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




Volunteer-based, donation-funded, well-equipped… vigilantes?

Home Forums Research Law and Politics Volunteer-based, donation-funded, well-equipped… vigilantes?

This topic contains 14 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of tusavision tusavision 4 years, 2 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1349
    Profile photo of Terraformer
    Terraformer
    Participant

    This is bound to happen eventually, if seasteading attempts to follow the Ancap route. Some nutters are going to run “[insert name of nutter here]town on the sea”, which will need to be dealt with. If a passing warship won’t do it, then there’s two options remaining – either it’s left alone, where it may become a problem after a while if it manages to grow. Or, someone besides the world Navy’s can do it. I believe it’s going to probably fall to the seasteading community to deal with situations of injustice on the worlds oceans.

    Do not get me wrong, I am not proposing levying a precept on every seastead. I believe we can fund an adequete force to neutralise such threats using donations and volunteers. Consider – seasteaders will soon become very adept at the tasks required to service a craft in the middle of the ocean. That’s a large pool of potential crew right there, by the time they’re needed.

    What I envision are almost military seasteads – probably Catamarans? – crusing the seas to check in on the seasteads they come across. Not to ransack and search, just coming onboard and having a chat. If they’re not allowed to come onboard… well, it’s the Captains judgement then.

    #11421
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    I’m not sure what you are trying to say here.

    If you mean a seasteads management do things which are contrary to people’s basic human rights, then the risk is that some outside force may decide they don’t like the way you are running your seastead and will come and take it from you or remove the people from your seastead.

    If you are talking about a security force that will protect seasteads from pirates, then they could sell insurance and assist their clients as needed, this is how the first fire brigades were set up by insurance companies, the risk is that it degenerates into a criminal protection racket.

    #11425
    Profile photo of tusavision
    tusavision
    Participant

    Terraformer wrote:

    This is bound to happen eventually, if seasteading attempts to follow the Ancap route. Some nutters are going to run “[insert name of nutter here]town on the sea”, which will need to be dealt with. If a passing warship won’t do it, then there’s two options remaining – either it’s left alone, where it may become a problem after a while if it manages to grow. Or, someone besides the world Navy’s can do it. I believe it’s going to probably fall to the seasteading community to deal with situations of injustice on the worlds oceans.

    Do not get me wrong, I am not proposing levying a precept on every seastead. I believe we can fund an adequete force to neutralise such threats using donations and volunteers. Consider – seasteaders will soon become very adept at the tasks required to service a craft in the middle of the ocean. That’s a large pool of potential crew right there, by the time they’re needed.

    What I envision are almost military seasteads – probably Catamarans? – crusing the seas to check in on the seasteads they come across. Not to ransack and search, just coming onboard and having a chat. If they’re not allowed to come onboard… well, it’s the Captains judgement then.

    …and what business is it of yours if some anarcho capitalists do decide to start a seastead? What right do you have to inspect them?

    As funny as the idea of someone beating down my front door to demand to be allowed to inspect my bathroom’s toilet paper roll for proper orientation: this has got to be the single dumbest post on this forum yet.

    Thanks for showing your true colors.

    #11430
    Profile photo of Terraformer
    Terraformer
    Participant

    What, my true colours – that I believe in basic human rights? I don’t really care if you believe it’s your right to keep slaves you captured from another seastead; I’m going to break down your door regardless.

    Human rights are not like toilet paper, you fool.

    ____________________________________________________________________________

    Seasteading is to Boat Living what Traction Cities are to Vandwelling – simply a matter of scale.

    #11431
    Profile photo of Ken Sims
    Ken Sims
    Keymaster

    Let’s all please play nice.

    I was given moderator capabilities primarily for fighting spam and I really, really, REALLY don’t want to have to use them on forum regulars.

    As far as that goes, I really don’t like even having to make a post like this one.

    #11438
    Profile photo of Pastor_Jason
    Pastor_Jason
    Participant

    Simply put…

    If some anarcho-pirate seizes one of my daughters as a slave for his ‘stead’ and takes to the seas, I will leverage all of my resources to get her back. Out of mercy (which is always undeserved) I will not cause un-needed harm to the pirate or his ‘stead’. If his life needs to end to secure my daughter safely, then so be it… I won’t lose sleep over it.

    If some super-police come to knock on my hatch because they feel my daughter is being held in ‘slavery’, then I will leverage all of my resources to repel them just as if it were the anarcho-pirate himself back to take her again. There is little difference here. The same aggression is just being framed under another context to make it ‘acceptable’.

    Let’s be fair to our neighbors… both on the seas and on this forum.

    Live Well!

    -Jason

    #11440
    Profile photo of Terraformer
    Terraformer
    Participant

    So, what justifies your actions against the anarcho-pirate, but doesn’t justify the “super-police”? Presumably, it’s because your daughter is free to leave if she wants to. If she wasn’t allowed to, which is likely to happen on some seasteads (not your daughter, but other peoples), why would it be unjustified to knock down their front door?

    People seem to suffer from authoritophobia here – an irrational fear of any authority, whatever it’s source or use. I can understand why someone would have a problem with police coming around to check that their lights are the correct standard, but when someones being held in captivity unjustly, I really don’t get it.

    Justice goes on a scale, which needs to be balanced – a very difficult task as you’d imagine. Minor injustices aren’t worth bothering with, although in an Anarcho-Capitalist system people would be perfectly within their “rights” to break down someone elses door to deal with them (which is one of it’s many fatal flaws). Major injustice, however, does. Do people not deserve rights just because they can’t fight back?

    ____________________________________________________________________________

    Seasteading is to Boat Living what Traction Cities are to Vandwelling – simply a matter of scale.

    #11441
    Profile photo of Pastor_Jason
    Pastor_Jason
    Participant

    The problem comes with human judgement. The fear of authority is the same it was when the US Constitution was drawn up. The fear that humans will over-step their authority or judge something within their authority when it is not.

    If someone would like to make sure my family is well, then they are invited in as a friend… unarmed and non-threatening. If a group of armed men want to ‘inspect my ship’ because they percieve some evil that doesn’t exist, then they can figure out how to get onboard as I submerge.

    Of course, the would be ‘liberators’ might be surprised to find those ‘people I keep in slavery’ are armed and dangerous. My family knows they have rights and we’ll stand up for each other. If I were the one kidnapped, I’d hope that my daughters would ‘gear-up’ and comes to daddy’s rescue.

    After all, it’s strange days we live in…

    Live Well!

    -Jason

    #11442

    The problem is that in the fields of “vigilance and enforcement” human history is full of examples where the “medicine” is by far worse than the original “disease” this is why in civilized countrys a mens home is private and untouchable by law for any authority intrusion by force – except with a “court order of a qualified judge” who is supposed to apply “qualified criteria” to the unfortunatly often “not so qualified criteria” of the “vigilant eager intrusion force”.

    The idea of a force sneaking around and kicking down the doors of peoples homes at will to implement their particular version of ” authority, control, and order ” for sure is a scary one – especially when you have a european cultural background and basic knowledge of history. I asume that we should be a bit tolerant with our fellow forum members that have the priviledge to come from countries where authorities never run out of control and can not see the “dark side of the issue”.

    As a basic reading i would suggest german history and the rise of the certain “order imparting group” by means of kicking in peoples doors instead of democratic elections… i would not call that “authoritophobia” – it is just – who does not know about history is doomed to repeate it.

    Does not mean that europe today is a “anarcho place” just because people perfer to NOT have a force that kicks in doors guaranteed by a wise constitution.

    Wil

    #11443
    Profile photo of Terraformer
    Terraformer
    Participant

    Why is it, that whenever anyone suggests some form of government, people seem to jump to the conclusion it will immediately overstep it’s boundaries? If it does, you’re perfectly within your rights to repel them, and no-one is expected to join in on the side of the oppressors. I was stating what would, ideally, happen in an Anarcho-Capitalist system – that is, the formation of a defence force that doesn’t charge people money they haven’t got, and so actually defends justice rather than wealth.

    Democracy? I would suggest a reading of the fall of Athens to anyone who seriously considers that viable. Or, more recently, a reading of the rise of the Third Reich. Both caused by democracy in some part.

    I know I used the word vigilante, but the impression I’m trying to convey is that of a minimalist government that doesn’t demand taxes.

    ____________________________________________________________________________

    Seasteading is to Boat Living what Traction Cities are to Vandwelling – simply a matter of scale.

    #11516
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    The seastead-style military ships might make better business ideas than donor-volunteer ventures. If my seastead wants to bring a charge against Joe’s, I hire a military ship to arbitrate the dispute and dispense justice as needed. Maybe it’s not in the form of nuking, but it can arrest and detain, or at least deliver to my detention.

    But I tend to doubt that a vigilante military ship that kicks doors down would ever be hired as an impartial arbiter. It might also not be able to afford weaponry as advanced as a profit-based one. But if it IS an impartial arbiter, then how it will manage to keep its people paid and corruption-free is a puzzle that a seasteader can solve some day.

    Eric Jacobus
    Office Manager / Communications Coordinator
    The Seasteading Institute

    #11521
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    Such organizations already exist. Amnesty International comes to mind. They just need some guns and a DIY attitude instead of requesting that another organization (national governments, the United Nations) does their bidding.

    Their actions would be dictated by way of finance and public opinion. If they are perceived to actually do good things (as opposed to just having good intentions), donations will increase. If not, they will dry up.

    So such NGO:s would probably be created in an otherwise ungoverned area. The problem, as always, is of course that other governments in other areas might not allow Amnesty to buy firearms.

    #11524
    Profile photo of tusavision
    tusavision
    Participant

    Vigilante-ism should be an individuals job.

    When multiple vigilante’s organize: they’re a gang. When a gang becomes powerful: they’re organized crime. When organized crime becomes the biggest bully on the playground: they’re a government.

    My objective in life is to decentralize power structures. Not encourage their conglomoration. Individuals are smart. People are dumb.

    When people first started farming they needed to organize to mobilize resources and human rights have done nothing but gone down hill from there. Farming was the worst thing that ever happened to society. It allowed population levels to exceed carrying capacity, to say nothing of it’s impact on soil quality.

    #11575
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    tusavision wrote:

    Vigilante-ism should be an individuals job.

    When multiple vigilante’s organize: they’re a gang. When a gang becomes powerful: they’re organized crime. When organized crime becomes the biggest bully on the playground: they’re a government.

    My objective in life is to decentralize power structures. Not encourage their conglomoration. Individuals are smart. People are dumb.

    When people first started farming they needed to organize to mobilize resources and human rights have done nothing but gone down hill from there. Farming was the worst thing that ever happened to society. It allowed population levels to exceed carrying capacity, to say nothing of it’s impact on soil quality.

    One individual might have serious difficulty overthrowing a potential slave holder or similar oppressive entity (assuming, for the sake of argument, that such an entity would appear on a free market)

    If you oppose the cooperation by several individuals to undertake such actions (i.e. a privately operated direct action anti-slavery organization, “Amnesty International with Guns”), then I believe people will soon start to support the formation of a general purpose government to solve the problem.

    Actions cannot be judged to be good or evil based on the number of individuals that perform them, but based on the nature of the action itself.

    A better method to further the doing of good deeds vs bad deeds is, IMHO, to oppose forcibly financed structures rather than structures with more than X number of participants.

    #11579
    Profile photo of tusavision
    tusavision
    Participant

    Carl wrote:

    A better method to further the doing of good deeds vs bad deeds is, IMHO, to oppose forcibly financed structures rather than structures with more than X number of participants.

    You’re right.

    Of course: eventually/inevitably they’ll group-think justify using their organized efforts to extort money from people. They’ll call it the “free rider problem” and they’ll feel fully justified in imposing their will on others because: “Hey, the ends justify the means and I’m just doing what’s best for them. If they knew what “best” was as well as I do: they’d thank me for doing them a favor.”

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

    Yes: the free rider problem, justification for misguided fascists with well intentions the world over.

    Then again: if we lived by the slippery slope argument: we’d all still be living in caves, farming wouldn’t have been invented, and population levels would be sustainable.

    Sometimes the right thing to do is just super boring. Besides: cavemen never built rockets which could escape a species from inevitably being sucked in to black holes.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate