Slavery

[tusavisionSubscriber]

Seasteading is entirely voluntary. It’s an anarchy in international waters. If a bunch of people want to go play “Team Belize: Oceans Police” I could care less. That’s their right under anarchy. Just don’t expect me to pay taxes for it using some bullshit justification like the “free rider problem.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem

I think fishing ground territorialism is a much greater threat to seasteading communities because it involves access to a limited resource. It’s the point where non-intervention libertarianism becomes a problem.

[OceanPhoenixSubscriber]

Even in an anarchy, slavers should be punished. It is not a question of “want” it is rather a question of what you must do to live in peace with yourself. I, personally, could not stand by while people are enslaved right under my nose, against their will and against nature.

“Fortis cadere, cedere non potest”

“A brave man may fall, but he cannot yield”

-Latin Proverb

[Pastor_JasonSubscriber]

“Team Belize: Oceans Police”

Since when did SO:BIZ get pulled into this?! If you read my post above you’ll find that I connected the libertarian ‘non-agression’ and ‘freedom’ ideals to build a theme of non-acceptance for slavery aboard the proto-typical seastead most people here speak about. The few laws that most here view as core in this anarchist exercise would discourage a slave owner from joining such a society as his slaves may go free.

The only time I can imagine turning into the “Ocean’s Police” would be if my daughter were to be taken into slavery. That has nothing to do with seasteading and everything to do with a father’s love. I don’t believe a slave owner could offer me anything anyway, so there would be no reason to associate. Makes the point moot for me.

Live Well!

-Jason

[SailorTrashSubscriber]

We give them machetes and stand back.

http://seagypsies-mikeandkatie.blogspot.com/

Much like Eskimos and snow, boat people have over 30 words for “leak.”

[tusavisionSubscriber]

OceanPhoenix wrote:

Even in an anarchy, slavers should be punished. It is not a question of “want” it is rather a question of what you must do to live in peace with yourself. I, personally, could not stand by while people are enslaved right under my nose, against their will and against nature.

“Fortis cadere, cedere non potest”

“A brave man may fall, but he cannot yield”

-Latin Proverb

And I fully encourage vigilante justice. Just don’t expect me to pay for the guns, ammo, food, or gas money to chase them around the planet. What you do is your own business, and I want nothing to do with it.

That’s the beauty of anarchy. None of us have to agree on anything. The only “law” is that any attempt to excercise influence over others will be met with force. As the world should be.

[OceanPhoenixSubscriber]

tusavision wrote:

That’s the beauty of anarchy. None of us have to agree on anything. The only “law” is that any attempt to excercise influence over others will be met with force. As the world should be.

fair enough.

“Fortis cadere, cedere non potest”

“A brave man may fall, but he cannot yield”

-Latin Proverb

[ElwarSubscriber]

tusavision wrote:

And I fully encourage vigilante justice. Just don’t expect me to pay for the guns, ammo, food, or gas money to chase them around the planet. What you do is your own business, and I want nothing to do with it.

That’s the beauty of anarchy. None of us have to agree on anything. The only “law” is that any attempt to excercise influence over others will be met with force. As the world should be.

This makes the most sense.

If someone were to openly kill the slave owner and free the slaves, they wouldn’t be ostracized from all other seasteaders as opposed to a murderer. They could still go about their business of trade and interaction without people fearing that they would be the next victim of their “killing”.

Someone killing a seasteader because they don’t believe in their religious beliefs or their use of drugs would be considered a loose cannon and would be avoided like the plague.

http://www.TheRonPaulTeaParty.com

[ThorizanSubscriber]

What if someone was under the impression the person was a slave owner, but it turned out that her guests were their by their own free will?

What would the community do under that case?

__________________________________________________
There is no fate but what we make for ourselves. Each to his fate.

[Pastor_JasonSubscriber]

“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”

-Gandalf (J.R.R. Tolkien)

The way I require my children to obey my commands could be construed by some as a form of slavery. No society that openly permits vigilante capital punishment can be considered ‘free’. I’m begining to feel that many of you desire anarchy out of some form of personal rebellion as opposed to the greater good freedom provides.

Here’s my kind of freedom:

• Freedom to find God, no matter what path that leads me down.
• Freedom from vice of any kind. Constantly being surrounded by advertisements for vice since childhood it is a wonder I’m not worse off.
• Freedom to put in a hard day’s work and reap fair compensation that can provide for the needs of my family.
• Freedom to speak my mind and share my thoughts with others who may agree or disagree with me.
• Freedom to stay or leave a place as I choose.
• Freedom to trade my abundance, talents and stores with my neighbors.
• Freedom to defend my freedom or the freedoms of others when they are threatened.
• Freedom to die on God’s timeline, not a moment sooner or later.

Ironically I can recieve all of these things as an indentured servant. Too bad some people consider that slavery and killed my master, taking away my means of survival, and forced me to adopt their lifestyle now that I’m ‘free’.

Food for thought.

Live Well!

-Jason

[ssteveSubscriber]

I may not be reading these posts correctly, and if so I apologise, but the number of people here who seem to support, condone or tolerate slavery makes me hesitant of joining you, and if I do then I will most certainly have good strong doors, an arsensl and sleep with one eye open.

[MelllvarSubscriber]

If you’re referring to the last two posts, I’m fairly certain they are not condoning slavery.

Or maybe they are! But are YOU opposed to the Patriot Act!? *in best W impression* You must be condoning terrorism!!!

I apologize if this didn’t make sense to anyone.

[Pastor_JasonSubscriber]

No one here condones slavery, ESPECIALLY in the form we see it today. The problem is people continue to define things differently as time goes by. There is a push in the US for ‘childrens rights’ that equate traditional parenting as a form of slavery and abuse. My post above was intended to generate thought about the topic and help us all refine our values.

I can tell you this. I will not do business with any seastead that enforces slavery. Nor will I stay if such a stead is accepted into the community of seasteads I’m a part of. It’s a deal breaker.

Live Well!

-Jason

[AlanSubscriber]

It isn’t so much that traditional parenting constitutes slavery and abuse, as that a few parents are abusive and treat their children as slaves.

I’m in favor of allowing older children a great deal more latitude in deciding where they want to live. If their parents have treated them well, they probably won’t want to leave. In fact, if their parents haven’t treated them well, most children won’t leave – but I’d rather have the kids make such a decision for themselves (in almost all cases) than leave it to government employees who have their own agenda and don’t care much what anyone – parents or children – think.

[OceanPhoenixSubscriber]

In some cases, a child may be unable to make a responsible decision, which is when somebody should step in. But I entirely agree that government social workers should not be able to simply say that a child is being neglected or his/her parents are unable to take care of them, as this is often not the case. Even if it is, should a child not have the right to say that they would prefer to stay where they are?

“Fortis cadere, cedere non potest”

“A brave man may fall, but he cannot yield”

-Latin Proverb

[MelllvarSubscriber]

IMO, a lot of parenting is just indoctrination and slavery. Making your kid do chores to develop a good work ethic is one thing, nothing against that, but as it is until you’re 18 you essentially have no rights beyond what the adults in your life (who may or may not be sane or reasonable people at all) decide to allow you. Curfews, truancy laws, banned books/movies/games, custodial guardians can lock them in rooms (would normally be an assault charge), have them arrested for leaving without permission (as a “run-away”), force any and all sorts of medications on them, can seize their property… well, I could go on all day like this (don’t even get me started on DCS). You’d call it slavery if they tried it on you.

Somehow this treatment of minors has become socially acceptable. If they tried to pull this stuff on a group that wasn’t as politically and financially disadvantaged there would be rioting in the streets. They’d probably treat old people the exact same (not that they don’t get shafted too) if it wasn’t for the AARP. The difference is old people can vote, and have lots of money and connections to force fairer treatment. Children don’t.

/youth rights tirade

Also, apologies for the obnoxiousness of my last post. I just meant that criticizing the way a law is or would be enforced is not the same as supporting criminals who break the law.

[Author]

Posts