A universal Flag only needs a movement?
October 29, 2009 at 3:01 am #1100
My premise is to have a federation of independent yet like minded micronations, which are in my vision are floating (sailing / etc) barges and artificial islands. Meaning each person, family or small group are generally sovereign in their ‘vessel’. But my ideal for the Flag issue is for there to be a movement of such, meaning in loose terms messing with one would cause a rally cry of the others. In my view as the worlds governments are clamping down they’re going to push the smart and capable people into actual freedom in the seas, much like the worlds brilliant people fled to the “New World” in the old days.
Yet the flag issue is of key concern to wouldbe ‘nomad’ ‘vessels’. Meanwhile why be a bunch of loner hermits floating semi-aimlessly out there. Why not be a federation / confederation all loosely tied to the same movement, which it seems might have a better chance at actual recognition of the general populous. Without attention from the everyday people of the world any true lonely micronation would stand better chances of being crushed and swept under the sea. While still giving those involved the freedom to travel, yet chances at community as we explore each year.
So I’d love to hear some of everyones insights into my little concept here, please!November 9, 2009 at 6:47 am #8562
Have one micronation of seasteads, floating all over the world’s oceans, all bounded by the same law, under one flag. I wrote a post, WAVELAND MICRONATION. about that. I dont view the flag as an issue,…since is a part of the following sequence of events:
- Form a micronation.
- Populate it.
- Elect some sort of goverment.
- Raise capital.
- Build a seastead. (territory)
- Design a flag.
- Declare soveregnity and statehood according to the Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention.
November 9, 2009 at 1:28 pm #8514
- Article 1
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:
- (a) a permanent population;
- (b) a defined territory;
- (c) government; and
- (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
Raise flag and sail away.
P.S. “Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity! I say let your affairs be as one, two, three and to a hundred or a thousand… We are happy in proportion to the things we can do without.” Henry David Thoreau
My open-ended strategy is in sync with the your premise. Existing vessels absorbed into a pure-market protectorate, can create a needed momentum and solidarity without looking too much like a state:
Las Portadas (a work in progress) will provide an incubation mechanism for such micronations. It currently consists of three “branches”: underwriters, libertarian “lawyers,” and promoters. It will sponsor individual vessels/platforms by offering financial and legal support without claiming legal exclusivity. Participating vessels can become members of Aquia either directly or indirectly, and can continue receiving protection from Las Portadas, or choose other market arbitration and security mechanisms as they become available. Vessels/platforms exceeding a certain population (currently 100) will be required to utilize the MasterLease unless amended. You are invited to comment on any of the wikis’ discussion pages.
Market failure is a statist myth.November 10, 2009 at 9:26 pm #8607
“Have one micronation of seasteads, floating all over the world’s oceans, all bounded by the same law, under one flag.”
Then where is the room for dynamic government? How about “no” to “one micronation” and “yes” to “many micronations, under many flags”.November 10, 2009 at 11:08 pm #8610
I’d like to see one micronation. It only covers basic laws, like murder and rape, and also houses the supreme court. Any other laws you like can be enforced on your Stead. Joining it would, of course, be optional for any Seastead, but it would have advantages. For example, if you move to a Federation Stead, you can be pretty certain you won’t be enslaved by those already aboard.
- NickNovember 11, 2009 at 4:57 am #8612
a “dynamic” government? Law and government is not the same thing…. What I meant by “law” was mostly maritime law and few other regulations,…more like guidelines.:-) In general, I am a fan of a minimal (or none) government and very few “laws”. Freedom defined is fredom denied.November 11, 2009 at 12:23 pm #8614
as is implied here, I think, means subject to change through democratic process whenever ‘the people’ want it. That’s why the Republic is a republic. Change for the sake of change is not a good thing unless you can profit from the confusion… Freedom defined is freedom denied? I’m not sure I agree with that…
VI.1.15 The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny other rights retained by the Citizen Captains, Subject Citizens and Subjects to be determined by Law.December 17, 2009 at 9:44 pm #8916
A loose federation of micro-nations would be the logical and critical second step towards sovereignty, the first being the actual stablishment of independant colonies afloat.May 27, 2010 at 2:23 am #10279
I have been giving some thought to this, off-and-on, for about a year now.
I have a flag in mind. It would be made up of three horizontal bands: blue, green, blue. The first band of blue represents the open sky. The lower band of blue represents the oceans and seas of the world. And, the band of green represents the life we are bringing to the ocean.
As far as the founding government is concerned, I favour a constitutional confederation to begin with. The constitution would have a preamble similar to the US Constitution – life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (It seems like these are still a good idea, and why complicate things by making changes?)
Article 1 will deal with the rights of the individual, much like the Bill of Rights, but more to the point. It would also reject the authority of the United Nations, or any sovereignty of a global government over the onfederacy.
Article 2 will create a part-time legislative body with representatives subject to term limits. Any authority to tax would be subject to public referendum (if practical).
Article 3 will create the executive, allowing for the president and vice president to be drawn by lots. It would also authorize every vessel to serve as a naval militia vessel, thus authorizing them to carry arms and to defend themselves from hostile acts.
Article 4 would establsih what ever judcial procedures and structures we might wish.
Of course, Article 5 will provide for amendments.
But on thing I see as absolutely vital. This micronation must have a fixed territory as its center. With the UN’s Law of the Sea Treaty, we will have enough trouble being accepted as a legimate sovereign nation without having a center of government that people can readily find, because it is floating about somewhere in the world.June 19, 2010 at 1:04 pm #10488
So ,basically, what we have here is the idea to not have one “solid” nation, but rather a nomadic people who go off and do their own thing? And with the laws of the UN, you must have territory to be a recognised nation, right? So all we have to do ,theoretically, to be recognised is have one permanent rig on a seamount or a bank somewhere, with a government. I think the UN would be mad to start saying “You need a permanent resident populace to be recognised”, because this would be rejecting every nomadic tribe, which there would be a hell of a lot of protests about. Even if we did, surely this would mean only one person has to be resident on the rig all the time, and I’m sure there are many prospective seasteaders who would prefer a constant home. I think this is what is meant by the “permanent population” part anyway.
I personally do not want another, miniature America. I want a democracy, not a republic that pretends to be one. I would prefer a system with a representative government like that of The United Kingom of Great Britain, just without the monarchy.June 19, 2010 at 1:53 pm #10489
Yes to your basic assumption. Unfortunately every sea mount, every bank, every reef or otherwise shallow spot in the ocean is either claimed or disputed already so ‘claiming’ any of them is loser out the starting gate. As for governments, I think you’re selling republic too short. Rome was a Republic that lasted in one form or another for nearly a thousand years. The only other form of government that beats it on the time line is the various Chinese Empires. Democracy on the other hand is a necessarily degenerate form of government that inevitable reduces itself to the lowest common denominator and has NEVER worked. NEVER. When you say ‘america’ I assume you mean the United States and I agree with you. The US, when it was the Representative Democracy within a Republic as our founding fathers meant it to be, worked well enough. Then the 17th Amendment to our Constitution was passed and the US became a ‘Democracy’. It has been degenerating ever since but the residue of Republic kept this country going up till now.June 19, 2010 at 5:03 pm #10491
Some republics work ok, I’ll give you that. I just don’t think a system like America has at the moment will work. In fact, I know it won’t work, look at America’s government now. I have nothing against America, just the government.
Democracy may have flaws, as with any other type of government, but I think with such a small community as a seastead, or a nomadic nation as we are discussing here, democracy may work very well. I would just like to point out that the Republic of Rome lasted less than five hundred years before it collapsed and gave way to an empire. Whatever we want, it isn’t an autocracy. On the other hand, there have been many long-lasting democracies: several greek city-states, the UK, etc.
Rome as a republic lasted ca. 482 years from its very beggining (the overthrow of the monarchy ca. 509 BC)
Britain as a democracy has lasted 795 years to date from its very beggining (the signing of the Magna Carta ca. 1215 AD)
June 19, 2010 at 6:27 pm #10493
“Republic” or “Non-Republic”, this seems to be the question,…
How about, none of the above. Why stick w/ an “old” system while we are trying to build a new “thing”?? Do we really (for example) need to call it The Seastead “Republic”? Why does it have to be a “republic”??
In reality, a “republic” is nothing else but a Dictatorship of a Majority. In todays world, is just another obsolete word,…there are no “republics’, just special interests, who are putting puppet goverment in power to create the illusion of “democraty” in the eye of brainwashed “electorate”.
All we need is a DISTRIBUTIVE UNANIMOCRACY.
1. The seastead and the businesses aboard the seastead are owned by individual investors bounded by a Partnership Agreement.
2. All the decisions aboard the seastead are made by the Partner’s unanimous vote only. (A supermajority vote of the Partners is needed for any decision to be approved).
3. All the Partners are drawing equal share of the total net profits, calculated in percentage of the money and labor invested by each Partner.June 19, 2010 at 7:29 pm #10494
This would cause a lot of corruption. Some sort of public vote is needed. This is also pretty much a communist system. While communist states generally start out with good intentions, they always inevitably end up with the same thing: “All are equal, but some are more equal than others”. What you are proposing to do is take away peoples hard earned cash and give it to others, while those that do not earn as much get free money.
The question is not republic or non-republic, non-republic is just discounting every other government, many of which are better.
“You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else.”
Winston Churchill – British Prime Minister 1940-1945 1951-1955June 19, 2010 at 11:40 pm #10499
When we first set sail to international waters and anchor somewhere for a long time sooner or later some military ship will come and try to board us rightfully when they board us they might even try to seize the ship according to set of laws which apply on high seas, at that moment we only have but two possible salvations positive PR and Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UDHR). Article 2 declares that even if we aren’t a sovereign entity we may still benefit from every single right that UDHR gives us even if we aren’t in any zone with national jusrisdiction. According to article 9 we can’t be arrested even on high seas without reason, still they can board us cos laws on high seas will make us suspects since we dont have a flag or should i say a recognized flag, anyways since they can’t seize us as each of us being an innocent person(article 10-11) they can not forcefully make us board their military vessel (legally at least) instead they can search our ship to see if we can be found guilty of any crime so that they can arrest us. When they see we pose no threat to their wellbeing or to any other entity swimming on the high seas they will have to leave or illegally apprehend us. And if they don’t apprehend us in the first time the second time they come it will all be even more easier since there will actually be many laws favoring us and stopping them to declare us as ‘suspicious entity’ ‘boogie-1′ whatever. However to use UDHR as a shield we must be constantly in touch with UN, morever we must be respectful to UDHR. Which means we must let people to choose their representative in order to show that our society lives according to UN’s ideals. Since taking an existing nations recognition will be almost impossible we can at least aim for getting some autonmy by using UDHR. A democaracy without the concept of capitalism suitable for seasteading can be designed for this very purpose, why not capitalism? Since it in itself is against UDHR, take inheritance for example it is against UDHR, while any person has the right to hold ownership of any property he/she also has the right to be equal to any other person upon birth, it might be a huge sum of cash left from your deceased grandpa or your fathers debt, either way it increases or decreases your material freedom which destroys the essence of human rights, equality. As for corruption in democracy, governments aren’t corrupt cos of democracy they are corrupt simply cos of capitalism. Lets not forget that if we don’t give a say to people we’ll have to mess with U.N. too as if other sovereign political entities weren’t enough.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Posted on at