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 - 106 through 120 (of 159 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #9554
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    J.L.Frusha wrote:
    We KNOW that the Scientologists run a private cruise-ship, for their purposes. They are experimenting with societal issues,

    Not really. What they’re doing is no different than a “single’s cruise” or “gay cruise” run by any of the existing cruiselines, or those “school-at-sea” cruises. They aren’t experimenting with new forms of government or new types of societies. They just use it as a floating training center, no different than if the Vatican decided to buy a cruise ship and hold masses at sea.

    J.L.Frusha wrote:
    First, we have to have people on the sea, living and being profitable enough to make it attractive. Then we build communities, after that, we build ‘city/societies and work from there.

    Yea, but there’s a huge gap between “build communities” and “build city/societies”…a gap that I don’t think we can cross. So if your end goal of city/society is impossible, what’s the point of doing the first two steps? Those first steps, getting people living sustainably on the sea in large communities, is a HUGE undertaking. If after you reach that point you cannot get to the next step then what was the point of doing all that work in the first place?

    J.L.Frusha wrote:
    Set your back into the load and move ahead. It isn’t going to be easy, anyway.

    There is a huge difference between “isn’t going to be easy” and “impossible”. If I think that something isn’t going to be easy I have to weigh the cost versus benefits. Is it worth it to clear that hectare of swampland, dig up all the rocks, and build a farm just to grow a few bushels of hay? There is nothing wrong with not pursuing a goal if you know that goal to be a waste of time…or impossible.

    You can set your back into the load all you want, but if that load is Mt. Everest then you are wasting time and energy that could be put to better use elsewhere.

    I would love for seasteading to be possible, but that doesn’t make it so. I’m trying to be realistic, and I welcome any realistic evidence that seasteading is possible. Most of the evidence I’ve seen lately doesn’t make me very optimistic.

    #9558
    Avatar of Melllvar
    Melllvar
    Participant

    You’ve said a few times that without sovereignty seasteaders won’t get the kind of freedoms they’re looking for. I’m kind of curious as to exactly what these freedoms are? It seems like most here are looking for something along the lines of no taxes, no drug laws, no labor laws/econ. regulation, etc., but no one here is particularly anxious to start slavery, terrorism, child sex tourism, or stuff like that. Before deciding this is a doomed idea, Is it actually impossible for a ridiculously autonomous society to start off flying another nations flag? Other than just saying things along the lines of “it wouldn’t be free enough” I haven’t actually heard of what would be missed out on by just joining as a citizen of some tax haven and flying the flag of a country that doesn’t care if I’m growing opium or treating my employees like cattle. If this is just a matter of principle, or people want their own nations so they can be in charge, then I’m having trouble relating to this “the sky is falling” feeling. But if there’s a combination of freedoms that reasonably sane people would want that we can’t get with the above plan, then I’d like to know what it is.

    Not posting this just cause I like to argue, but if sovereignty really isn’t an option, this would be the next best thing until there are enough seasteads to make sovereignty inevitable.

    #9559
    Avatar of J.L.-Frusha
    J.L.-Frusha
    Participant

    Rather than complain and give up, before I got started, if my intent was to move Mt. Everest, I’d take a pick, shovel and wheelbarrow to it.

    Sometimes, the mountain does not come to Mohamed, Mohamed goes to the mountain.

    Pick a task… If it can be defined, then it can be accomplished. The “how” and “when,” on the other hand, depend on much more than a mere definition.

    Rome wasn’t built in a day. Nor was it ransacked and burned in a day.

    Just because there are quasi-nations that haven’t become “recognized” nations, doesn’t mean that they won’t. It just means that the journey isn’t complete, as of yet.

    A community is just exactly that. Whether you define it by area, numbers of people or flags. If it’s a community that is growing, it can become a city. Monaco is just a city, but it is also a recognized nation. Same for Rome.

    If you’d like some Christian advice… Jesus said: “I am the light, the truth and the way.” He never said that the ‘way’ was going to be easy…

    Later,

    J.L..F.

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

    #9560
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    J.L.Frusha wrote:
    Just because there are quasi-nations that haven’t become “recognized” nations, doesn’t mean that they won’t. It just means that the journey isn’t complete, as of yet.

    You’re right, they might still achieve full recognized sovereignty someday. But they have a lot more going for them than we have….such as land. And if they have had such a hard fight to gain recognized sovereignty with all their advantages, what hope does a floating platform or any type of artificial island have? None, in my opinion.

    J.L.Frusha wrote:
    If it’s a community that is growing, it can become a city. Monaco is just a city, but it is also a recognized nation. Same for Rome.

    By “Rome” I assume you mean the Vatican. Yes, they are both recognized nations. Again, they have land. We do not. They also have several other advantages such as a GDP over a billion dollars (Monaco) or over two billion sheep willing to blindly do the bidding of an old man in a stupid hat (Vatican).

    The point is to become like Monaco…but first we need LAND which is again the whole point of this thread.

    #9561
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    Melllvar wrote:
    You’ve said a few times that without sovereignty seasteaders won’t get the kind of freedoms they’re looking for. I’m kind of curious as to exactly what these freedoms are?

    Excellent question. I’m certainly not talking about child sex tourism, terrorism, slavery, WMDs, etc because those practices are banned regardless of nation status. It doesn’t matter if you’re North Korea, if you try to transport WMDs on your ships they are gonna get stopped.

    I think there are two parts to it. If you fly the flag of another nation over your seastead you are actually just a part of that nation. In this you are no different from that hippie commune in the U.S. You can pretend that you are free but deep down you know that if you start stockpiling weapons, or failing to pay your taxes, the man will come for you. This is a purely philosophical thing, but important none-the-less I believe. Every decision you make regarding the physical or legal infrastructure of your seastead has to take the host nation into consideration. Therefore it isn’t a good experiment in what makes a good government or society because there are outside variables affecting the results.

    The main issue is legal. If you fly the flag of another nation you are bound by the laws of that nation, so citizens of your seastead are not bound by any laws (or lack thereof) that you put in place on your seastead.

    Let’s say that I want to build my seastead around a purely anarchist model, but I’m flying under the flag of the Bahamas Maritime Authority. My seastead is legally part of the Bahamas, and therefore all actions that happen on my seastead are covered by British common law. So how can I have an anarchist seastead government when everyone is actually covered by an existing legal code?

    Another example: I want to design my seastead government around pure equality for all…equal rights for men and women in every way. Yet my seastead is registered with Liberia, which has no laws on the books preventing sexual harassment. So on my seastead no woman can sue a man who sexually harasses her regardless of whatever laws I want to pass on my seastead.

    Another example: I want to create a society on my seastead based around an extreme libertarian ideal of property rights. In this society animals are the property of their owners. There can be no laws preventing anyone from abusing their animals because that would be the owners right since property rights are sacrosanct. But if my seastead is registered in Cyprus then I can charge someone who abuses their dog with a crime since Cyprus has animal cruelty laws, and the seastead is legally part of Cyprus.

    You see, you cannot build the government/society you want if you are under the legal umbrella of another government/society. If the seastead based on the libertarian model failed you can’t say it is because libertarian societies aren’t stable.

    If you are lucky you might find a country that is pretty close to the type of government/society you want to create. But if your seastead is so similar to an existing country why wouldn’t you just live in that existing country? What would be the point of spending hundreds of millions of dollars building a floating city that flies the flag of Barbados when you could just take those hundreds of millions of dollars and live like a king in Barbados? We don’t need floating cities that are just pieces of existing systems…we need new systems so we can let market forces determine which systems are best.

    Melllvar wrote:
    Not posting this just cause I like to argue, but if sovereignty really isn’t an option, this would be the next best thing until there are enough seasteads to make sovereignty inevitable.

    I’m glad you posted it. I just don’t see sovereignty as “inevitable” regardless of how many seasteads there are. The only chance is if a precedent is set where artificial islands are granted the same status as land. This might happen sooner than we think if low-lying island nations like the Maldives eventually disappear beneath rising ocean levels. If they bulk up their land to keep it above the water that could set a precedent for building actual land on low-lying areas like Minerva or Saya de Malha. But until that happens I don’t see any other way to get real sovereignty without having real land to call your own.

    #9562
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    Here’s an excellent article on how the Maldives are looking to purchase a new homeland:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/10/maldives-climate-change

    They aren’t even considering piling dirt and rocks up on their existing homeland, so that shows how much faith there is in artificial islands being recognized as land. But it does show the idea of buying a homeland isn’t that crazy. The Maldives have a little more money to work with than we do, but we don’t need as much land as they do.

    Come on, Peter Thiel has a net worth of $1.3 BILLION. If he used all that money I’m sure we could buy one hell of a nice homeland. I’d even vote for him for president-for-life!!

    #9563
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    If you call yourself a REVOLUTIONARY then stop crying about the “legality” of the whole seasteading idea and start acting like one. You are coming across more like a REFORMIST….and to be honest, a pathetic one.

    SEASTEADING doesnt need permission from no government or nation. SEASTEADERS will build their OWN nation and territory as a floating island, will decide on their OWN as what “laws” to follow, will elect their OWN “government”, will navigate wherever they want on the high seas on their SEASTEAD, and definately will never be boarded by no vessel of any nation (even a man-of-war), against their OWN will. All of this will happen because there is a UNIVERSAL right of SELF-DETERMINATION since the SEASTEAD WILL BE the territory (regardless if you agree or not)

    Self-determination is the free choice of one’s own acts without external compulsion. In politics it is seen as the freedom of the people of a given territory or national grouping to determine their own political status and how they will be governed without undue influence from any other country.

    All you have to do is pick a side and stop bitching about the seasteading “problems”. There are no problems, only solutions dude.

    P.S. I dont know Peter Thiel, but his actions speak for himself. In contrast to you, he seems to be a very generos and determined man when it comes to seasteading. Instead of telling him what to do with his money you should learn from his example and start supporting the whole idea and stop this mambo jumbo bull shit nonsense that he should build a seastead for you dude. Get real.

    #9564
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    Two other interesting links on the Maldives situation:

    http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/200912/maldive-islands-global-warming-male?printable=true

    http://opiniojuris.org/2008/11/13/small-sovereign-archipelago-seeks-new-elevated-homeland/

    A nice quote from the second link:

    International law has long recognized various ways for states to acquire territorial sovereignty: conquest, discovery, occupation, accretion, cession, or prescription. Of these, the Maldives’ adherence to the UN Charter (not to mention international law more generally) takes conquest off the table. Discovery alone or combined with occupation are still technically available options, but good luck finding terra nullius that you can claim as your own. And accretion–the expansion of existing land masses through geological changes–appears to be the opposite of what’s actually happening to the Maldives. That leaves prescription or cession as possibilities. Cession would require the consent of the state that currently has territorial sovereignty over the purchased land to cede that sovereignty to the Maldives along with ownership of the purchased property. *SNIP* Finally, there is the possibility of prescription–holding control over some territory peacefully for a sufficient period of time that territorial sovereignty gets recognized, even if there was no otherwise legal foundation for doing so.

    It seems that cession would be the only option open to anyone looking to attain sovereign territory.

    #9565
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    OCEANOPOLIS wrote:
    SEASTEADING doesnt need permission from no government or nation. SEASTEADERS will build their OWN nation and territory as a floating island, will decide on their OWN as what “laws” to follow, will elect their OWN “government”, will navigate wherever they want on the high seas on their SEASTEAD, and definately will never be boarded by no vessel of any nation (even a man-of-war), against their OWN will. All of this will happen because there is a UNIVERSAL right of SELF-DETERMINATION since the SEASTEAD WILL BE the territory (regardless if you agree or not)

    Dude, I don’t use this word often…but you are a moron. Your “I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ badges” mentality is immature, reckless, and stupid. If you are North Korea, with the full backing of China behind you, then you can get away with not getting boarded. But your little nationless, unregistered floating island is going to be made an example of by any and every “man-of-war” in the area. And seriously, when the hell was the last time there was a man-o’-war in the ocean…unless you mean the jellyfish.

    You might be able to fight against a jellyfish, but what are you going to do when that U.S. warship comes within 500m and demands to see your Certificate of Registry? Are you going to grab a bullhorn and shout “There is a universal right of self-determination! We won’t be boarded against our will!!!!” Good luck with that…I hope you enjoy spending time in a ship’s brig.

    You can go on-and-on all day long about how your floating platform is territory, but unfortunately closing your eyes and wishing doesn’t make it so. There is no legal or diplomatic case for calling artificial islands or installations territory…in fact there is plenty of existing examples that show they are not “territory”. So unless you can show me a realistic way that a floating platform can be considered territory then you have no case.

    OCEANOPOLIS wrote:
    you should learn from his example and start supporting the whole idea and stop this mambo jumbo bull shit nonsense that he should build a seastead for you dude. Get real.

    Like I said, you are a moron. I never said he should build me a seastead. I said he should found a new nation which would then allow me….and anyone else….to build and run their own seasteads however they want. Come on…the man is a BILLIONARE!!!! He doesn’t have a seastead, how do you expect to get one? He doesn’t have one because, until this issue of sovereignty is solved, there is NO POINT in building any.

    #9573
    Avatar of Melllvar
    Melllvar
    Participant

    Long weekend, not enough sleep, then too much sleep, took me a while to respond…

    i_is_j_smith wrote:

    I think there are two parts to it. If you fly the flag of another nation over your seastead you are actually just a part of that nation. In this you are no different from that hippie commune in the U.S. You can pretend that you are free but deep down you know that if you start stockpiling weapons, or failing to pay your taxes, the man will come for you. This is a purely philosophical thing, but important none-the-less I believe. Every decision you make regarding the physical or legal infrastructure of your seastead has to take the host nation into consideration. Therefore it isn’t a good experiment in what makes a good government or society because there are outside variables affecting the results.

    The main issue is legal. If you fly the flag of another nation you are bound by the laws of that nation, so citizens of your seastead are not bound by any laws (or lack thereof) that you put in place on your seastead.

    Let’s say that I want to build my seastead around a purely anarchist model, but I’m flying under the flag of the Bahamas Maritime Authority. My seastead is legally part of the Bahamas, and therefore all actions that happen on my seastead are covered by British common law. So how can I have an anarchist seastead government when everyone is actually covered by an existing legal code?

    Another example: I want to design my seastead government around pure equality for all…equal rights for men and women in every way. Yet my seastead is registered with Liberia, which has no laws on the books preventing sexual harassment. So on my seastead no woman can sue a man who sexually harasses her regardless of whatever laws I want to pass on my seastead.

    Another example: I want to create a society on my seastead based around an extreme libertarian ideal of property rights. In this society animals are the property of their owners. There can be no laws preventing anyone from abusing their animals because that would be the owners right since property rights are sacrosanct. But if my seastead is registered in Cyprus then I can charge someone who abuses their dog with a crime since Cyprus has animal cruelty laws, and the seastead is legally part of Cyprus.

    You see, you cannot build the government/society you want if you are under the legal umbrella of another government/society. If the seastead based on the libertarian model failed you can’t say it is because libertarian societies aren’t stable.

    If you are lucky you might find a country that is pretty close to the type of government/society you want to create. But if your seastead is so similar to an existing country why wouldn’t you just live in that existing country? What would be the point of spending hundreds of millions of dollars building a floating city that flies the flag of Barbados when you could just take those hundreds of millions of dollars and live like a king in Barbados? We don’t need floating cities that are just pieces of existing systems…we need new systems so we can let market forces determine which systems are best.

    Would a country not be willing to make an agreement to let you exist flying their flag but legally existing under somewhat different laws? In that case just find a country with laws fairly similar to what you’re looking for and get them to agree to disregard certain things you’re doing half a planet away. Find some incentive to offer them in return. Make this a public agreement under their legal system, so they can’t screw you over without atleast some bad PR. Starting with a tax haven would probably be the easiest, since most countries aren’t going to want to let you mess with their tax rates (they’ll let you make drugs or break labor laws long before they’ll let you mess with their income, would be my guess). There’s also the question of whether you could skirt two legal systems by being a citizen of one state and flying the flag of another… as I hinted at in my last post, could someone be a citizen of a given country for a certain tax rate, but be exempt from their laws when out of the country, and fly the flag of a country they don’t have citizenship in so that its laws will apply on their boat? I have no clue, but that would seem to be another option.

    Of course, there’s only so many countries in the world, and only so many that might be willing to assist something like this. Certain groups might not be able to get exactly what they want, which certainly wouldn’t make for the best experiment I agree. On the other hand, we have NO seasteads right now, other than corporate owned oil platforms and cruise ships, if you want to include those. Some new options would certainly be better than none. Plus, a small number of seasteads (aka new societies) won’t make for a very good experiment anyway. If one society of a given type fails you can say it was for whatever reason, in order to see that type A is better than type B we’d need some statistical data on a large number of each type. So for a good experiment you need a large number of seasteads, and by that point I expect seasteads would be enough of an economic and political force to demand independent rights from the international community. Why don’t you see it as inevitable? Its likely that in 50 to 100 years we’ll have hundreds, if not thousands, of some type of seastead (large platform, spar, etc.), with tons of people living and working on them and probably bringing in a good portion of the world’s fish and energy. Either I’m living in a sci-fi fantasy or its only a matter of time until seasteads have the same sort of clout with governments that large corporations do today.

    i_is_j_smith wrote:

    Come on…the man is a BILLIONARE!!!! He doesn’t have a seastead, how do you expect to get one? He doesn’t have one because, until this issue of sovereignty is solved, there is NO POINT in building any.

    Actually, I think he doesn’t have his own seastead because it seems questionable that building one right now will be very profitable. That’s what proving the viability of a seastead based cosmetic surgery center has to do with seasteading. Until its shown that a seastead can make money, why would any halfway sane investor put millions behind one? TSI’s research obviously has a lot to potentially offer their larger backers, which I expect is why they were able to get such nice funding in the first place, and I expect those guys (Mr. Thiel included) will be the first seastead builders and operators. This is of course good for all the rest of us, since it’ll at the very least lower the price of the technology and get expensive research out of the way, and hopefully offer more options with regard to social/legal/governmental systems.

    #9574
    Avatar of Melllvar
    Melllvar
    Participant

    Melllvar wrote:

    Plus, a small number of seasteads (aka new societies) won’t make for a very good experiment anyway. If one society of a given type fails you can say it was for whatever reason, in order to see that type A is better than type B we’d need some statistical data on a large number of each type. So for a good experiment you need a large number of seasteads

    Wanted to add that I’ve wondered if the “true experiment in government” would show that the most efficient, productive, long lasting ones tend to have a very harsh, totalitarian style rule. Theoretically everyone would leave, but a small group of well compensated individuals might be able to continue out-producing other nations forced to handle larger, more diverse populations with fewer options for managing them. At the very least, its by no means certain that there’s a linear scale for success in government, or that the most desirable ones will be stable long-term. I’m pretty much speculating on the outcome of something that’s never been tried though, and this is off topic anyway, I just wanted to mention it before I forgot again.

    #9575
    Avatar of Shouri
    Shouri
    Participant

    No one would actually leave (exceptions: liberterians and anarchists perhaps) as long as they prosper. This subject has being experimented on through all history it is not a new thing. New thing about this isn’t new governments but to make existing government ideas work efficiently that should otherwise fail to work when implemented to existing societies in modern world by creating new societies. Doing it so is simple, no libertarian would live in a totalitarian society perhaps but i am sure there are people thousands or perhaps millions of people who would prefer living in a totalitarian system (provided that the adminstration is working efficiently). And i do think such system would be more productive in almost every aspect when compared to humanitarian systems. We don’t need to sum 2 numbers with our fingers we can simulate the equation and find the result without physical examination of the process. The question of which government is more efficient? It isn’t that hard of an equation, I’m sure we can simulate the question and find the answer to it as well. But i guess physical proof will be neccesary afterall since people have other business’ than to think about which government is more efficient. That is why we need new societies via seasteading or by some other means.

    Returning to subject, there is no way a single person or a family can claim sovereignity(and be welcomed by authorities) anyways so if you were dreaming to have your own sovereign family-seastead you are simply right, but when the subject changes to a big society it gets alot more complicated. When people are already residing in a permanent coordinate and sustaining their life from that very spot be it land or sea or even underwater i do believe there is a light of hope. It is really hard to move people from where they live(if it is their permanent resident) History showed us well that societies can survive in really odd spots, like tribes in africa, many tribes traverse country borders as if its just a bush, they don’t care which country claims them as their citizens, they see themselves as X tribe and they move the same way as they did in past millenia(or maybe for longer) it is really hard for a country to stop them moving the way they like, it is also really hard to make them pay any tax. They may be seen as Y country’s citizens to whole world but that doesn’t change the fact that they are sovereign. Don’t think this example is an exception and doesnt apply to developed countries, such examples are all around the world. In Europe,Asia,Mid East, Africa, South America… and perhaps such examples still exist in rural States of America like Alaska, there are actually societies with almost full autonomy everywhere around the globe in many countries, i do accept they are either nomadic or only little settlements though. As long as a seasteading community is respectful to neighbouring countries rights, as long as seastead is favored by global public (constant documentaries about seasteads updating public on the subject might be helpful) no one would like to mess with you except for villains in the sea.

    #9580
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    Melllvar wrote:
    Would a country not be willing to make an agreement to let you exist flying their flag but legally existing under somewhat different laws? In that case just find a country with laws fairly similar to what you’re looking for and get them to agree to disregard certain things you’re doing half a planet away.

    That certainly might be possible, but I would be concerned that a change in the host nation’s government could screw you over. Even if you found a country that would let you do this you are always only one election (or coup) away from having everything change on you. Then you are in big trouble. But I doubt you would find a country that would let you you do this anyway.

    The standard I’ve been using is to compare the seastead to a community inside the host country…like a hippie commune or the like. Would a nation allow a large group of people to start a commune inside their borders in which certain laws don’t apply? I doubt it. I know the seastead is half a world away, but it is still under the rule of the host nation and they don’t like people messing with the application of their laws.

    But this is basically what I am proposing in this thread. I am not proposing that every seastead be it’s own sovereign nation…I don’t think that is possible. I am proposing that TSI create one sovereign nation and then let all seasteads fly under it’s flag so they are protected under international law from interference by other nations. This “TSI Nation” would only have the most minimal set of laws so as to comply with international rules of conduct (no WMDs, etc) but would allow all seasteads to operate under whatever governmental system they wanted with little or no oversight.

    Melllvar wrote:
    There’s also the question of whether you could skirt two legal systems by being a citizen of one state and flying the flag of another… as I hinted at in my last post, could someone be a citizen of a given country for a certain tax rate, but be exempt from their laws when out of the country

    When you are on a vessel flying the flag of a certain country it is no different than if you are in a city in that country…you are bound by all the laws of the country regardless of your citizenship. You retain your actual citizenship for tax and nationality purposes but you must comply by all the laws of the country you are in. If you are a U.S. citizen living and working on a seastead flying a French flag you must still pay all your taxes to the U.S. and you can vote in U.S. elections, but you will be judged under French law for all legal purposes.

    Melllvar wrote:
    So for a good experiment you need a large number of seasteads, and by that point I expect seasteads would be enough of an economic and political force to demand independent rights from the international community. Why don’t you see it as inevitable?

    I don’t think you need a large number of seasteads for a good experiment, because we already have all the existing nations of the world to compare to. If people are choosing to live in an existing nation rather than your libertarian seastead then it gives you a good idea. Also if that libertarian seastead devolves into uncontrolled chaos after a year or two then you also have some pretty good data. It all depends on how you design the experiment.

    I don’t see large numbers of seasteads happening because 1) I believe they are going to be incredibly expensive so I don’t see them being built in large numbers, and 2) if we don’t get this sovereignty issue resolved there will be no point in building them, and I don’t see the issue being solved anytime soon.

    And even if there are hundreds or thousands of seasteads floating around that doesn’t mean they will have any influence on the global stage. Think of it this way: even if there were thousands of refitted cruise ships floating around, with hundreds of people on each one living and working, do you think that you could talk the existing nations into recognizing each cruise ship as a sovereign nation? I don’t think so, and in the eyes of the global community there is no difference between a spar seastead and a cruise ship.

    Melllvar wrote:
    Actually, I think he doesn’t have his own seastead because it seems questionable that building one right now will be very profitable.

    I have never seen the issue of seasteading as one of profit. I don’t think seasteads will ever be profitable in a commercial sense. What they are is a way to escape from the impending disaster that is the current situation in the world and start something new. I would have hoped that Thiel invested in seasteading because he saw the chance to prove libertarianism was a viable method of running a society, and that seasteading has the chance to change the world. Maybe I’m being naive, but I hope not.

    #9581
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    Melllvar wrote:
    Wanted to add that I’ve wondered if the “true experiment in government” would show that the most efficient, productive, long lasting ones tend to have a very harsh, totalitarian style rule.

    I don’t agree with the “harsh” part, but I certainly do agree that you would probably find the most efficient, productive, and long-lasting ones would tend to be totalitarian.

    There have been plenty of “totalitarian” rulers who were quite enlightened and worked for the greater good rather than their own benefit. These rulers made great strides in bettering the situation of the lowest citizens.

    Most often they failed because the existing, entrenched power systems (nobles, aristocracy, etc) didn’t take kindly to the status quo being disrupted and worked hard to bring about the downfall of the ruler…or undue all their works once they died.

    But yes…back onto the topic at hand….

    #9582
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    OCEANOPOLIS wrote:
    Somehow it seems that you cannot comprehend what I am talking about,

    I have no trouble seeing your point. You say that a floating platform can be considered “territory” when it comes to achieving sovereignty. I disagree. I have several examples that show that existing nations will not recognize “artificial islands” or “installations” as territory when it comes to assigning nationhood. Please show me any examples or data or anything that proves otherwise.

    I’m begging you, because that was my plan all along and now I don’t see that plan as being realistic. If there is some error in my logic then please show it to me. And I’m sorry, but an entry from Wiktionary will get you as far in a court as a soft fart.

    OCEANOPOLIS wrote:
    But one mistake Smitty does is that is that he equates “land” with “territory”.

    It’s not a mistake, it is the way the world works. Just because you think a floating platform is territory doesn’t mean anyone else in the world will. It won’t work that way just because you think it should.

    OCEANOPOLIS wrote:
    Latin territorium, from terra the earth

    There’s your first clue…

    OCEANOPOLIS wrote:

    1. A large extent or tract of land; a region; a country; a district.
    2. A geographic area under control of a single governing entity such as state or municipality; an area whose borders are determined by the scope of political power rather than solely by natural features such as rivers and ridges.

    By using the 2nd definition of “territory”,

    First of all, who says the second definition is the right one…you? Second, the second definition says territory is an “area under control of a single governing entity such as a state”. So your seastead cannot claim territory unless it is already a state. Territory is something a state controls. A seastead cannot claim territory until it is a state. See the problem?

    OCEANOPOLIS wrote:
    Then launch and go.

    Oh, it’s that simple huh? Just “launch and go”. You leave out around two hundred billion steps after that. Like “what do you do when nobody decides to recognize your sovereignty and a U.S. anti-terrorism boarding team demands to arrest you and take you into custody”. Or “another vessel decides to start fishing in what you claim is your EEZ and you try to stop them, but nobody else recognizes your EEZ claims because they don’t recognize your sovereignty”. If it were all as easy as “launch and go” then there would be seasteads dotting the oceans, and last time I checked there are zero.

    I don’t see any way that a floating platform or spar, even a large one with lots of people, will ever in any way be considered territory by anyone else in the world. There is plenty of existing evidence that this is the case. So show me any evidence that the international community would be willing to accept an artificial island or installation as sovereign territory and I, and my one remaining neuron and titanium balls, will be very happy.

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 159 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate