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, 10 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 159 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #9322
    Avatar of JeffM
    JeffM
    Participant

    There sure are a lot of agendas in this thread. It makes me sigh with relief to remember that its the TSI team who are spearheading this right now. Otherwise we would be in serious trouble.

    Personally I don’t feel like playing Braveheart on the ocean and treating inspections (which it would be unreasonable to not expect at first) like invasions from the armies of Mordor.

    #9345
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    JeffM wrote:
    There sure are a lot of agendas in this thread. It makes me sigh with relief to remember that its the TSI team who are spearheading this right now. Otherwise we would be in serious trouble.

    Personally I don’t feel like playing Braveheart on the ocean and treating inspections (which it would be unreasonable to not expect at first) like invasions from the armies of Mordor.

    From TSI’s own goals:

    Because the world needs a new frontier, a place where those who wish to experiment with building new societies can go to test out their ideas. By opening the ocean as a new frontier, we hope to revolutionize the quality of government and social systems worldwide by enabling experimentation, innovation, and competition.

    There is no way to build new societies or experiment with new governments and social systems without complete autonomy. So if TSI wants to accomplish its goals it is going to need some way of gaining this autonomy. You don’t get autonomy by dropping to your knees and kissing the ground every time a warship stops by and demands inspections.

    While we don’t necessarily have to be like William Wallace and become the “Guardian of the Ocean” and rise up in violent revolt, we will have to demand to be left alone. As I see it there are only two ways to be left alone. One is to threaten anyone who approaches with destruction, which I believe is ridiculous. The second is to get the legal defense that a flag provides.

    And that brings us back to: how do we get a flag?

    #9347
    Avatar of tusavision
    tusavision
    Participant

    i_is_j_smith wrote:

    JeffM wrote:

    There sure are a lot of agendas in this thread. It makes me sigh with relief to remember that its the TSI team who are spearheading this right now. Otherwise we would be in serious trouble.

    Personally I don’t feel like playing Braveheart on the ocean and treating inspections (which it would be unreasonable to not expect at first) like invasions from the armies of Mordor.

    From TSI’s own goals:

    Because the world needs a new frontier, a place where those who wish to experiment with building new societies can go to test out their ideas. By opening the ocean as a new frontier, we hope to revolutionize the quality of government and social systems worldwide by enabling experimentation, innovation, and competition.

    There is no way to build new societies or experiment with new governments and social systems without complete autonomy. So if TSI wants to accomplish its goals it is going to need some way of gaining this autonomy. You don’t get autonomy by dropping to your knees and kissing the ground every time a warship stops by and demands inspections.

    While we don’t necessarily have to be like William Wallace and become the “Guardian of the Ocean” and rise up in violent revolt, we will have to demand to be left alone. As I see it there are only two ways to be left alone. One is to threaten anyone who approaches with destruction, which I believe is ridiculous. The second is to get the legal defense that a flag provides.

    And that brings us back to: how do we get a flag?

    [/quote]

    They can’t demand inspections if they don’t know you exist. One perk to the submersible yaht.

    In terms of citys: if there is no governing authority in the city: they’ll have to fight for each dwelling which does not want to be taken. This cannot be blamed on the seastead as it’s merely a piece of real estate. The fact that the SWAT teams keep on getting ambushed by pissed off wacko libertarians is just a consequence of the demographic which would choose to live in such a location. It is no more damning to seasteading than if SWAT teams wanted to do door to door inspections in Alaska.

    If you were to send a diplomat to the UN saying: “We’re sovereign, we’ve put depth charges in random locations armed via stealth buoys. We turn on a depth charge every time our waters are invaded by foreign powers. We turn them all on if we ever get boarded.”

    Most likely they would bait you in to blowing your load with a fishing boat full of SWAT in plain clothes. Damned if you do damned if you don’t. Which is why the ruby ridge approach is probably the most likely to succeed.

    You’ll get more International sympathy if you call yourselves an Amish village or some equally harmless religious settling.

    How you’re going to fight off the allegations of sheep fucking, incest, pedophelia, and drug smuggling which will inevitably make it’s way to the press is up to you.

    So in conclusion: Sovereignty in a stare down is hard. Sovereignty playing hide and go seek is easy. They can’t oppress you if they can’t find you, and it’s easy to disappear on the ocean floor if you don’t move around too much/use good sound dampening. Then we get to play the “expensive fixed location + sonar + camoflauge vs. disposable fixed location(s)” game where being discovered doesn’t matter because there are so many of you.

    If it were affordable to do so: there would be a boot on the throat of every Alaskan and Somolian in the world, however they only have a very limited number of boots to leverage, and most of them have their attention focused on domestic/international troublemakers.

    There’s a lot to be said for sovereignty via being too boring to take an interest in.

    #9348
    Avatar of Gentry
    Gentry
    Participant

    JeffM wrote:

    There sure are a lot of agendas in this thread. It makes me sigh with relief to remember that its the TSI team who are spearheading this right now. Otherwise we would be in serious trouble.

    Personally I don’t feel like playing Braveheart on the ocean and treating inspections (which it would be unreasonable to not expect at first) like invasions from the armies of Mordor.

    Agreed. I kept avoiding posting in this thread.. mostly out of disgust :P

    #9351
    Avatar of JeffM
    JeffM
    Participant

    @i_is_j_smith

    I agree, we will need complete autonomy, and we will definitely need a flag.

    We can’t expect the governments to send out a memo to everyone defining the distinction between a seastead and any other type of sea vessel though. A navy official will see something sitting in the water than moves on the ocean, flies a flag, and has a crew. Of course they’ll think it looks strange as hell, but we can’t count on them having the foresight to question whether or not an inspection would be legal (in our case, if they’re aware of it).

    Wires are bound to get crossed, in which case we will have to establish dialogue with any nation’s authorities beforehand to ensure that there are no screw ups. Should this fail, then we do what other nations do; fire a warning shot. To be safe we should have the proper authorities on speed dial so that messes can avoided.

    What I was saying though was that in the beginning, we may have to suffer a few, but I agree that allowing that to happen may set an undesirable precedent since we’re looking for complete autonomy on the ocean, not to simply be vessels which fly a nation’s flag. It should be established that our vessels are in themselves our sovereign territory (if not the ocean around or below them).

    By that I was assuming by flag you meant our own flag, if you meant another nation’s flag I apologize.

    @tusavision

    Yes, I agree, thats why a seastead should only have the armaments necessary to defend itself against illegal boarding actions (and maybe small craft). Killing foreign soldiers should be avoided, and illegal boarding actions from foreign militaries should just be neutralized, disarmed, well treated, then be sent packing. Complete video documentation should be kept so that they can’t cook up any bullshit afterwards (e.g “the seasteaders starved and beat the soldiers… so thats why we took them as POWs and sunk their seastead”)

    I also agree that we have to worry about the press as well, because as the US has proven time and time again, the press can make the general public believe that up is down and twist any story into a sensational circus.

    We have to safeguard our sovereignty to the letter of course, but anything more only attracts attention and asks for a fight. The media would tear us apart and make us look like gun toting loonies in a floating community.

    As for staying off of the radar, that would be pretty desirable. Submersibles are very limited in what depths they can reach though. The only option left seems to be to go deeper, but that poses complications in design and cost, depending on its size. It cost the soviets a fortune just to build one normal sub that could reach 1300m, and it was made out of titanium. There isn’t much stealth to be had at conventional depths anymore.

    #9352
    Avatar of JeffM
    JeffM
    Participant

    Gentry wrote:

    JeffM wrote:

    There sure are a lot of agendas in this thread. It makes me sigh with relief to remember that its the TSI team who are spearheading this right now. Otherwise we would be in serious trouble.

    Personally I don’t feel like playing Braveheart on the ocean and treating inspections (which it would be unreasonable to not expect at first) like invasions from the armies of Mordor.

    Agreed. I kept avoiding posting in this thread.. mostly out of disgust :P

    [/quote]

    Definitely. Talk of fomenting coups and invading countries makes me sick to my stomach.

    #9355
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    JeffM wrote:
    By that I was assuming by flag you meant our own flag, if you meant another nation’s flag I apologize.

    I do mean our own flag. But I don’t mean it as in painting some colors on a piece of fabric and saying “Hi, we’re a new nation made up of floating concrete”. You establish a new, land-based nation first, gain internation recognition, and then let seasteads of all make and size fly under it.

    JeffM wrote:
    Talk of fomenting coups and invading countries makes me sick to my stomach.

    Gentry wrote:
    I kept avoiding posting in this thread.. mostly out of disgust :P

    Sheesh, bunch of prissy little girls.

    In my opinion this is the single most important issue facing seasteading. All the discussion on engineering, government, infrastructure, religion, and business are meaningless if seasteads cannot be autonomous entities. There is no point in TSI moving forward with its “mission of furthering the establishment of permanent, autonomous ocean communities” if this goal is impossible. And after pages and pages of online discussions…and who-knows how many thousands of dollars spent on ClubStead designs…there is a single 30-minute talk by Jorge Schmidt covering this subject that basically says “you guys are screwed”.

    Hey, if I can spend $100M and in the process I eliminated a nation that is killing it’s own people, brought peace and prosperity to a region that was lacking it, and in turn got a nation that would have as its central ideal the advancement of seasteading I would go for it.

    #9357
    Avatar of JeffM
    JeffM
    Participant

    Most people looking to overthrow the state and skip over the democratic process often have ill intentions of their own. Then, those other countries which have less then pleasant regime’s (Afghanistan) are already serving as satellites for the West (in this case, the US). I think the US government can outspend seasteaders when it comes to political subversion.

    Sheesh, bunch of prissy little girls.

    How sage. Did you write that from behind a keyboard in North America?

    If you could find a country being run into the ground by people who aren’t in the pocket of the US, China, or Russia, then by all means. I don’t think the populace will be onboard with furthering the aims of a bunch of white Americans who want to live on the ocean though. Especially if the country has ‘obligations’ to the IMF. If you try to extricate them from that, then you’ll have the US and other countries kicking you out anyway. However, if you don’t extricate them from that, then you won’t be able to bring them prosperity.

    The World Bank lets nobody mess with their sweatshops; nobody.

    #9365
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    JeffM wrote:
    Most people looking to overthrow the state and skip over the democratic process often have ill intentions of their own. Then, those other countries which have less then pleasant regime’s (Afghanistan) are already serving as satellites for the West (in this case, the US). I think the US government can outspend seasteaders when it comes to political subversion.

    JeffM wrote:
    If you could find a country being run into the ground by people who aren’t in the pocket of the US, China, or Russia, then by all means. I don’t think the populace will be onboard with furthering the aims of a bunch of white Americans who want to live on the ocean though. Especially if the country has ‘obligations’ to the IMF. If you try to extricate them from that, then you’ll have the US and other countries kicking you out anyway. However, if you don’t extricate them from that, then you won’t be able to bring them prosperity.

    First off, the democratic process is overblown and overhyped in my humble opinion. Second, I fully admit that finding a target country is a critical step. You certainly can’t pick any country that is allied with an existing nation such as China or the U.S….any country that receives millions upon billions of dollars in aid will not be interested in anything we have to offer. In addition, you can’t pick any country that is of any strategic value to anybody else.

    I think the populace will be quite “onboard” when they start eating normally and stop worrying about if they are going to be shot in the middle of the night. Money has a way of making people color blind. That being said, I fully agree there will be places where there are such ingrained social structures that our money will be no good…places where the people have such a love of their land and such very imporant cultural traditions that they will never sell and will defend to the last drop of blood. You will need to obviously avoid those places since they aren’t worth the time and energy required to take and hold them.

    But given all these criteria there are still plenty of places to choose from. I’m still doing research so I don’t have many names right now, but this is where I believe TSI needs to focus its research. It’s certainly where I am focusing mine at the moment.

    JeffM wrote:
    How sage. Did you write that from behind a keyboard in North America?

    Dude, ya gotta chillax. Didn’t you notice the little smiley? That being said, yes I am behind a keyboard in the U-S-of-A. I am certainly not trying to romanticize violence or armed invasion. I just don’t get sick to my stomach with disgust by simply discussing it on an internet forum.

    If anyone else has any realistic ideas on how to achieve the autonomy seasteads need to be truly free then I am certainly willing to listen.

    #9366
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    tusavision wrote:
    They can’t demand inspections if they don’t know you exist. One perk to the submersible yaht.

    tusavision wrote:
    So in conclusion: Sovereignty in a stare down is hard. Sovereignty playing hide and go seek is easy. They can’t oppress you if they can’t find you, and it’s easy to disappear on the ocean floor if you don’t move around too much/use good sound dampening.

    I will, once again, stress that I am talking about seasteading as I define it…and as TSI defines it. I am not talking about one person selling all their worldly possessions and spending the rest of their days living like a hermit on the sea. I am talking about a large-scale ocean-based community of many people where you can experiment with different forms of government and social systems. That is not going to happen on the sea floor in any realistic scenario.

    It is certainly easy to “disappear on the ocean floor” because even at 300-400m depth you will be crushed into oblivion.

    And again, you are talking freedom-by-hiding. You are not truly free because you are just hiding from the authorities. That’s like a kid hiding his porn under the bed and saying he’s free to have porn in the house. If you can rationalize it to yourself then that’s fine…but it is not true freedom.

    tusavision wrote:
    If you were to send a diplomat to the UN saying: “We’re sovereign, we’ve put depth charges in random locations armed via stealth buoys. We turn on a depth charge every time our waters are invaded by foreign powers. We turn them all on if we ever get boarded.”

    They will call you a “hazard to navigation”, fly a bunch of special forces over, and insert them via helicopter. There is NO WAY any seastead is going to out-muscle a military powerhouse like the U.S. By taking the aggressive approach you will only incite them and all the stealth buoys in the world won’t help then.

    What they do fear are threats to their own sovereignity and national pride. They know damn well that if they start boarding ships that are flying the flag of a recognized, sovereign nation (without cause) then it won’t be long before their own cargo vessels are getting boarded…and they don’t want that. So if you are unflagged they will do what they want to you. But even if you are flying the flag of Tuvalu you are safer than any amount of depth charges can make you.

    So the trick is to become a recognized, sovereign nation. And for that you need land. And since all the land is already taken you either need to buy some or take some from somebody else.

    #9375
    Avatar of Shouri
    Shouri
    Participant

    Whole idea of sovereignity is blurry, all the laws stated doesn’t actually mean anything if…Yes there is an ‘if’, if you are strong enough to enforce your own laws in your own nations and strong enough to make people accept it… Strenth doesn’t necessarily mean brute strength (military) in fact it means capital in this age. As long as your existence is a neccesity for other nations, as long as your existence is to their best interest i think they will safeguard you… lets take a megacorparation located in U.S. as an example, this megacorparation is paying millions of dollars of tax thus, its existence in to U.S.’s best interest and lets say they are running a seastead community in pacific out of everyones eez. Do you think U.S. would actually assault it? by Advertising your seastead you will use the support of public, be it Greenpeace or scientific authorities. Creating a nation isn’t something a commoner can do so we should be depressed yes but that doesnt mean seasteading dream is over, all we need money..and more money. Public should see seasteads as another world just like America, people were immigrating to U.S. with a dream.. American Dream. So, if you have enough money you can create an utopia, if you have enough money you can buy public’s favor, If you have enough money you can defend yourself from minor threats which are not effected from public opinion like pirates n such forcefully.

    Last word: Earn Money by selling coast stead, yachts, floating farms, concrete subs or whatever..earn more and more by making good use of your innovative ideas. Gather the capital to create your dream. Why do you think there are billionaires in the world? No mentally stable intellectual being be it a human or an ai can achieve anything without purpose, without motive. Intelligent beings programs(sets a goal for) themselves for the task at hand and find solutions in theory and devise ways to put the theory into application. In this case to make this dream, this theory reality there is only one way which is to earn money.

    #9381
    Avatar of tusavision
    tusavision
    Participant

    i_is_j_smith wrote:

    I will, once again, stress that I am talking about seasteading as I define it…and as TSI defines it. I am not talking about one person selling all their worldly possessions and spending the rest of their days living like a hermit on the sea. I am talking about a large-scale ocean-based community of many people where you can experiment with different forms of government and social systems. That is not going to happen on the sea floor in any realistic scenario.

    It is certainly easy to “disappear on the ocean floor” because even at 300-400m depth you will be crushed into oblivion.

    Unless you aren’t… For instance: because you set down at 60 meters in a 1atm pressure hull.

    We’re clearly discussing entirely different topics. You’re talking about how to best achieve an ideal without giving up specific comforts as well as without getting involved in a military standoff.

    This has narrowed your options to: “accumulate money” (which is a dubious definition of sovereignty if you ask me. Kind of like a prisoner trying to bribe a guard with contraband. What are you going to do when they renig after the gold/wiretransfer changes hands?)

    If sovereignty via seasteading costs a literal king’s ransom: then seasteading is a solution in search of a problem, because I can live much free-er in cuba with the types of $ figure budgets seasteading is costing at this rate, than I can playing goody-too-shoes in order to convince the UN that they should recognize me as legitimate. IE: We should ask Saddam Hussein how much protection UN recognition offers/ how much it’s worth.

    And again, you are talking freedom-by-hiding. You are not truly free because you are just hiding from the authorities. That’s like a kid hiding his porn under the bed and saying he’s free to have porn in the house. If you can rationalize it to yourself then that’s fine…but it is not true freedom.

    There are no authorities in international law. All government’s are outlaws. You’re no more hiding from the authorities than the United States is hiding from the authorities by investing millions of dollars researching silent submarine propellors/”Screws”.

    They will call you a “hazard to navigation”, fly a bunch of special forces over, and insert them via helicopter. There is NO WAY any seastead is going to out-muscle a military powerhouse like the U.S. By taking the aggressive approach you will only incite them and all the stealth buoys in the world won’t help then.

    I was never advocating the strategy in the first place. I vote that we mitigate government influence via technology(ALA: NAPSTER) vs. deliberately setting rigid and arbitrary restrictions on ourselves in our pursuit of an ideal utopian fantasy.

    What they do fear are threats to their own sovereignity and national pride. They know damn well that if they start boarding ships that are flying the flag of a recognized, sovereign nation (without cause) then it won’t be long before their own cargo vessels are getting boarded…and they don’t want that. So if you are unflagged they will do what they want to you. But even if you are flying the flag of Tuvalu you are safer than any amount of depth charges can make you.

    So the trick is to become a recognized, sovereign nation. And for that you need land. And since all the land is already taken you either need to buy some or take some from somebody else.

    You lost me. My depth charges won’t work, but the threat of us boarding ships would? What are we going to do? Throw them in the Seasteader’s Brig?

    I hope you’re wrong about the needing land part, because I’ll hit 300 meters long before TSI manages to smooth talk their way in to a chunk of real estate. Seasteading isn’t called seasteading because the ocean is a choice place to set up camp. The ocean is a last resort because getting a piece of land is virtually impossible.

    #9383
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    Shouri wrote:
    Whole idea of sovereignity is blurry

    Well, not completely. If you have land, a permanent population, and a government you are sovereign. It helps (a lot) to have other nations recognize you as well. Look at Tuvalu. This is a nation that spans only 26 square kilometers, has a population of less than 13000 people….and has been a member of the United Nations for over 10 years. Where the idea of sovereignity becomes “blurry” is when you talk about applying it to floating platforms. That’s the whole problem. I say give up the whole idea of having a sovereign floating nation and focus on getting a regular nation first.

    Shouri wrote:
    lets say they are running a seastead community in pacific out of everyones eez. Do you think U.S. would actually assault it?

    That megacorporation must still abide by U.S. law….even if the platform is located outside an EEZ. The government would certainly shut it down if there was any lawbreaking going on…especially something like tax evasion.

    The question is: would they assault a platform if it was owned by another sovereign nation? If it was holding weapons of mass destruction…yes. Otherwise, no they would leave it alone. I am working on gathering data to support my claim.

    Shouri wrote:
    Creating a nation isn’t something a commoner can do so we should be depressed yes but that doesnt mean seasteading dream is over,

    Speak for yourself, commoner! Creating a nation doesn’t take noble blood or a family history of monarchs. All it takes is money…but without sovereignty the seasteading dream is over.

    #9385
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    tusavision wrote:
    Unless you aren’t… For instance: because you set down at 60 meters in a 1atm pressure hull.

    First off, as far as I know, pressure increases at roughly 1atm for every 10 meters of depth. So even at 60m you would be looking at 6atm of water pressure. That’s nothing to sneeze at. Secondly, where will you set down at 60m? There are only a handful of places in international waters where it gets that shallow, and the few I’ve found aren’t very conducive to a submerged habitat.

    tusavision wrote:
    We’re clearly discussing entirely different topics.

    Yes, I am discussing seasteading as TSI defines it. If you just want to “live much free-er in Cuba” then why not just move to Cuba?

    How much do you think a seastead…even a small platform that can hold a dozen people…is going to cost? I know there are lots of people here who think they are gonna scrape together less than $100kUS and float to freedom in their own personal seastead, but in my opinion they are deluding themselves. And how much do you think a submerged habitat, even a small one that holds less than half-a-dozen-people, sitting at 60m on the ocean floor is going to cost? MILLIONS of dollars.

    Why spend all that money when you could live like a king in another “free-er” country? Because I don’t want to just be “free-er”. I want to build my own new society, unconstrained from the rules and laws of existing nations. I can’t do that without sovereignity…and I plan to get it.

    I’ve said it dozens upon dozens of times on these forums…if you just want to live like a hermit on the sea, floating from port to port drinking rum and living off the bounty of the ocean, then DO IT. You can do that right now with a fraction of the money it would take to build a seastead. Ellmer can build you a big live-aboard 600-ton-displacement concrete submarine for less than 200k Euro. So go for it.

    I don’t want that. I want to build a large floating city and build a whole new society. That is what TSI wants as well, and the whole reason the Institute was founded.

    tusavision wrote:
    “accumulate money” (which is a dubious definition of sovereignty if you ask me.

    Money is just the means to achieve sovereignty, it is not the definition. Tuvalu has sovereignty and has a GDP less than $20M. It’s about the land, baby.

    tusavision wrote:
    We should ask Saddam Hussein how much protection UN recognition offers/ how much it’s worth.

    He wasn’t under the protection of the UN…in fact there were UN resolutions AGAINST him which started the whole thing. And those resolutions were because of nuclear and chemical weapon ambitions. You go that route and all bets are off.

    tusavision wrote:
    There are no authorities in international law. All government’s are outlaws.

    That’s not necessarily true. There is a codified set of rules that, while not all nations have signed, all nations adhere to the basic principles of. For instance, piracy. If you engage in piracy you are an outlaw according to every maritime power there is on this planet. It doesn’t matter how you define yourself…if a U.S. or Spanish or Indian or French warship catches you engaged in piracy you will be detained. That makes them the authorities and you the outlaw.

    If you are doing something contrary to international law, and you attempt to avoid detection by doing these things in a submerged yacht or habitat, you are NOT free no matter how much you rationalize it.

    tusavision wrote:
    I was never advocating the strategy in the first place. I vote that we mitigate government influence via technology(ALA: NAPSTER)

    How is placing thousands of depth charges around you and threatening to blow up other ships NOT trying to “out-muscle a military powerhouse”? Depth charges aren’t technology, and Napster was eventually destroyed by the U.S. government so not the best example. In my opinion the only way to “mitigate government influence” is to become a government yourself.

    tusavision wrote:
    You lost me. My depth charges won’t work, but the threat of us boarding ships would?

    We won’t board them…other nations would. No existing nation wants to set the precedent that boarding flagged ships willy nilly is acceptable. The mere thought that a Chinese or North Korean or Russian warship would board a U.S.-flagged commercial vessel sends shivers down their backs.

    It’s the same reason why the U.S. never wants to back secessionist movements in other countries. Look at the Kurds in southern Turkey. The U.S. would love to have the Kurds as solid allies, but they cannot and will not back their attempts to seceed from Turkey. The idea that the nation is sacrosanct is vital to all existing nations.

    So any ship, platform, or seastead flying the flag of a recognized, sovereign nation is perfectly safe from interference by other recognized, sovereign nations….providing they obey those international laws that all recognized, sovereign nations have agreed to like WMD transport and piracy.

    tusavision wrote:
    I hope you’re wrong about the needing land part, because I’ll hit 300 meters long before TSI manages to smooth talk their way in to a chunk of real estate. Seasteading isn’t called seasteading because the ocean is a choice place to set up camp. The ocean is a last resort because getting a piece of land is virtually impossible.

    I wish I was wrong, too. And I long held to the idea that one could claim sovereignty without needing land. But I’ve been convinced otherwise and it seems that land is required.

    And you are wrong about one thing…getting a piece of land isn’t virtually impossible. Getting a NICE piece of land on which to start a new nation is virtually impossible, I agree. But we don’t need a piece of NICE land, just a 10-20 square kilometer patch of scrabble or rock sticking out of the ocean will do. We will still move out into the oceans, but we will move out under the protection of a recognized, sovereign nation that has the best interest of seasteaders at heart. You can’t get that from Cuba.

    If you want to live out the rest of your days in a Trieste-sized concrete ball at 300m then go for it. That’s not the life for me. I don’t consider that seasteading, and I don’t believe TSI does either.

    And good luck hitting that 300m depth. As far as I know Sealab III was the deepest of any underwater habitats and it only got down to about 180m, had all kinds of structural failures, cost several millions of dollars ( not even adjusted for inflation)…and nobody actually even lived in it. If you think you are gonna do that for less than a “king’s ransom” then I think you are being utterly unrealistic.

    #9398
    Avatar of Shouri
    Shouri
    Participant

    What i meant with commoner was people with limited buying power, it is not like i am making distinction between people cos i like to do it, but even if we don’t like it there is difference between people, and it is a fact that you can not create a country in this current age unless you are insanely rich and organized sigh..

    For the megacorporation issue, Megacorporation will ofcourse abide by US taxing laws for their activities in U.S. but that doesn’t mean any commercial activity going on in a seastead in international waters will be taxed by U.S., as long as seastead is not trading with them. Actually no one can take tax from you as long as you dont trade with landlubbers(you can smuggle goods though). You don’t think Toyota gives tax only to Japan right? What i was talking about is similar to hiding behind a flag of convenience but instead of a nation i would go for a big megacorporation. If a seastead is supported by a megacorporation no one would want to mess with them since they wouldnt wanna displease a respective business establishment which pays them tax. Big Brands have industrial and commercial facilities in many countries thus they pay every one of these nations quite alot of tax, even if they dont have an industry in a country they still pay tax when they want to sell goods to local consumers of that country… A citizen is a customer for a business establishment and nation, a business establishment is a customer for a nation and a megacorporation is a big fat customer for many nations… It is much like food chain in nature. I(Nation) wouldnt like the pizza store(Megacorporation) i love to be shut down and move to some another area(another nation) where i can’t go and i’d miss the taste of their pizza(tax).

    So question is how to make a megacorporation support us…Thats a question any of us can answer so no need to do it now. I don’t understand your desire to be called ‘sovereign’ A country doesnt need acknowledgement from other countries to exist. As long as your citizens are free from the authority of other nations you are a succesful and a free country imo. And if it hurts your pride since there is a megacorporation paying for your freedom just sit and think for a moment, what is freedom anyways? There is no rational explanation to total freedom idealists speak of since there is no example for it even in nature. For me anyone who thinks they are totally free is just having a delusion since total freedom itself is only an illusion. Freedom is not free…

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 159 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate