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




Viva la revolution!

Home Forums Community Dreaming / Crazy Ideas / Speculation Viva la revolution!

This topic contains 158 replies, has 22 voices, and was last updated by Avatar of Altaica Altaica 3 years, 9 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 159 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #9251
    Avatar of JeffM
    JeffM
    Participant

    This could be solved by sending representatives to countries and places like the UN to consistently represent us. By the time seasteading takes off, I’m willing to bet we would have considerable international attention, and they would be willing to hear us out on what exactly it is we want to accomplish.

    So long as we’re clear on what we’re about and give the proper legal assurances (e.g we won’t be harbouring terrorists, or acting as hosts to other criminals and illegal activity), I think they might be willing to give us an extra-national designation of some kind (which would come complete with a flag to let navies know not to bother us).

    Seasteads would have to keep strict control of the flag so that smugglers and other undesirables wouldn’t try to abuse it.

    #9252
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    Melllvar wrote:
    I doubt you’d find any private defense forces willing to stand up to US warships right now, but if there was a large enough market for such services they might. That’s all that gives any nation or corporation any legitimacy within “international law” as it is… they’ve either got the power to make others respect their rights, or they’re allied with someone who does.

    I concur with Gentry…I can’t see the private defense force of a seastead ever being more powerful than a destroyer. Or two. Or five. Existing nations have a few hundred years head start on us in the war-making race. The point is to avoid an arms race and live free under the flag of a recognized nation…that flag is just as powerful as their destroyers and could cost us a lot less.

    Melllvar wrote:
    I doubt it will be any easier to declare nationhood using land.

    And I say that you will never get nationhood without it. Trust me, I used to think that way too. But we have to be realistic.

    Melllvar wrote:
    Not to mention you’re completely abandoning the non-aggression principle to start a country that would most likely be founded largely on that principle.

    You’re only speaking for the libertarians. I’m not a libertarian, so I’m not too worried about violating a NAP and I don’t have plans to use a NAP as a basis for any society.

    Melllvar wrote:
    Plus, hiring military groups to force out natives would realistically mean killing some of the natives… aside from bad publicity, you’re going to quickly limit the number of people willing to be part of such a project to the most corrupt available.

    And as I said in my post, if you invade a country that is being bad (say, Sudan) then the situation changes. The other countries in the area might thank you for getting rid of a troublemaker.

    So to sum up:

    Melllvar wrote:
    1) Too hard – probably not worth the extra effort compared to lobbying for nationhood without land
    2) Violent take overs defeat purpose of seasteading
    3) Will most likely not lead to a true competition in government

    1) I doubt you will ever get nationhood without land, no matter how hard you lobby

    2) It might defeat the purpose of your idea of seasteading, but others might be fine with it (anarchists, etc)

    3) It depends on how the incubator nation is designed. You don’t see TSI shifting and suddenly only supporting certain kinds of seasteads, right?

    Melllvar wrote:
    what do they really get out of international recognition that they don’t out of just being a floating autonomous community?

    The freedom to do what they want, when they want, and how they want. The freedom to not get boarded at will. You need to fly a flag at sea…period. If you are happy flying under a Tuvalu or Bahama flag then go right ahead. I want to build my society the way I want it…

    #9253
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    JeffM wrote:
    I think they might be willing to give us an extra-national designation of some kind (which would come complete with a flag to let navies know not to bother us).

    The diplomatic route is an option I guess. Maybe that’s a project that TSI could get involved in. I’m still doubtful though…the existing nations have a good thing and they know it…opening up the oceans to floating extra-national cities isn’t in their best interest. But it definately worth looking into.

    Not as fun as invading Tuvalu, though! ;)

    #9260
    Avatar of wohl1917
    wohl1917
    Participant

    we’re back to our fundamental disagreement over what Seasteading is and/or should be. You’re a proponent of the massive multi-million dollar, money making venture requiring ‘investors’ who will naturally want to ‘control’ their investment while I propose the small rugged individualist vision of seasteading to secure freedom, liberty and justice for all. You’re right: what you’re proposing would invite a warship/law enforcement of some country to come out and board you. If not to ‘protect’ the rights of the investors, then to prevent anything that might resemble ‘freedom, liberty [or] justice for [anyone but the investors]“.

    Probably not the US though: they would let a smaller nation-state do it for socio-political reasons. The US has enough bad press…

    < http://ocr.wikia.com/wiki/Oceanic_Citizens_Republic_Wiki>

    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    wohl1917 wrote:
    small rugged individualist vision of seasteading to secure freedom, liberty and justice for all.

    But the point is how can you expect to have a “small rugged individualist vision of seasteading to secure freedom, liberty and justice for all” when any other ship on the sea can board and inspect you…by force if necessary…whenever they want to and for any reason?

    It’s not a matter of seasteading definitions, it’s a matter of freedom. Most people who want to seastead have a hope for more freedom. They want to do things on their seastead that they can’t do in existing countries. So how free are you if, the first time you are boarded by a ship on the high seas, you are detained and brought back with them for investigation?

    Sure, you can fly the flag from some country where the stuff you want to do is illegal and just do it anyway. You probably won’t get caught, ever. But are you really free, or are you just sneaking around behind their backs and lying to yourself that you are free?

    #9262
    Avatar of JeffM
    JeffM
    Participant

    The investors will have to be bought out at some point… the sooner we’re rid of them, the better. You can’t have an independant nation with essential financial ties to mainland investors. On a related note, there are probably many wealtheir individuals who be interested in this kind of life out on the sea. We don’t only need landlocked investors ;P

    However, on the other hand a rugged, individualist freedom oriented venture doesn’t seem very practical.

    #9265
    Avatar of wohl1917
    wohl1917
    Participant

    the answer is ‘they’ and ‘them’ can, will and do that already. Doesn’t matter what flag you fly. To the third question the answer is: Power eminates from the barrel of a gun. Unless and until you can look into the barrel of that gun and not flench, look into the eyes of your antagonist and accept the consequences of defiance, you are a slave to that power. Unless and until you can do that, you are just sneaking around behind they’re backs and lying to yourself that you are free. Now, the question is, “How do we get there?” How do we get to be free? As I see it, there are two roads: a high road and a low road. The high road requires money. Evil Super Villian James Bond kind of money. Bill Gates kind of money. (Money[Power]=Freedom) The low road requires a boat and guts… Practicality has little to do with it because Freedom is not practical. Practical is to live in the guilded cage, work hard as a wage slave, pay taxes to support those who don’t and dream impossible dreams…

    < http://ocr.wikia.com/wiki/Oceanic_Citizens_Republic_Wiki>

    Avatar of Melllvar
    Melllvar
    Participant

    i_is_j_smith wrote:

    I concur with Gentry…I can’t see the private defense force of a seastead ever being more powerful than a destroyer. Or two. Or five. Existing nations have a few hundred years head start on us in the war-making race. The point is to avoid an arms race and live free under the flag of a recognized nation…that flag is just as powerful as their destroyers and could cost us a lot less.

    Well, yeah, realistically you’re probably right about that.

    i_is_j_smith wrote:

    You’re only speaking for the libertarians. I’m not a libertarian, so I’m not too worried about violating a NAP and I don’t have plans to use a NAP as a basis for any society.

    And as I said in my post, if you invade a country that is being bad (say, Sudan) then the situation changes. The other countries in the area might thank you for getting rid of a troublemaker.

    2) It might defeat the purpose of your idea of seasteading, but others might be fine with it (anarchists, etc)

    Sorry, I didn’t mean to make a libertarian argument (I’m not even a libertarian), its just that the system you describe sounds pretty close a libertarian one (with smaller groups doing as they will under the sanction of a larger group), which is why I brought that up. Regardless, I think a violent takeover of a country (or part of it) by force would be, to say the least, highly unethical. Getting your own land nation by other means just seems impractical, I’m not actually opposed to that, but a forceful takeover seems way too far to me. If others are willing to go that far, guess I can’t stop them, but I would consider seasteading (in the political sense) to be a failed project at that point.

    i_is_j_smith wrote:

    3) It depends on how the incubator nation is designed. You don’t see TSI shifting and suddenly only supporting certain kinds of seasteads, right?

    No, but I don’t see TSI becoming its own country either way. If nations are going to start being declared, it seems much more likely that other groups will start up to do it, with or without TSI’s involvement. I’m pretty sure they’ve even said they don’t plan to build seasteads or nations beyond a first platform to get things going (correct me if I’m wrong anyone). I imagine other groups that do start up to do that stuff when the time comes will have their own agendas and interests, they won’t necessarily be non-profits that aim to fairly promote seasteading for all interests.

    Of course, its not like everyone on the oceans has to do the same thing, so having one more option for a flag of convenience to fly certainly wouldn’t be worse than it is now. If you don’t like whatever group is giving them out you can always settle for one of the other options.

    i_is_j_smith wrote:

    The freedom to do what they want, when they want, and how they want. The freedom to not get boarded at will. You need to fly a flag at sea…period. If you are happy flying under a Tuvalu or Bahama flag then go right ahead. I want to build my society the way I want it…

    Well, ok. I still think most could be satisfied with reasonable autonomy by making some kind of deal with a current state. One of those ultra-poor states might be willing to give you extreme autonomy while flying their flag in return for some kind of aid from a productive seasteading group… although I suppose this amounts to taxes, so its not true autonomy, but in the short term I’m guessing would be a simpler way to get what you want. But if you think overwise, go for it. Can’t say I wouldn’t want to fly your flag if it worked. :)

    #9268
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    wohl1917 wrote:
    the answer is ‘they’ and ‘them’ can, will and do that already. Doesn’t matter what flag you fly.

    I disagree. Just look at the incident with the Kang Nam 1 over the summer. Here is North Korean vessel suspected of carrying illegal cargo. Did the U.S. or anyone else do anything about it? Sure, they “watched” it for a while and I’m sure there was a lot of behind-the-scenes talk going on which is probably the reason it eventually turned back. My guess is the U.S. paid North Korea a lump of cash to turn the ship around so they wouldn’t have to look like pansies in front of the whole world. But they never asked permission to board because they were afraid of the problems that would cause.

    Would the same situation have played out if the Kang Nam was flying the Tuvalu flag…probably not. But nations are very nervous about stepping on the sovereign rights of other nations, because they know that what goes around, comes around. If U.S. warships start boarding Bahamian-flagged ships willy-nilly it won’t be long before the same thing starts happening to U.S.-flagged ships.

    It’s the main reason why the U.S. has refused to stand by Taiwan or Tibetan independance. They wouldn’t like it if Texas suddenly declared its independance, so they don’t want to set a precedent of supporting breakaway areas.

    So I think flying the flag of an existing nation is a very powerful deterrent. If you are flying the flag of a nation that has no laws and let’s you run your seastead however you see fit…a nation founded and configured solely to give seasteads a flag to fly under…well that’s as close to freedom as I think we’ll get.

    #9269
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    Melllvar wrote:
    No, but I don’t see TSI becoming its own country either way.

    I could see this “incubator nation” being setup just like TSI is…as a facilitator to the seasteading movement. From the FAQ it states that “TSI’s role is to create the conditions that will make seasteading happen”. So this incubator nation wouldn’t endorse one style of seasteading over another. It wouldn’t have any input as to what kind of government you have…or lack thereof. It would be setup with the sole purpose of offering a flag for seasteads to fly under. And I can’t think of a more important factor that would allow seasteading to happen.

    Now of course there would probably have to be a base set of laws and rules. No slavery. No terrorism. No piracy. But TSI already says that it wants “to support other seasteading communities however we can, as long as they operate with the consensual participation of their members and are not having an overtly negative impact on the seasteading movement as a whole.” So as long as your seastead is not having a negative impact on the seasteading movement you can fly this nation’s flag and be free to live as you want without fear of interference from existing nations. How much more free can you be?

    #9281
    Avatar of wohl1917
    wohl1917
    Participant

    for making my point. The US looked into the barrel of the North Korean gun and blinked. The North Koreans were either payed off and/or blinked too and turned back. I hear there is an oil rig for sale in Africa for 5 million…

    < http://ocr.wikia.com/wiki/Oceanic_Citizens_Republic_Wiki>

    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    Well I don’t think the US blinked at the North Korean’s guns. More likely they blinked at the “gun” of public opinion…and I’m sure China put in a few words.

    The simple point is that boarding another nation’s vessel on the high seas is a risky action. What if they repel you, are you gonna start gunning down sailors who are citizens of another nation? That’s called an “act of war” and nobody wants that. Even the U.S. can’t handle three wars at the same time…it can barely handle the two it’s dealing with now.

    These situations need to be handled very delicately. I don’t care if you’re registered in Belize, Uganda, or China…other nations are gonna tread softly and you should be pretty safe. There is no doubt, however, that if you are unflagged you are screwed.

    So you buy that oil rig for $5M. Spend another $1M ripping it apart and customizing it. Maybe make $1M to $2M by selling off all the stuff you don’t need. Get it certified, register it in Belize or the Bahamas, and drop anchor somewhere outside an EEZ. Sounds like a great plan to me!

    BTW check http://www.seasteading.org/blogs/main/2010/01/12/jorge-schmidt-legal-aspects-seasteading I put some good links on how to register your vessel in Belize and some of the issues that can arise with registering in other countries…

    #9312
    Avatar of tusavision
    tusavision
    Participant

    Sovereignty is always about how big your guns are vs. how antisocial you want to get with your freedom.

    If you want to be free from taxation: you have to be low visibility less you become visible to the hosts of the parasitic fascists who require mandatory participation in their ponzi schemes as a key component in their humanitarian pet projects.

    If you want recognition as a nation(I have no idea why you would want such a thing) and you believe that requires land: there’s plenty of civil wars/revolutions at any given time where you can trade weapons for sponsorship.

    Somalia/Sudan are particularly attractive if you are ambitious about nation building. Keeping pirates in check via some sort of waterworld french foreign legion arrangement where your crew of ex-pats kills pirates for a living. (Sort of “MacGyver” go to “problem solver” for commercial shipping outfits)

    North Korea are another international nuiscence where you could probably inspire China/Japan/the CIA to finance your coupe. A small one inolves no more than a hunting rifle and the friendship of a powerful politician. Do it for the unions. Remember “RUF IS FIGHTING FOR THE PEOPLE!” ;- )

    The beautiful thing about international black sheep is the entire world is a haven for pissing them off, vs. your options are limited if you want to make an enemy out of the USA for instance.

    From a “Buy Recognition” standpoint: there’s a map of international corruption somewhere. The Phillipines might be a good place to start as they recognize a second ammendment at least. You have to ask yourself: what do I bring to the table? For many small cash starved nations with international debt: it’s hard to compete with cash, however they are looking for security(without ruffling feathers with the US Navy) and economic growth.(bigger pot to skim off the top of)

    Cynicism doesn’t even begin to describe international diplomacy. It’s prison ettiquitte with fancy suits and smiles.

    #9314
    Avatar of wohl1917
    wohl1917
    Participant

    “RUF IS FIGHTING FOR THE PEOPLE” Is that any kin to ‘The Inner City RIFs, “READING IS FUNDAMENTAL!”‘lol;) In any case, welcome aboard!

    < http://ocr.wikia.com/wiki/Oceanic_Citizens_Republic_Wiki>

    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    tusavision wrote:
    If you want recognition as a nation(I have no idea why you would want such a thing) and you believe that requires land

    If you want to be truly free to pursue your own seasteading goals, you need to be free from outside influence or interference. The easiest way is to find an existing nation that is 99% similar to what you want to do and fly their flag. But if your desires are extreme, or if you just want to experiment with new styles of government, you need to be your own nation. That requires land. The only question now is where do you get that land. As I said in my original post, you either buy it or take it.

    And even I’m not idealistic enough to think I can take over North Korea! ;)

    tusavision wrote:
    From a “Buy Recognition” standpoint: there’s a map of international corruption somewhere.

    Transparency International puts out reports on perceived political corruption. HERE is a wikipedia link. HERE is their page with links to PDF copies of their Global Corruption Report, and HERE is a page with an interactive global political corruption map.

    I still maintain that the simplest way to get our hands on land is to buy a large patch of worthless land from a poor, corrupt nation and then secede with their approval. Now we just need to come up with a few tens of millions of dollars…

    Angola and Somalia both look very promising. They both have extensive coastlines and are highly corrupt. The only problem is Angola is pretty wealthy with all it’s oil reserves and Somalia is pretty violent. I have been looking more at Guinea-Bissau. It’s highly corrupt, very poor, and is still in plenty of disarray after it’s civil war 10 years ago and the mutiny in 2004. There are plenty of smaller islands in the Bijagos Archipelago, some of them completely uninhabited, that I’m sure we could purchase. A few bribes in the right places and we could easily have our own nation.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 159 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate