As pained as I am to agree with this view, Tholan is right. I hate that the world is in such a state that free thinking is sometimes dangerous, even in America. I do see this view as a tad pessimistic and misanthropic, but the fact of the matter is we will have to be 150% self sustainable both in resources and finances in the early days. The disadvantage is where the first colonists into the New World were graced with fertile land and, with a minimum of trouble, knowledgable locals who helped them survive, the seasteads will have to manifest fertile land from the ocean and hope to survive. One hope to save this is something I read an article on some time ago (and since have completely forgotten where I found it) about something called “vertical farming”. Literally farms that tower upwards instead of sprawling over acres and acres of land. As far as renewable food sources go that would make for a space conserving method to keep the ‘steads in business.

    Though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.

    -Sun Tzu, the Art of War

    #6851
    Profile photo of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    I do feel your pain, brothers,…And I am not a fan of ant goverment myself. Also I do belive that building a seastead shud be done anywhere else BUT US,…Much, Much cheaper,…Sun Tzu open his book with “The first reality of war is deception”. There are ways around anything.

    I never advocated registering a seastead in US. (I haven’t lost my mind,..yet:-). But a seastead can be built here. Nobody can stop me from building five 12′ floats in my garage, load them on a truck, load them on my boat, and take them out to sea pass the 12 miles teritorial waters and asemble them there. If anybody or anything will try to stop me from doing so,….then they deserve to be looking very closely @ the barell of a shotgun.

    #6854
    Profile photo of JLMadrigal
    JLMadrigal
    Participant

    It’s important to understand that institutionalized aggression (statehood) must be avoided at all costs. Review the US constitution – even in its current form – and you will see an ingenious “social contract” that bears little resemblence in practice to the current federation.

    Due to successful indoctrination by state schools and the old media, it’s difficult for most people to accept a society in which the state is nonexistent. It’s hard to let go. But every seastead or nation of seasteads that does so will have a tremendous edge over traditionally state-controlled industries.

    In reality, not only is the state the “highest bidder”, but it is a subsidized (and thus monopolized) industry (high price, low quality). And a monopolized defense tends toward offense. It’s easy to confuse a statist “defense” with a competing private security industry, but the difference is night and day. Private insurance, private security, and private arbitration will one day replace the state. Seasteading will speed their development.

    However, it would be naive to think that existing states won’t do everything in their power to snuff out competition. They will not go down without a fight. For them, this means criminalization and punishment. For the marketplace, a “fight” means providing a superior product or service (or ambiance) than your competitors. Stateless societies are morally superior.

    It’s a different mindset.

    #6858
    Profile photo of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    The original question was how to LEGALLY maintain the existence of a seastead…. It seems that we dont care about international law, since statehood its a no,no. Ok,.. can we bypass that since we are in the middle of the ocean??….If we are not a state,…what are we? And being whatever we are, how can that be legal in the eye of the international comunity? (which are,… states,…) Since international law and maritime law are in many aspects symbiotic, whithout a statehood, therefore whithout a flag, and therefore whithout a maritime registry we will be forced to fly a flag of convenience, therefore bye,bye soveregnity….That’s NOT good,… Its acually BAD. Because we will be “whatever we are” under Liberian(or Panama or Bahama) flag, bound by Liberian(or,……..) laws. I am not just fantasising here. Its a fact. You have to fly a flag. Period. I’d rather fly my own flag,…

    Statehood does not mean that we will follow the same idiotic “social contract” that is now the widespread norm. Nor does a seastead goverment will resamble any of the existing (so called) goverments. Indoctrinated or not a seastead will have to deal w/the rest of the world and vice versa. In the quest for self-determination we should be very diplomatic,…even to the point of Machiavellianism.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate