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 Profile photo of Altaica Altaica 4 years ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 121 through 135 (of 159 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #9583
    Profile photo of Shouri
    Shouri
    Participant

    A little earth sure does make things easier, there is no doubt about that but states see Sovereing Order of Malta and Holy See as sovereign states distinct from any other state including vatican, even a building might be sovereign sometimes with the underground infrastructure belonging to another state. If you have a well administered government as well as permanent residents in your territory, artificial island or giantstead or whatever, you might be able to pull it off but there are lotsa tricks to it and it requires really big amounts of cash. You may take immigrants from Africa or from regions which recently suffered from Natural Disasters and use this to increase your positive publicity. If your wannabe state is seen as a respectful bunch of people living on a seastead/artificial island and if you have the means to communicate with other states in a diplomatic manner your sovereignity might be realized or at least it makes relations with states easier. Also you can make other states accept you as a state with simply buying their approval, you can offer nearby states some priviliges(humanitarian aid perhaps, depends on where you start your society though and how much money you got), you can share your technology/money to slow down the effects of global warming in their homes, you can use all these for positive publicity (and there are alot more stuff u can use like greenpeace) to present yourself as a respectful ‘organization’ (yes an organization not a state, other states will decide if you are a state or not actually and this doesn’t change even if you have land. But if these are somehow impossible then we’ll just have to create our own landbased sovereign state(even a building will do as long as some states accept the fact that our state is sovereign). There are lots of stateless people in Africa, hundreds of thousands of them, just choose the most intelligent and educated ones and move them to ‘Bir Tawil’ (passing borders isn’t actually hard there) make some caverns in one of the two local rocky mountains, invest money on infrastructure to store water (there is plenty of water there in winters), buy some high quality solar panels, (wind tribunes wont do any good, wind speed isnt stabile at all down there)..shortly create a sustainable society there without showing yourself to your neighbours. (its pretty easy to carve those stone mountains strangely, so u can actually make huge caves with little effort). Start your diplomatic effort as soon as u have permanent residents, use religion, language to your advantage, accept both italian and french or perhaps more languages as your official language, talk with Vatican/Holy See, Israel, Arabia. Create a little ‘cosmopolit’ town with different religious buildings, where little educated people are being refined with fine(!?) European Culture, use mass media and show them the benefits of your project, ‘Many starving people were saved, they were given higher livings standards(education,heatlh care…), in our perfectly equal (gender,religious,ethnicity,language) little town, not only humans but even animals can’t be killed in this town all food products including meat are created artifically with almost 0 carbon emission.Petroleum and any susbstance produced from petroleum via methods which causes any kind of pollution is banned(even plasticware, tires etc). Desertifaction in the are decreased when compared to previous years, etc.etc.etc.. Nice fantasy yeah ;) but well it’s one of the few ways to create a sovereign state (there are hundreds of hurdles though, still it’s doable) still as i’ve previously said in one of my comments planning the creation of country isn’t really hard (yes it isn’t even if you are doing it in perfect detail) hard part is to find enough money, it is all about money.

    We should just focus on to creating wealth from our ideas so that one day we might actually make our dreams or ambitions reality. Sadly this system is all about money and we have to abide by this fact (my personal opinion). What I am saying is there is a point in seasteading, because it is ‘different’. Floating Coast houses, casinos, hotels etc… these will all contribute to our databanks, they are priceless experiences, scientific/rational method is to do things step by step, and making big dreams like creating a sovereign state reality (yes it is a big dream even if it is building sized ;) needs those steps as they contribute to project (dream,ambition) both technically and monetarily.

    #9584
    Profile photo of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    to create a new country, from Sealand to the Minerva Republic, etc, have failed because they have 2 things in common:

    • they have tried to do that inside the territorial water or EEZ of existing nations.
    • or, they have tried yo do that by “attaching” their “instalation” to the seabed.

    And they all got booted.

    I hope that we ALL can @ least agree on this one…If we try to do the same with seasteading, we will fail too. There is no doubt in my mind about it. Even if we will find some small island nation in South Pacific who will grant us permission to anchor or build our Seastead inside their EEZ (of course, in exchange for some annual payout) that will be a failure,…because thats no freedom.

    Now, Mr. Smith, you said “Please show me any examples or data or anything that proves otherwise.” I cant man, because, as you and I know, they all failed, for the reasoned I described above. But that doesnt mean that seasteading is going to fail, because I hope we wont make this 2 mistakes and history wont be repeted,…Therefore the only logical conclusion to me is to go with the floating seasteads on the high seas. And seasteading in this format has never been tried or done before! There is no precedent in maritime and international law, where a group of people have build a floating island, organize themselves, elected a government and a system of laws, raise a flag of their own choice, considered this floating island unalienable theirs (since they build it), and sail it around the world on the high seas. All this, done in a peacefull manner, respectfull of the maritime law and the rest of the international laws defines a seasteading nation.

    Let me remind you here of the Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention, which is most of the time overlooked, but defines very explicit that the political existence of a state is independant of the recognition by the other states.

    Another misconception is that somebody is “patroling” the high seas giving tickets..lol. The reality is that no nation has jurisdiction, mostly everybody is well behaved out there and we will be left alone. Most of the comercial ships wont even stop or call, since they have a ETA deadline to meet for the next port of call to unload their cargo. The Navy (American one, dont do inspections, and most of these good ol’boys skippers dont care,( unless we are involved in piracy or drug smuggling). Since a oceangoing seastead should be @ around 400′-500′ or more and have 300+ crew and guests, it will be a destination to be checked out (not a threat) even by the navy ships (any navy of any nation). I wont be surprised if they’ll pull alongside for happy hours, Cuban cigars, and start chasing some of the “local” chicks.(could be good business)

    Yes, the Coast Guard has the” right” to stop and board any American documented or registered vessel anywhere on any ocean, (I wont even go into how unconstitutional this so call “right” is, etc) but they have no rights whatsoever when it comes to a foreign flaged vessel navigating on the high seas. None, zero. Nobody will “impound” a 500′ seastead floating island w/crews and passangers from all over the world aboard,1500nm in the midlle of the Pacific, Smith. It will be a diplomatic embarrasment & a fiasco. I will bet you money on that, lol. We will be left alone.

    Now, what “US terrorism boarding team” are you talking ’bout dude? Pls stop watching Fox News,…Plssssssss. We are minding our business in the midlle of the ocean, man,…

    I never said that we will claim an EEZ. Its imposible. Against UNCLOS. No way man. It will be a diplomatic mistake and if we do so, then they will really jump on our ass. Be happy with the freedoms you’ll have onboard the seastead and keep a low profile regarding international affairs.

    Just the fact that the other contries wont accept us that means nothing. And by the way, why do you think so? YOU show me proof that we wont be accepted, since YOU belive so. Its just a speculation of YOUR part since YOU belive so, but there is no basis to that.

    I BELIVE THE OPPOSITE, THAT THE WHOLE IDEA WILL BE EMBRACED ALLOVER THE WORLD. I CANT PROVE IT. THE ONLY THING I CAN DO IS TRY. THEN, I WILL FIND OUT.

    #9587
    Profile photo of tusavision
    tusavision
    Participant

    This entire discussion is just wanking until we have the engineering solved, and we’re not the ones to be having it.

    Build the damn thing as you see fit, and then let lawyers and publicists and politicians deal with this garbage.

    A seastead that can’t justify it’s existance without sovereignty is a waste of time anyway, as the novelty of a libertarian oasis is insufficient reason for a seastead to exist.

    Build a floating casino wherever you want, and it will be sovereign by popular support when some government does something retarded.

    (and I swear to god if I hear one more time some unsubstantiated assertion that a floating casino isn’t “elligible” for territory status-> I’m going to blow my fucking brains out.)

    As if there is some international authority to make such a decision! There isn’t. It’s the wild wild west out there, and the Sherriff is helpless to do more than make suggestions and make examples out of unlucky schmucks.

    You can put on your robe and lawyer hat and cast cynical missle all god damned day: it’s not going to do one bit of good to convince me that international law is written in stone.

    As for flags: register it as a commercial fishing vessle for now and get over yourself.

    There’s no problem in the short term which can’t be solved by the Secretary of State and a Chamber of Commerce. When the thing makes enough money to pick up it’s ball and fuck off you can build a new sovereign one in Minerva or Hawaii of right on top of Sealand for all I care. (or sail away if it’s mobile.)

    When you need my naval mines to defend yourself I’ll be waiting with some open source blueprints and a heaping helping of humble pie.

    #9588
    Profile photo of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    OCEANOPOLIS wrote:
    to create a new country, from Sealand to the Minerva Republic, etc, have failed because they have 2 things in common:

    • they have tried to do that inside the territorial water or EEZ of existing nations.
    • or, they have tried yo do that by “attaching” their “instalation” to the seabed.

    And they all got booted.

    Actually both those points are wrong. Sealand, as well as Rose Island, were founded before UNCLOS so they were in international waters at the time. Minerva was well outside any EEZ, and Hilbertz’s attempts at the Saya de Malha Bank were also outside of any EEZ. Both the Minerva and Saya de Malha attempts were actually trying to grow the existing land above the waterline, so they were as close to actual “land” as you can get. They were not “installations” as defined by UNCLOS. The question is whether they are considered “artificial islands” or actual land. Since most of the islands built up by mechanical means in the Persian Gulf are considered “artificial islands” in regards to UNCLOS (they don’t have any impact on borders or marine boundaries) then I would guess that any island built up by manual methods would also be considered “artificial islands” and thus ineligible for sovereign status.

    But you have a better chance of making your case to the international community that your “artificial island” made of rock and sand piled on top of existing shallow areas is “territory” than you do with a floating platform. There is no doubt that a floating platform is considered an “installation” and it will never be given sovereign status.

    OCEANOPOLIS wrote:
    I hope that we ALL can @ least agree on this one

    Yes, any seastead attempt needs to be outside the influence of any existing nation. That means outside of any EEZ and not flying the flag of any country that will impose its laws and regulations on it.

    OCEANOPOLIS wrote:
    Now, Mr. Smith, you said “Please show me any examples or data or anything that proves otherwise.” I cant man, because, as you and I know, they all failed, for the reasoned I described above.

    You insist that it would be possible to claim a floating platform as “territory”. Sure, you can just build it and try your luck…but that is an incredible risk to take. A seastead will cost tens, probably hundreds, of millions of dollars to build. How can you invest that kind of money into a project just on the hope that it will work? Nobody will invest their money on a risk like that.

    So when I ask for examples I mean, show me how you could make the argument that a floating seastead can be claimed as territory. Pretend I’m thinking about investing $100 million into your project, but I want to make sure my money is going to result in a viable sovereign seastead. How would you convince me to give you my money? If you tell me “We’ll just build it and go for it” then I will keep my money safe in my pocket.

    OCEANOPOLIS wrote:
    Let me remind you here of the Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention, which is most of the time overlooked, but defines very explicit that the political existence of a state is independant of the recognition by the other states.

    Yes, but that just means that once you meet the four criteria set down in Article 1 you are automatically a sovereign country under international law, regardless of whether other states recognize you. You still have to meet those four criteria…

    OCEANOPOLIS wrote:
    Another misconception is that somebody is “patroling” the high seas giving tickets..lol. The reality is that no nation has jurisdiction, mostly everybody is well behaved out there and we will be left alone.

    You are correct that “no nation has jurisdiction”, but there certainly are people out there on patrol. This is the age of the War on Terrorism and everyone has their guard up. There are many, many examples of ships being stopped, boarded, and inspected by warships from several nations including the U.S. and Spain. In most cases that is because the ship wasn’t properly registered (i.e. flagless). There are even cases of ships flying a proper flag being boarded and inspected, but most of those cases were done with the full authorization of the captain and because there was solid evidence that the ship was breaking international law, such as smuggling weapons against UN sanctions. If you are behaving yourself then yes, you will be left alone. But if you are not properly registered…i.e. flying the flag of a recognized, sovereign nation…then they will assume you are up to no good and will board and inspect you.

    OCEANOPOLIS wrote:
    but they have no rights whatsoever when it comes to a foreign flaged vessel navigating on the high seas. None, zero. Nobody will “impound” a 500′ seastead floating island w/crews and passangers from all over the world aboard,1500nm in the midlle of the Pacific, Smith. It will be a diplomatic embarrasment & a fiasco. I will bet you money on that, lol. We will be left alone.

    That is exactly correct, they cannot interfere with a “flaged vessel”. But your seastead is not a “foreign flaged vessel”. You have said several times that you will claim your seastead is a sovereign nation, but since nobody will recognize that claim it will be considered a nationless vessel flying no flag and will have no protections from interference on the high seas. The only way you will be left alone if you are registered with an existing sovereign nation. My point is that TSI should be that nation…we shouldn’t just make do with the flag from Nigeria or the Bahamas.

    OCEANOPOLIS wrote:
    Now, what “US terrorism boarding team” are you talking ’bout dude? Pls stop watching Fox News,…Plssssssss.

    This one: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/129593

    Or this one: http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_01-02/yemen_janfeb03

    And this one: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/world/asia/17korea.html Granted, they never actually boarded the ship…but they were prepared to board and inspect if they were given permission.

    You should also read up on the “Proliferation Security Initiative”. There are active task forces out there ready to board, inspect, and arrest if need be.

    OCEANOPOLIS wrote:
    I never said that we will claim an EEZ. Its imposible. Against UNCLOS.

    You claim your seastead will be a sovereign nation under Montevideo. According to UNCLOS all sovereign nations get territorial waters and an EEZ. So claiming an EEZ is not against UNCLOS if your seastead is a sovereign nation. So is your seastead a sovereign nation or not?

    OCEANOPOLIS wrote:
    Just the fact that the other contries wont accept us that means nothing.

    It means everything. If they won’t accept you then they will treat you like an unflagged ship and you will have no protections on the high seas.

    OCEANOPOLIS wrote:
    And by the way, why do you think so? YOU show me proof that we wont be accepted, since YOU belive so. Its just a speculation of YOUR part since YOU belive so, but there is no basis to

    Why don’t I think a seastead can be a sovereign nation? I said it before, it’s about the land. Floating platforms do not get their own territorial waters, and they don’t have any impact on the coastlines or borders of the nations that build them. Kansai International Airport is a great example…it is a large floating platform and it has no impact on the marine or land borders of Japan. You can also look at the artificial islands built by Dubai, including the Palm Islands and The World. None of those had any impact on the borders or coastline of Dubai.

    There is some hope in the fact that there are many land reclaimation projects around the world where land was built up above the waterline…so land that was once underwater now becomes sovereign territory. But all of those projects are land that is already within the borders of existing sovereign countries so there is no legal basis there…although it is the best argument for saying a Minerva or Saya de Malha would be possible. But again, that is existing land built up by adding more land….not floating platforms.

    Like I said before, do you ever think a cruise ship could claim it was a sovereign nation? If not, then what makes you think a 500′ concrete platform could?

    #9590
    Profile photo of Shouri
    Shouri
    Participant

    Actually i do think a cruise ship might be granted sovereignity if certain conditions are met. Idea of sovereignity is still blurry in todays international Law, think of a ship granting humanitarian aid to people in need in 3rd world countries, with such positive publicity you might be granted some right similar to an authentic sovereign state, but it requires further conditions like having the ability get in touch with other sovereign entities in a diplomatic manner and you must have a government like administrative body, somthing similar to a big company should be sufficient enough in my opinion though, as long as states declare that you are free to wander in high seas as you wish i guess that should be enough for you, i mean all we ask is freedom afterall, if you sell all your belongings in a country how can that country take taxes from you anyways? (Assuming you can not renounce your citizenship since our cruise ship isnt seen as a sovereign state, but as long as they leave that cruise ship alone thats ok for us i guess) So think of your seastead like a big cruiseship, let publicity know your purpose, it might be eco-research in oceans+humanitarian aid to island nation in pacific perhaps, or you can even build a desalination plant in your ship and give low priced water to countries in need for humanitarian aid. A cruise ship like that can gain enough positive publicity from whole world and i’m quite sure no one will mess with such a ship, and all these doesnt mean you are only charity, you can still make money, you can get donations from whole world, you can use your research for income too. There are many lines of business that can easily adapt to cruise life, you dont even need to dock your ship for resupplies if you actually manage to create something sustainable.

    I end up explaining my idas awfully long and it seems i’m repeating myself, sigh… All seasteading needs is positive publicity. Seasteading made wealth for x country, Seasteads helped y country who recently suffered from natural disaster by taking immigrants and giving them shelter/work, Seasteads gave humanitarian aid to War-Refugees in z country, Seasteads have positive impact on worlds carbon emmision without demanding carbon credits, Seasteads are perfectly green even better they enrich the ecosystem they are in. Seasteads ‘Mutualist symbiots!’. Seasteading Scientists discovers a way to clone organs bypassing immune systems of hosts (seasteads won’t suffer from ethical arguements of cloning, and when people gets results it somehow turns into positive publicity even if it was condamned earlier, such enviroment is what science needs and bio-medical companies will love to have a labs in seasteads i guess), Seastead Casino&Hotel a High Seas fantasy, a prefect holiday, Ecologically concious Greenpeace member starts to live onboard a seastead, Seasteads helped the sinking cruiseship passengers, a catastrophe was avoided thanks to helpful local seasteads.

    What seasteading needs/will need are these kinds of news/advertisments/sponsors/accidents.

    1st solve engineering problems and find a cost effective solution which is prefectly applicable.

    2nd make enough advertisment and find sponsors for construction.

    3rd Further increase your publicity by any means possible and start to earn cash little by little

    4th unkown future…Either become a sovereign state or something similar with almost statelike autonomy.

    Ofcourse this only works if all seasteads and their owners are same type of people with similar agenda, so it’s not likely all kinds of seasteads will have international priviliges concerning the matter of sovereignity, some can even cause negative publicity, drug hubs, brothels etc…(they will have lotsa fans but it is still a minority, most people/nation living on this planet will be offended by their presence even if you and i don’t)

    Engineers and designers should focus on technical details yes, but there are people who have knowledge and expertise in laws around there are people with money watching the development of this and similar projects, seeing them as potential investments and investors tend to start sentences with the word ‘How’ this might be how can we do it, how efficient it will be, how much it will cost, how do we make it so that we don’t have to pay tax etc. etc. not all questions regarding the seasteads are related to engineering, While engineers&designers do their thing others will continue to do what they always do; debate, criticise, share their ideas, solve non-technical issiues in theory or in practice… Designers, Architects, Investors, Lawyers, Public and so many others whine to each other when a massive project is launched, Cost, viability of the solution, efficiency of the solution, possibility of the project being succesful, social problems it will cause and hundreds of more topics are debated, engineering is but an only step of a project. Don’t think i am looking down on engineers in fact i do believe engineering is the most important topic in any project but still… Anyways this is why we have enginering thread, this is dreaming of crazy ideas, such threads like this are only here to increase publicity but it is vitally necessary.

    #9591
    Profile photo of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    tusavision wrote:
    This entire discussion is just wanking until we have the engineering solved, and we’re not the ones to be having it.

    Again, I disagree. There is no point in pursuing the engineering questions unless we know seasteading will work. Doing it your way is like designing a mega-skyscraper to be built in the middle of the Sahara Desert without first knowing if anybody even wants to rent any space there.

    tusavision wrote:
    (and I swear to god if I hear one more time some unsubstantiated assertion that a floating casino isn’t “elligible” for territory status-> I’m going to blow my fucking brains out.)

    A floating casino isn’t ever going to get territory status or be a sovereign nation. Now make sure you use a small caliber so it doesn’t make too much of a mess…the firemen have to clean up you know.

    tusavision wrote:
    As for flags: register it as a commercial fishing vessle for now and get over yourself.

    Then it’s not seasteading.

    #9592
    Profile photo of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    Just to show that the idea of invading and taking over a small nation with a band of mercenaries is not only possible, it’s been done before:

    http://www.specwarnet.net/miscinfo/azalee.htm

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

    The only thing Denard did wrong was choose to invade a country that had a defense agreement with a major military power.

    #9593
    Profile photo of Shouri
    Shouri
    Participant

    Major Military powers can intervene even without such mutual defence treaties(it is not hard to find excuses for itnervention in a forced coup), UN can intervene using human rights as an excuse (rightfully). So i guess coup via force isn’t really viable still doable though, assuming you have majority of the local population supporting you idealogically, which isn’t hard if you can make them believe that they will prosper and live in better standards if you were to head the government. Btw Smith i had a question in mind for you, are you only interested in complete autnomy or do you want the title ‘sovereign state’. I am asking it cos i belive the former can be possible without the presence of the latter. Personally i am okay as long as states officially declare that they won’t intervene in my activities (included: i am respectful enough to their constitutions, national pride, ecology and human rights, i am not participating in prostitution traffic, terrorist activities, drug dealing etc.).

    #9594
    Profile photo of tusavision
    tusavision
    Participant

    i_is_j_smith wrote:

    tusavision wrote:

    This entire discussion is just wanking until we have the engineering solved, and we’re not the ones to be having it.

    Again, I disagree. There is no point in pursuing the engineering questions unless we know seasteading will work. Doing it your way is like designing a mega-skyscraper to be built in the middle of the Sahara Desert without first knowing if anybody even wants to rent any space there.

    tusavision wrote:
    (and I swear to god if I hear one more time some unsubstantiated assertion that a floating casino isn’t “elligible” for territory status-> I’m going to blow my fucking brains out.)

    A floating casino isn’t ever going to get territory status or be a sovereign nation. Now make sure you use a small caliber so it doesn’t make too much of a mess…the firemen have to clean up you know.

    tusavision wrote:
    As for flags: register it as a commercial fishing vessle for now and get over yourself.

    Then it’s not seasteading.

    [/quote]

    Your definitions and predictions have zero credibility with me. Your proposed solutions to these fabricated problems are ridiculous.

    You don’t have the pocketbook to afford your plans or any realistic means of aqcuiring the funding you spend so casually. People more dangerous than you have failed in similar plots with much more at stake.

    The spanish american war and the invasion of hawaii were fought over control of the sugar industry. Hawaii nearly failed.

    You propose a similar plot in pursuit of something no more valuable than a piece of cloth on a stick and casually dismiss more viable solutions out of hand based on nothing more than your assurance that those alternatives are not viable.

    Essentially: you expect an investor to finance a private war for no better reason than because you say it’s the only way of accomplishing your fantasy. Because this pipe dream is so fantastic you ultimately conclude that “seasteading” (as you define it) is impossible. Like the lack of “perpetual motion” makes a solution to the energy crisis “impossible.”

    My ultimate conclusion is your definition of seasteading is retarded. Retarded in the same way as dismissing nuclear energy out of hand to justify a crazy delusional escapade chasing free energy.

    I’ll wait for someone more qualified in nuclear science to tell me about the energy crisis before I go to war for your “Overbalanced Wheel.”

    #9595
    Profile photo of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    Shouri wrote:
    Actually i do think a cruise ship might be granted sovereignity if certain conditions are met. Idea of sovereignity is still blurry in todays international Law, think of a ship granting humanitarian aid to people in need in 3rd world countries, with such positive publicity you might be granted some right similar to an authentic sovereign state,

    There is already plenty of existing legal framework to handle ships…they already have a limited sovereignty because they are technically part of the country they are registered with. I just don’t see anyone recognizing a ship or ocean installation as a nation.

    I think a great bit of advice comes from Ellmer on his concrete submarine site, when he talks about registering your new submarine with the local authorities. People don’t like new stuff, or anything that doesn’t fit into nice, neat categories. Trying to get the global community of nations to agree on a new category of “sovereign nation” is just not going to happen…we need to fit seasteading into the existing legal and diplomatic systems if it’s ever going to work. That means seasteads will need to register with an existing, sovereign nation and fly that nations flag. So that leaves us just two choices, 1) we choose an existing nation and fly its flag and just accept the fact that we are not really free to do as we please, or 2) we create our own nation, one designed to allow seasteads to experiment as they please with new forms of government, and all seasteads use its flag.

    Those are the only two viable choices that I can see. If there are other choices then please, someone explain them to me. And no, I don’t accept “call our seastead a nation and ignore what the rest of the world thinks” because, as I have proved over and over, that is not a viable option. Any seastead going that route will be viewed as a nationless vessel and will be treated as such.

    I also don’t see “fly a flag of convenience for a while and then, once we’re big enough, declare sovereignty and become our own nation” as a viable option either. It doesn’t matter how big you get, or what your economic impact is, or how many people you have. To be a sovereign nation you need territory, which means land. Without it you are just a big ship.

    Shouri wrote:
    All seasteading needs is positive publicity.

    I agree that positive PR will be vital for seasteads, especially as a way to attract new citizens, tourists, etc. I just don’t see positive PR as a viable path to sovereignty. The requirement for land/territory is quite clear and no amount of marketing or economic benefit is going to alter that.

    #9596
    Profile photo of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    Shouri wrote:
    Major Military powers can intervene even without such mutual defence treaties(it is not hard to find excuses for itnervention in a forced coup), UN can intervene using human rights as an excuse (rightfully). So i guess coup via force isn’t really viable still doable though, assuming you have majority of the local population supporting you idealogically, which isn’t hard if you can make them believe that they will prosper and live in better standards if you were to head the government.

    I agree completely. The military option is doable, but you have to be very careful. That’s why I suggested choosing a target that was being a pain-in-the-ass to nearby nations so as to decrease the chance of others getting involved. Avoiding human rights issues is very easy…just don’t target civilians and make sure that their lives are better after you take over. That means having lots of money available after the coup so you can build up your new nations infrastructure. But hopefully we would be targeting a dirt-poor nation so boosting the populations living standards post-coup shouldn’t be too hard.

    It also means doing plenty of prep work beforehand so you have a good local base of support, but again with a decent amount of money it isn’t hard to purchase the loyalty of a small percentage of the population. You only really need to target community leaders, elders, etc and the rest of the sheep will easily fall into line.

    Shouri wrote:
    Btw Smith i had a question in mind for you, are you only interested in complete autnomy or do you want the title ‘sovereign state’.

    Excellent question. I would love for my seastead to be its own sovereign nation, and that has always been my plan/fantasy. But after taking a good, long, hard, realistic look at the world, and doing plenty of research, I doubt this will ever happen. So the next best thing would be complete autonomy so that I could run my seastead the way I want.

    That’s the whole point of this thread…how do we get seasteads to have complete autonomy? A flag of convenience doesn’t get you autonomy because your seastead is then just an extension of the nation you are registered with and you are bound by all their laws and social restrictions. Sure, you can try to find the most lenient country around and register with it, but what country would that be? The International Transport Worker’s Federation has a list of all countries they call FOC countries, so who would you want to sail under if you had a seastead? The Union of Comoros? It follows French and Islamic law, and has had so many coups you never know what law you’ll be living under from year-to-year. How about Burma? Sure, but you are still living under English common law.

    No existing nation is going to allow a vessel flying its flag complete autonomy in legal matters. So how do we get around this? We create a new nation which will allow seasteads the level of autonomy they need, because this nation will be founded with that as its sole purpose. Then each seastead would be free to operate however they choose.

    Now we just need a billionare who believes in seasteading, and wouldn’t mind sinking a few hundred million dollars into founding a new nation, to get on board.

    #9597
    Profile photo of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    tusavision wrote:
    Your definitions and predictions have zero credibility with me. Your proposed solutions to these fabricated problems are ridiculous.

    And your “proposed solutions” are….what? Living in a submarine for the rest of your life surrounded by naval mines? Please, watch what you are calling “ridiculous”.

    tusavision wrote:
    You don’t have the pocketbook to afford your plans or any realistic means of aqcuiring the funding you spend so casually.

    Of course I don’t. But you do? Have you built any naval mines yet? How’s work going on that “carbon fiber/concrete buoy that drifts from underwater caves to underwater bases burried in the sand” coming along? I’d sure like to see some pictures…

    Seasteading is going to be expensive. If we want complete autonomy for seasteads, which is the only reason for doing seasteading in the first place, then we’ll have to spend some getting that autonomy. I think it could maybe be done for the cost of ClubStead. It’s going to take a very rich person who believes in the potential of seasteading to change the world. But first we need to come up with a solid plan that such an investor can get behind. That’s what I’m doing, coming up with a plan to further seasteading. What are you doing besides living in a dream world?

    tusavision wrote:
    You propose a similar plot in pursuit of something no more valuable than a piece of cloth on a stick and casually dismiss more viable solutions out of hand based on nothing more than your assurance that those alternatives are not viable.

    That’s where you don’t get it. It’s not just a “piece of cloth on a stick”. It represents so much more than that. It means your vessel is an extension of a sovereign nation. I just want the sovereign nation I am an extension of to be a nation dedicated to furthering seasteading, as opposed to Burma or Honduras.

    And I really don’t see what solutions you have offered that I have “casually” dismissed. I explained in great detail why I think submerged seasteads will not work. I also explained why I think surrounding yourself with high explosives and threatening the ships of existing nations is a mistake. I also explained why I think blockading existing nations, or attempting to destroy them by dumping counterfeit money into their economy, or threatening to dump naval mines into their territorial waters, are all bad ideas. If you don’t want to accept my logic or proof, that’s your problem. But none of the solutions you have proposed offers any chance of getting seasteads autonomy or sovereignty.

    tusavision wrote:
    Essentially: you expect an investor to finance a private war for no better reason than because you say it’s the only way of accomplishing your fantasy.

    It’s not just my fantasy, it’s the whole point of seasteading. Without autonomy for seasteads then there is no point in seasteading. If you don’t believe that, then your definition of seasteading is wrong. I have offered some options on how to achieve this goal, but I’m sure it’s not the only way. If anyone else has any ideas on how to get seastead autonomy then, by all means, send them along.

    A private war is just one option I put forward, and it’s the only one you keep gnawing on like an old dog. I think the organized secession option is more viable than the military option, I am just offering the military option as one choice. And I believe it has more chance of working than any of your ideas, mainly because it has worked before.

    tusavision wrote:
    crazy delusional escapade chasing free energy.

    I really have no clue where you are going with this talk of “free energy”. Sounds like you need to get back on your meds. When you start making sense, and stop talking about “overbalanced wheels” and “blowing [your] fucking brains out”, then you can join the grownups in their discussion. Until then I’m done responding to your babbling.

    #9600
    Profile photo of Shouri
    Shouri
    Participant

    Well then lets go to Bir Tawil and make ourselves a cavern community like Capadoccia in Turkey. Water isn’t problem, there is simply too much sun light, without drinking water and energy problem i think humankind can live almost anywhere, bribe 3rd world nations to recognize our sovereignity also develop peaceful relations with local Beja people and don’t intervene in their immigrant life style. (so that our neighbours can’t intervene using tribesman as an excuse, make world know that you are friendly with Beja Tribes through mass media) Then simply use our flag for seasteads it won’t work as an HQ since it’s landlocked but at least it can give us a flag we can use on highseas. Though probably the citizens of Bir Tawil wont be able to leave the area easily once they’ve set foot on their homeland, so we have to make a sustainable living there. Similar towns to the ones Peter Vetsch is designing perhaps, for better climate mitigation and aesthetics. It smells like fantasy but when i compare other probable ways this ones seems much more easier and cheaper.

    #9601
    Profile photo of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    Picked this up today at the store…gonna do some “research” this weekend in front of a nice fire…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dogs_of_War_%28novel%29

    Very interesting reading. I’ve also been doing a lot of research on Bob Denard. Wow, talk about a tangled web of politics and lies! The guy ran the Comoros like his own personal empire for ten years. Lots to think about….

    #9602
    Profile photo of tusavision
    tusavision
    Participant

    i_is_j_smith wrote:

    tusavision wrote:

    Your definitions and predictions have zero credibility with me. Your proposed solutions to these fabricated problems are ridiculous.

    And your “proposed solutions” are….what? Living in a submarine for the rest of your life surrounded by naval mines? Please, watch what you are calling “ridiculous”.

    tusavision wrote:
    You don’t have the pocketbook to afford your plans or any realistic means of aqcuiring the funding you spend so casually.

    Of course I don’t. But you do? Have you built any naval mines yet? How’s work going on that “carbon fiber/concrete buoy that drifts from underwater caves to underwater bases burried in the sand” coming along? I’d sure like to see some pictures…

    Seasteading is going to be expensive. If we want complete autonomy for seasteads, which is the only reason for doing seasteading in the first place, then we’ll have to spend some getting that autonomy. I think it could maybe be done for the cost of ClubStead. It’s going to take a very rich person who believes in the potential of seasteading to change the world. But first we need to come up with a solid plan that such an investor can get behind. That’s what I’m doing, coming up with a plan to further seasteading. What are you doing besides living in a dream world?

    tusavision wrote:
    You propose a similar plot in pursuit of something no more valuable than a piece of cloth on a stick and casually dismiss more viable solutions out of hand based on nothing more than your assurance that those alternatives are not viable.

    That’s where you don’t get it. It’s not just a “piece of cloth on a stick”. It represents so much more than that. It means your vessel is an extension of a sovereign nation. I just want the sovereign nation I am an extension of to be a nation dedicated to furthering seasteading, as opposed to Burma or Honduras.

    And I really don’t see what solutions you have offered that I have “casually” dismissed. I explained in great detail why I think submerged seasteads will not work. I also explained why I think surrounding yourself with high explosives and threatening the ships of existing nations is a mistake. I also explained why I think blockading existing nations, or attempting to destroy them by dumping counterfeit money into their economy, or threatening to dump naval mines into their territorial waters, are all bad ideas. If you don’t want to accept my logic or proof, that’s your problem. But none of the solutions you have proposed offers any chance of getting seasteads autonomy or sovereignty.

    tusavision wrote:
    Essentially: you expect an investor to finance a private war for no better reason than because you say it’s the only way of accomplishing your fantasy.

    It’s not just my fantasy, it’s the whole point of seasteading. Without autonomy for seasteads then there is no point in seasteading. If you don’t believe that, then your definition of seasteading is wrong. I have offered some options on how to achieve this goal, but I’m sure it’s not the only way. If anyone else has any ideas on how to get seastead autonomy then, by all means, send them along.

    A private war is just one option I put forward, and it’s the only one you keep gnawing on like an old dog. I think the organized secession option is more viable than the military option, I am just offering the military option as one choice. And I believe it has more chance of working than any of your ideas, mainly because it has worked before.

    tusavision wrote:
    crazy delusional escapade chasing free energy.

    I really have no clue where you are going with this talk of “free energy”. Sounds like you need to get back on your meds. When you start making sense, and stop talking about “overbalanced wheels” and “blowing [your] fucking brains out”, then you can join the grownups in their discussion. Until then I’m done responding to your babbling.

    [/quote]

    It’s only babbling to someone who finds it convienent to be confused. It’s an obvious metaphor to understand, but if playing stupid makes you happy go for it.

    Similarly I’m done with this discussion. It’s come full circle and you get more offensive and irritating with every post. Your political aspirations are cliche, however I truly do wish you the best of luck. Maybe you’ll bring something new to the “quest for independance” which has gotten so many people killed and with little to show for it throughout history.

    It’s my conclusion that freedom and liberty offend the human condition of comfort seaking and the pursuit of security. If you can make some independance of thicker stuff than it’s been molded from in the past, more power to you.

    Forgive my skepticism, because although I’m not sure what secret sauce you bring to the table to give you a victory where so many have failed: one thing is for sure. It certainly won’t be built on your charisma.

    Good luck with that fight for liberty which doesn’t threaten your children’s welfare though. I’m sure you’ll ultimately find a palatable compromise which doesn’t cost your too much comfort. I’m just glad our nation’s defense doesn’t rely on similiar priorities.

Viewing 15 posts - 121 through 135 (of 159 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate