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, 11 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 159 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #9399
    Avatar of J.L.-Frusha
    J.L.-Frusha
    Participant

    Has anyone considered ‘Territory’ status? Many nations have them and allow certain legal differences to exist, so long as it doesn’t directly become an affront. Numerous nations have legal prostitution, some have minimal drug laws(mostly the highly addictive stuff is illegal, world-wide, anyway)… Maybe it’s not a matter of ‘land,’ so much as which country you are affiliated with. Perhaps n under the radar would help?

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

    It has 4 things, that would make it good, as a base of operations: An airport, a reef and lagoons, and US Territory status. Airport is pretty self-explanatory. A reef and lagoons… a sheltered area to build and repair SeaSteads(Hmmm…). Incorporated but unorganized status, within US Sovereignty… It exists, but is ‘un-regulated.’ No native inhabitants, except plants and critters.

    A big ‘negative’ is that the majority of the Atoll is closed, because of un-exploded ordinance… HOWEVER, this also makes it un-desireable for developement. BUY it on the cheap, but legal, clear the ordinance, using military surplus hardware.

    Since it’s relatively close to Hawaii, we know the typical weather conditions. Because it’s an existing US Territory, it’s under US protection. As an Un-regulated Territory, it could develop its’ own laws… to some extent. Just keep a low profile, keep the laws reasonable(within the US Constitution and copy existing laws, or new ones that have some legal precident).

    Not sure this warrants a new thread, if so, will one of the moderators please change it?

    Later,

    J.L..F.

    If you can’t swim with the big fish, stick to the reef

    #9402
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    Shouri wrote:
    you can not create a country in this current age unless you are insanely rich and organized sigh..

    Of course, you need money to purchase the land, bribe the government into letting you seceed, put up buildings and an infrastructure, bring in people, etc etc etc. It will be a very expensive project, but you can’t do seasteading unless you are insanely rich and organized either. By insanely rich I don’t mean billionare, but building a seastead is still going to run in the tens of millions of dollars.

    Shouri wrote:
    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).

    No, they need to abide by US taxing law no matter where they are in the world…even in international waters. It doesn’t matter if you are a single person in a 30′ sailboat or a megacorporation in a massive cruise ship, you need to be registered in a country and fly that country’s flag.

    And if you are that single person floating around on the ocean in your sailboat, and you are a citizen of the US, you are expected to pay any and all US taxes regardless of where you are. Of course if you don’t make any money and just live off the ocean your taxes will be zero because you don’t make any significant income. But location doesn’t mean anything to the US taxman. Many other countries are more easy-going, however, and only tax you if you reside in the country.

    Shouri wrote:
    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.

    As I said above, you need a flag regardless. You can’t float around on the ocean under the flag of Exxon or Apple. You might be sponsored by a megacorporation, but anything that moves on or under the oceans needs to fly the flag of a sovereign nation. Otherwise you are considered unflagged and can be boarded and detained at will. Even oil tankers and cargo vessels belonging to these megacorporations fly a flag.

    Shouri wrote:
    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.

    It is really rather simple: You cannot be on the ocean unless you fly the flag of a sovereign nation. So the easiest option is to pick some country that is very lax in its laws and fly their flag. For many people that will probably be fine. But under that situation you cannot experiment with new forms of government or new social systems, like TSI wants to do.

    So the other choice is to become your own sovereign nation and fly your own flag. For that you need land. The problem with this is that getting hold of one new nation will be tough enough…there is no way to get sovereign nations for all the seasteads that we want to build.

    So the only option I can see is to create a new, sovereign nation and base this nation on the TSI model. This nation would exist only to allow seasteads to inhabit the ocean without interference, flying the flag of a sovereign nation and enjoying all the freedoms from interference that entails.

    I’m sorry, but painting your logo on a piece of white cloth and flying it from the mast of your sailboat is not going to work. Building a large floating platform and saying it is a new nation is not going to work. Unfortunately sovereignty is required for any real freedom on the oceans.

    #9403
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    J.L.Frusha wrote:
    Has anyone considered ‘Territory’ status?

    It’s an interesting idea, but this is from Wikipedia:

    Palmyra is an incorporated territory of the United States, meaning that it is subject to all provisions contained in the United States Constitution and is permanently under U.S. sovereignty.

    So while you could govern the island as you saw fit you could not register vessels under your own flag. An incorporated territory is, for purposes, part of the United States. This is also from Wikipedia:

    An incorporated territory of the United States is a specific area under the jurisdiction of the United States, over which the United States Congress has determined that the United States Constitution is to be applied to the territory’s local government and inhabitants in its entirety (e.g., citizenship, trial by jury), in the same manner as it applies to the local governments and residents of the U.S. states. Incorporated territories are considered an integral part of the United States, as opposed to being merely possessions.

    This is different from someplace like Guam or Wake Island, which are not considered part of the U.S. proper but are still controlled in all aspects by the U.S. government. They could not register vessels.

    This is also different from a commonwealth like Puerto Rico, which has its own constitution. But it is still managed in nearly all ways by the U.S. government. The U.S. Congress controls everything from currency and the postal service to military defense and labor relations. So Puerto Rico cannot register vessels.

    I’ll have to look into this more, to see if other nations treat their territories in the same way. One option would be to use territory status as a mid-point on the way to full nationhood. You purchase a small island and become a territory. Then, once you have infrastructure in place, you seceed. That might be a great way to prove recognition as well, since you were already recognized as a territory. Interesting, I’ll have to give this more thought.

    #9406
    Avatar of tusavision
    tusavision
    Participant

    i_is_j_smith wrote:

    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.

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

    The idea of finding the wreck of Titanic, and even raising the ship from the ocean floor, had been around since shortly after the ship sank. No attempts were successful until 1 September 1985, when a joint American-French expedition, led by Jean-Louis Michel (Ifremer) and Dr. Robert Ballard (WHOI), located the wreck using the side-scan sonar from the research vessels Knorr and Le Suroit. In June of 1985, the French ship Le Suroit began systematically crossing the 150-square-mile target zone with her deep-search sonar. Le Suroit covered 80 percent of the zone, leaving only 20 percent for the American ship Knorr.[66] It was found at a depth of 2.5 miles (4 km), slightly more than 370 miles (600 km) south-east of Mistaken Point, Newfoundland at 41°43′55″N 49°56′45″W / 41.73194°N 49.94583°W / 41.73194; -49.94583Coordinates: 41°43′55″N 49°56′45″W / 41.73194°N 49.94583°W / 41.73194; -49.94583, 13 miles (21 km) from fourth officer Boxhall">Joseph Boxhall‘s last position reading where Titanic was originally thought to rest. Ballard noted that his crew had paid out 12,500 feet (3,810 m) of the sonar’s tow cable at the time of the discovery of the wreck,[67] giving an approximate depth of the seabed of 12,450 feet (3,795 m).[68] Ifremer, the French partner in the search, records a depth of 3,800 m (12,467 ft), an almost exact equivalent.[69] These are approximately 2.33 miles, and they are often rounded upwards to 2.5 miles or 4 km. Video cameras aboard the unmanned submersible Argo were the first to document the Titanic’s visual state on the bottom of the ocean. The submersible was based on the Knorr and the images retrieved were featured in National Geographic by December of 1985.[70] In 1986, Ballard returned to the wreck site aboard the Atlantis II to conduct the first manned dives to the wreck in the submersible Alvin.

    It’s amazing how deep you can go when you have no need to maintain a pressure. IE: no oxygen breathing passengers

    You can sufficiently alert yourself to intruders in your backyard via a hydrophone network, sink your house boat, stay on the surface in a sailboat registered in Amsterdam/other and then if the submarine crew get’s curious: they can pop up to periscope depth and even have a cup of tea before fucking off.

    At which point: you raise your houseboat again. If a storm/pirates come: you sink the sailboat and the house boat and hang out in your pressure hull moored to your sunken houseboat on scuba/snorkel.

    Strap some homemade torpedo’s to your pressure hull and sink any pirates that think they can wait you out on the surface.

    All it takes is a little bit of immagination and some flexibility to solve problems at a reasonable price.

    For instance: “Where are we going to get a piece of land?”

    Why don’t you just make yourself an island out of garbage in a shallow spot?

    Start a landfill business off the coast of a 3rd world country/China. Tell them you’ll solve their garbage problem in exchange for a flag. Now encase the garbage in large sealed plastic drums.(which are shaped to interlock) Take the drums out in a barge to a GPS location in a shallow spot and dump them overboard repetitively. Eventually: you’ll have a pile so big to break the surface. Plant your flag, put an embassy on it, call it a day.

    You can use the business to source things like refrigerator compressors and electronics. Leach mine the electronics and use the gold to start a treasury, use the refrigerator compressors for your buoyancy systems.

    You can invite the guys from opensourceecology over and they can use the bedsprings/other scrap metal for their induction furnace project.

    To these ends: rather than land being an expense of seasteading: it has become an income generating asset.

    Hold the applause.

    #9407
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    tusavision wrote:
    sink your house boat

    See, now you’re talking about a different concept from a habitat on the ocean floor. I’m not going to go into a lengthy analysis of your plan because it’s off-topic. But again, you are talking about a small houseboat for you to live in (and a pressure hull, and a sailboat)…not a seastead as TSI and I define it. I agree you can get “things” down very deep…but not anything you can live in for any period of time.

    tusavision wrote:
    For instance: “Where are we going to get a piece of land?”

    Ahhh, now you’re getting to the nuts and bolts of it…

    tusavision wrote:
    Why don’t you just make yourself an island out of garbage in a shallow spot?

    First of all, once again, there are NO shallow spots. Even for some relatively shallow seamounts you are still talking 100m to 300m below the waves. You would have to pile incredible amounts of stuff to make an island of a decent size, forgetting the engineering issues of how stable a pile of stuff would be for building on and long-term stability due to wave action. Don’t forget that this is what they tried at Minerva and it didn’t take long for the ocean to reclaim the area. But I agree that, even given the huge amounts of material needed, it would probably be cheaper than buying a nation.

    The other issue is that I doubt garbage will work as a substitute for land. Whether the international community would even accept the idea of a man-made island as different from a man-made platform resting on the sea floor is doubtful. You make that man-made island out of garbage and there’s no way they will accept it.

    The great thing about my plan is that, in the process, we get recognition from existing sovereign nations. That’s a key issue. Even if we built an island, put a bunch of buildings and people on it, and said we were a new nation we need international recognition of our sovereignty to protect us on the high seas. Without it we are back to just painting our logo on a white piece of cloth and declaring ourselves sovereign…which isn’t going to deter that US warship that wants to board you against your wishes.

    #9409
    Avatar of J.L.-Frusha
    J.L.-Frusha
    Participant

    To get deep, there are quite a few hurdles, but none insurmountable. Very few people have been to the deepest points of the oceans, but a few have and survived to tell the tale.

    Structure… Do I hear a bid for laminated concrete? Test spheres, designed and tested for 3500′ are in the history books… Those designed for it and sent deeper failed. (Note: at 66″, they weren’t big enough to sustain much of an ecosystem)

    Air supply… What are you going to breathe? A higher pressure of Heli=Ox reduces the pressure differential that the structure has to withstand.

    Ingress/Egress… How are you going to get you, your buddy, the beer and groceries in and/or out? At 1/2 a mile, free-diving ain’t a viable option.

    Energy… It’s awful cold and dark down there. Heat is a must on all long-term ventures into the sea. It seldom reaches a balmy 72* at depth(or altitude, for that matter)

    Finances… Just living and getting supplies there is going to get very expensive, very fast. Photoluminescent-fungi may sound cool, but life by chem-lite ain’t no picnic and pressure does funny things to your eyes, anyway.

    Can it be done, with todays materials? Yes, but at a very high price. If there’s a leak, it won’t be finger in the dike, it’ll be an implosion and instant death. Of course, that gets rid of that stinking jar of feces, too, so there is a plus to that one.

    Yes, even now, we can do it, but is it worth the risk? One SeaStead destroyed at the cost of one life may well kill the hope of SeaSteading in general… People pass laws to protect idiots, fools, the disabled, the insane, plus women and children. All else is excreta… Being deemed crazy is not a plus… Then again, a padded room, free meals and certain psycho-active drugs may be worth it, to some people.

    Later,

    J.L..F.

    If you can’t swim with the big fish, stick to the reef

    #9412
    Avatar of nthmost
    nthmost
    Participant

    Seasteads would be foolish to try to compete on the military stage. But they can compete using confusion and subterfuge.

    I would not be surprised if the most stable place for a seastead to exist is within a highly contested, generally militarized area such as the Persian Gulf, with Israeli and Jordanians and Egyptians and Iraqis all living on it for common benefit, using nepotistic and/or oligarchic ties to their home nations to play each country off each other.

    –Naomi

    #9413
    Avatar of J.L.-Frusha
    J.L.-Frusha
    Participant

    nthmost wrote:
    I would not be surprised if the most stable place for a seastead to exist is within a highly contested, generally militarized area such as the Persian Gulf, with Israeli and Jordanians and Egyptians and Iraqis all living on it for common benefit, using nepotistic and/or oligarchic ties to their home nations to play each country off each other. –Naomi

    THE big problem with that is that it becomes fair-game at a turkey-shoot. Then it becomes, not when, but who gets to kill you.

    Later,

    J.L..F.

    If you can’t swim with the big fish, stick to the reef

    #9415
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    nthmost wrote:
    the most stable place for a seastead to exist is within a highly contested, generally militarized area such as the Persian Gulf

    Unfortunately this puts you smack-dab in the middle of everyone’s EEZs. Not really an option if we want to take anything from the waters or use wind/wave energy.

    #9416
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    J.L.Frusha wrote:
    To get deep, there are quite a few hurdles, but none insurmountable. Very few people have been to the deepest points of the oceans, but a few have and survived to tell the tale.

    Structure… Do I hear a bid for laminated concrete? Test spheres, designed and tested for 3500′ are in the history books… Those designed for it and sent deeper failed. (Note: at 66″, they weren’t big enough to sustain much of an ecosystem)

    Right, that’s the key problem. You can send things down very deep and bring them back again. But if you are talking long-term habitation then you have all manner of problems. As far as I know the longest anyone has stayed down in a sea-floor habitat is 30 days, and that was only around 60m in Sealab II. I think one of Cousteau’s Conshelf stations got down to 100m and it had a few people live there for two weeks or so.

    I don’t see permanent habitation of the seafloor, even at shallow depths of 100m or so, happening without ming-boggling sums of money and decades of additional research.

    #9418
    Avatar of tusavision
    tusavision
    Participant

    i_is_j_smith wrote:

    See, now you’re talking about a different concept from a habitat on the ocean floor. I’m not going to go into a lengthy analysis of your plan because it’s off-topic. But again, you are talking about a small houseboat for you to live in (and a pressure hull, and a sailboat)…not a seastead as TSI and I define it. I agree you can get “things” down very deep…but not anything you can live in for any period of time.

    First of all, once again, there are NO shallow spots. Even for some relatively shallow seamounts you are still talking 100m to 300m below the waves. You would have to pile incredible amounts of stuff to make an island of a decent size, forgetting the engineering issues of how stable a pile of stuff would be for building on and long-term stability due to wave action. Don’t forget that this is what they tried at Minerva and it didn’t take long for the ocean to reclaim the area. But I agree that, even given the huge amounts of material needed, it would probably be cheaper than buying a nation.

    The other issue is that I doubt garbage will work as a substitute for land. Whether the international community would even accept the idea of a man-made island as different from a man-made platform resting on the sea floor is doubtful. You make that man-made island out of garbage and there’s no way they will accept it.

    The great thing about my plan is that, in the process, we get recognition from existing sovereign nations. That’s a key issue. Even if we built an island, put a bunch of buildings and people on it, and said we were a new nation we need international recognition of our sovereignty to protect us on the high seas. Without it we are back to just painting our logo on a white piece of cloth and declaring ourselves sovereign…which isn’t going to deter that US warship that wants to board you against your wishes.

    You can build a sinking house boat as big and as luxorious as an oil rig. The only reason the tall platform on stilts design is so popular on here is because of the lack of alternatives for dealing with storm waves. I’m proposing one: rocket powered ballast tanks, and waterproof furnature.

    -Surviving a storm in the middle of the ocean is easy enough.

    -Building a comfortable living space in the middle of the ocean is easy enough.

    Combining the two is the challenge and I don’t see the point. It’s a nice feature to not have to bug out to a crab boat every time a storm hits, but it’s not $12 million nice.

    To focus on the concrete pressure hull as living quarters is a straw man. (Although I do like the idea of concrete bunkers in shallow waters[if they can't find you the 12 mile rule doesn't particually matter, let alone 200 miles])

    http://www.vladi-private-islands.de/home_e.html

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

    23°46′S 179°1′W

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

    http://www.worldislandinfo.com/Starting%20island%20country.html

    Everyone should be careful of what they say. Tonga’s limited war chest is better invested in monitoring libertarian message boards and suiciding anyone who supports the idea of invading than it is on a standing army.

    That said: the CIA could have this place updating their flag poles as a hazing ritual. 104,000 isn’t a country. I think Pocahantas had more friends on Facebook than this country has citizens.

    I think this country could take a census by handing it’s only mailman a clipboard.

    Tonga’s military budget is so tight: their practice ammo is the word “bang.”

    Tonga has an all volunteer millitary because none of them get paid.

    Tonga’s economy is so ghetto: the treasury had to cut back on office supply expenses so it could afford a copy of “Quickbooks.”

    Tonga has a social security crisis everytime a teenager buy’s a motorcycle.

    Tonga solve’s their social security crisis everytime a senior OD’s on viagra.

    Tonga used to have a McDonald’s, but had to close it because they couldn’t find a shipping container small enough to hold 100 burger patties.

    When Tonga’s McDonald’s closed: the unemployment rate tripled.

    Tonga has so few citizens: their beurea of labor statistics is a guy with a chalkboard.

    When America stopped publishing M3: Tonga realized they could just stop giving that guy free chalk.

    Tonga solved it’s unemployment problem by building a park bench.

    If a government employee in Tonga had to stay home sick for a day: it would meet the definition of an anarchy. To make sure this never happened: the king hired a body double.

    Tonga is so small: the National Reconnaissance Office uses it to focus their spy satellites.

    Geography classes in Tongan public schools require a magnifying glass.

    They don’t bother teaching History in Tonga, because most residents were on-board when the S.S. Minnow ship-wrecked.

    #9421
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    I really don’t know where you’re going with all of this, and it’s all off-topic. If you want to start a thread on the benefits of “waterproof furniture and rocket-powered ballast tanks”….uh, okay…then go right ahead. I will just say that if you intend to live in a small underwater habitat within another country’s territorial waters, and hide from them as you perform illegal acts, then I say you are seriously underestimating how far existing countries will go to persecute people who are flaunting their laws.

    As for all your Tonga hate…I will say that, while I don’t have any love for Tonga after the whole Minerva thing, they have had a seat in the United Nations for 10 years and it has a larger population than Grenada, Bermuda, or Monaco. It has a better infant mortality rate than Mexico or Brazil. It has a better average life expectancy than Russia or India. It has a 98.9% literacy rate and it’s education expenditures are 5% of its GDP which is better than Germany or Japan. It also offers free primary education to everyone, and it has a national health care system.

    Tonga would be a good prospect for my plan, but the people have an intense sense of nationalistic pride so taking some of their land might not be easy. They aren’t incredibly poor…they have a GDP of over $500M…so they don’t need our money all that much. Plus there is a growing move towards democratic reforms which might make it harder to bribe those in charge (of course, that hasn’t stopped corruption in many modern democracies). The smaller, uninhabited islands are pretty small and several of them have some level of volcanic activity. But beggars can’t be choosers so I still have Tonga on my list of potential “candidates”.

    #9422
    Avatar of tusavision
    tusavision
    Participant

    i_is_j_smith wrote:

    I really don’t know where you’re going with all of this, and it’s all off-topic. If you want to start a thread on the benefits of “waterproof furniture and rocket-powered ballast tanks”….uh, okay…then go right ahead. I will just say that if you intend to live in a small underwater habitat within another country’s territorial waters, and hide from them as you perform illegal acts, then I say you are seriously underestimating how far existing countries will go to persecute people who are flaunting their laws.

    As for all your Tonga hate…I will say that, while I don’t have any love for Tonga after the whole Minerva thing, they have had a seat in the United Nations for 10 years and it has a larger population than Grenada, Bermuda, or Monaco. It has a better infant mortality rate than Mexico or Brazil. It has a better average life expectancy than Russia or India. It has a 98.9% literacy rate and it’s education expenditures are 5% of its GDP which is better than Germany or Japan. It also offers free primary education to everyone, and it has a national health care system.

    Tonga would be a good prospect for my plan, but the people have an intense sense of nationalistic pride so taking some of their land might not be easy. They aren’t incredibly poor…they have a GDP of over $500M…so they don’t need our money all that much. Plus there is a growing move towards democratic reforms which might make it harder to bribe those in charge (of course, that hasn’t stopped corruption in many modern democracies). The smaller, uninhabited islands are pretty small and several of them have some level of volcanic activity. But beggars can’t be choosers so I still have Tonga on my list of potential “candidates”.

    It’s on-topic because it offers a feasible alternative to the “buy or take” dichotomy.

    I like how you tried to discredit me by implying my goal is to perform illegal acts. Questioning my motives is VERY mature. If you had worded it more carefully you might have been able to claim that you were only referring to the trespassing itself. If my goal’s involved crime I certainly wouldn’t make my base of operations in a difficult to reach location which spotlights my comings/goings/activity to the coast gaurd/navy. I don’t break laws because it’s the wrong thing to do, however I don’t consider law enforcement a significant obstacle to much of anything that a conscience permits.(as illegal immigration and drug smuggling has so clearly demonstrated)

    An inventor who restrains the spectrum of his creations at the direction of something as intangible and unquantifiable as “law” does humanity a disservice. I’ll restrain my actions but I will never commit the attrocity of censoring the range of my ideas.

    Back on topic:

    Unlike Grenada, Bermuda, or Monaco: Tonga/Fiji is the only thing standing between TSI and Minerva. It’s brutally obvious the economy of Tonga cannot support a war. No matter how good it’s socialist talking points are: it can’t seem to restrain itself from censoring it’s critics in the newspapers. (history shows this to be a sign of weakness and insecurity) Minerva’s original resident’s turned tail and fled at the first sign of an AK47.

    I’m no diplomat but I’ll get you guy’s started:(this is a hypothetical example of what you COULD say, I don’t endorse nation building because I could care less about what the UN thinks of me smoking pot in my house boat. There’s a global recession going on, and I find them impotent to do shit except shoot the messenger.)

    “Dear King Tonga,

    Us redneck types don’t appreciate your fancy lawyer talk for invading OUR country. In response: we’ve surrounded OUR country with instant cold packs. (That’s country bumpkin for “depth charge.”) Try that shit again and we’ll return the favor. Also: Go Fuck Yourself.

    Your’s truly,

    The Republic of Minerva

    PS: Tell Fiji their mom is a lousy fuck.”

    Personally: I have no interest in being involved in such a thing, however hypothetically speaking: it’s the most direct solution to your problem.

    BTW: a quick glance at Google Earth shows no shortage of “shallow spots” in international water. Why would you state otherwise as fact?

    Does dismissing viable solutions off hand without consideration “further the establishment and growth of permanent, autonomous ocean communities“?

    http://seasteading.org/stay-in-touch/blog/3/2009/03/21/tsis-mission-statement

    #9423
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    tusavision wrote:
    It’s on-topic because it offers a feasible alternative to the “buy or take” dichotomy.

    It’s off-topic, because you are talking about individual seastead design and I am talking about achieving sovereignty so as to allow seasteads to experiment with different types of governments and social structures. It’s my thread, I know what it’s about. Or are you talking about submerged habitats as a way to achieve those ends? If you are then I think I have disproved the idea.

    My concern has nothing to do with individual seastead design. Spar or submarine or barge….it doesn’t matter. What matters is how we get the freedom to experiment which we cannot have when tied to existing nations.

    tusavision wrote:
    I like how you tried to discredit me by implying my goal is to perform illegal acts.

    I’m not trying to discredit you, I assumed you wanted to live in a submerged habitat in the middle of the ocean because you wanted to live a lifestyle that was illegal or otherwise not allowed in existing nations. If this isn’t the case, why the hell would you want to live in a submerged habitat in the middle of the ocean when you could live like a king on land for a fraction of what a submerged habitat in the middle of the ocean would cost?

    tusavision wrote:
    Unlike Grenada, Bermuda, or Monaco: Tonga/Fiji is the only thing standing between TSI and Minerva. It’s brutally obvious the economy of Tonga cannot support a war

    You’re not part of the “Government of the Principality of Minerva in exile” are you? I agree that the Minerva Reef is a viable candidate area for the establishment of a new nation, especially now that Fiji has fought back against Tonga’s claim, and I actually have it on my list of candidate areas. This would fall clearly under my “take land” option because it would certainly involve having sufficient firepower to convince any Tongan force that coming close wasn’t a good idea.

    The problem with Minerva is, once again, the recognition part. Sure, for a few million dollars we can plop a few pre-built towers on the reefs, man them with some large-caliber weapons, and claim a new nation. But will anyone else in the international community recognize us as such? You might snort and say “who cares” but it’s an important factor. Flying the flag of a nation that nobody recognizes as sovereign is the same as being without a flag in my opinion. We would have to make sure we bribed the right government officials in other nearby nations. Then we could proceed.

    Another problem with Minerva is that in order to qualify as a nation you need a government and a permanent population. The two reefs are pretty small, so you’d have to do some major engineering to build them up enough to house enough people. Plus it’s pretty unshelted out there in the middle of the ocean. But these are small concerns that can easily be fixed with enough cash.

    tusavision wrote:
    BTW: a quick glance at Google Earth shows no shortage of “shallow spots” in international water. Why would you state otherwise as fact?

    Because it is a fact. I’ve provided several KMZ files in this thread (look on page 2) that show seamount locations and depths…and there certainly is a shortage of shallow spots in international waters. I also wouldn’t put too much faith in Google Earth’s bathymetric data…I’ve downloaded the entire GEBCO dataset and done several cross-reference searches using the NGDC’s multibeam bathymetric data as well as the Global Multi-Resolution Topography and assorted MGDS datasets available through VirtualOcean. I’ve seen plenty of inconsistencies between it and that little “elev” number on Google Earth in several places.

    If you believe there is no shortage of shallow spots, would you care to compile and post them? I know many people here would love to have that info.

    tusavision wrote:
    Does dismissing viable solutions off hand without consideration “further the establishment and growth of permanent, autonomous ocean communities“?

    First, saying “off hand” and “without consideration” together is a bit redundant. Second, I didn’t dismiss anything. I said that I believe we need sovereignty to achieve TSI’s goals and I offered the only two ways I can think of to get it. You said something about “ponzi schemes” and “parasitic fascists” and then talked about hiding from inspections by using submersible yachts. I explained why I don’t consider a single submersible yacht or an undersea habitat to be viable methods for seasteading, and that hiding from inspections isn’t true sovereignty. I don’t believe your idea is feasible, but I certainly didn’t dismiss anything off-hand.

    If you have any viable methods for achieving sovereignty besides the two I mentioned, or any other potential candidate areas, I’d be happy to hear them.

    #9434
    Avatar of tusavision
    tusavision
    Participant

    http://seamounts.sdsc.edu/

    How you can cite that thread as evidence of a lack of shallow spots? This link which I found in it shows numerous examples of seamounts less than 100M under the surface of international water.

    Latitude:

    -24.02

    Longitude:

    -84.69

    Summit Depth: 0m

    More than 200 miles off the coast of chile and it’s summit depth is quoted as “0 meters” underwater.

    Latitude: 16.88
    Longitude: -117.51

    Summit Depth: 27m

    More than 200 miles off the coast of Mexico and it’s summit depth is quoted as “27 meters”

    Latitude: -33.23
    Longitude: 44.2

    Summit Depth: 18m

    ~500 miles off the coast of Madagascar and it’s summit depth is quoted as “18 meters”

    Latitude: -31.63
    Longitude: 8.35

    Summit depth: 26 meters

    ~500 miles off the coast of South Africa and it’s summit depth is quoted as “26 meters”(this summit has a 4 mile plateau->ideal for a foundation)

    Latitude: 24.12
    Longitude: -166.82

    Summit Depth: 20m

    More than 200 miles off the coast of Hawaii and it’s summit depth is quoted as “20 meters”

    Naturally: the list of candidates grows significantly as your depth becomes less restrictive. I do question the reliability of this site’s data, but only in that I believe there are far more shallow spots than it lists.

    Do you mean to tell me this data is incorrect?

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 159 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate