Who's new
Who's online
Online users
Recent user registrations
Registered Users
Seasteading options for Antarcticland
Mon, 08/11/2008 - 10:09 — Antarcticland
Seasteading options for Antarcticland are a good solution. The Antarcticland www.antarcticland.org is the oldest territorial domain of the Antarctic continent. It includes all the lands and islands in section extending from the South Pole to 60° S latitude between longitudes 90° W and 135° W, with a total area of 1.554.424, slightly less than the size of Portugal, Spain, France, Italy and Switzerland all together. It is administered by the Government of Anatarcticland and the head of State is the Regent and Grandmaster of the Sovereign Order of the Antarticland, Sir Giovanni Caporaso Gottlieb. There is no indigenous nor permanetly resident population, but the knights patrol the area during the austral summer. The country has its own legislative system, together with legal, economic and postal administrations. Any person may become citizen simply by applying and swearing alliegance to the Constitution. Revenue from administrative fees and the sale of postage stamps means that it is financially self sufficient. The government is in negotiations with several groups of investors to develop the first ice hotel and city in the Antarctic.
Interesting...
Is Antarticland recognized by any major world power?
Isn't the Antarctic off
Isn't the Antarctic off limits to claims of soverignty and permanent occupation by international treaty and UN conventions?
Yes.
Yes.
That just means states can't
That just means states can't claim sovereignty on it. Individuals, who are not signatories to such treaties, should be able to claim ownership of the resources they lay hand on down there.
not sure how acurate it is
not sure how acurate it is but i found some interesting inofrmation about the international treaty and un convention relating to antartica. check link for full info http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Antarctic-territorial-claims. but basically it states that the treaty "is not a renunciation of any previous territorial claim." but instead states that " No activities occurring after 1961 can be the basis of a territorial claim". so if you believe the info on the Antarticland website that "have been in the possession of his family and the Order since 1820, when Fabian Gottlieb discovered it and staked his claim to the whole Antarctic continent.", then there claim is not under renunciation.
Quote from jesrad:
Quote from jesrad: "Individuals, who are not signatories to such treaties, should be able to claim ownership of the resources they lay hand on down there."'
Actually the antarctic treaty forbids all claims of all kinds. It only allows scientific research. Antarticland has a snowballs chance in hell. However the antarctic treaty organisation my allow a touriat hotel or two. In theory anything taken or built down there should be packed up and shiped back when your finished with it. No ones worked out how to do that with any of the larger structures, the two nuclear reactors (ones lost) but some of the garbage comes back on the Australian ships and planes.
For everyone's information I was involved with the original Oceania Project in a small way. I'm also in several space organisations. And I have a Degree in sustainable Development, sustainable agriculture and renewable energy,water and sewerage.
"Actually the antarctic
"Actually the antarctic treaty forbids all claims of all kinds."
Yes, and I'm not bound by this limitation. So ? The only obstacle to my going to Antartica and building a resort or ten there, apart from the cost and the fact I'm convinced I wouldn't recoup that investment, is that states will try and enforce those terms on me regardless of their own laws, treaties and agreements, despite my having not signed that treaty. And htey'll enforce it with excessive prejudice - because the massive firepower required to make a sad deterring example out of me is a sunk cost (=it's already paid for).
Individuals don't sign
Individuals don't sign treaties, countries do. If you're a citizen of some country that signed a treaty then you're bound by those laws.
Hell no. I´ve never
Hell no. I´ve never authorized anyone to sign such treaties on my behalf. If I found a gold mine on Antarctica I´d rightfully claim it and mine it like crazy. The UN might threaten with force to make me stop, and they might succeed, but they would be wrong.
I agree in so far as claiming the entire continent makes no sense, but anything previously unowned that you find and can resonably put to use is fine to homestead as far as I am concerned.
Um
They might be "wrong", but I don't think that will keep your head from exploding after the bullet hits it.
I suggest you keep your mine secret, rather than trusting moral arguments to persuade existing governments.
Moral arguments
Indeed, many people conflate legality with morality, and therefore anything that is illegal is also immoral in their eyes. Even when it is acknowledged that zero to negligable measurable harm occurs.
No argument. I was making a
No argument. I was making a moral argument rather than a pragmatic one.
To restate my point: I am not morally bound by an agreement unless I have personally agreed to it.
Personal authorization
On the other hand, you haven't rejected the other benefits that American society has afforded you (by say, emigrating, or becoming a stateless person), so you have implicitly agreed to the social contract...
The deal is that we accept impositions upon our personal sovereignty in exchange for the benefits of societal membership. If you reject treaties that your country has signed on the grounds that you reject their authority to do so on your behalf, then they you are rejecting their authority to anything else on their behalf as well. Including things which benefit you, and including things like judging you for breaking the rules on rape and murder.
As things stand, you can't pick and choose- it's like cable. The services come bundled. If you want the history channel, you have to take the shopping channel. If you want the SciFi channel, you have to take the midnight informercials and religious babble.
I would love to be able to
I would love to be able to use only private, voluntarily funded services. The state prevents me from doing this though, by banning, taxing and regulating them and thus destroying the market for them. Not to mention that the money it (the state) steals from me at gunpoint every year obviously reduces my possibilities to use private services. So I am forced by the state to use whatever services are available, to simply stay alive. Being forced to do something does not oblige a person to anything.
Also, being born somewhere does not constitute an agreement of any sort.
Taking part in the political system however is accepting the system. If you vote you have given up your personal sovereignty, and as such you would have to obey whatever treaties the state you accept as your sovereign has entered into.
Citizenship by birht
Sure, being born somewhere does not obligate the adult to stay there. You've had the opportunity to leave since your 18th birthday.
Unless one attempted this, it is inaccurate and hypocritical to say that one is forced into anything. There are always choices, just as there are always reprecussions to our choices. You made the choice, however gradually and unconsciously, that you were better off in the place you found yourself, than anywhere else, including all the restrictions on your 'personal sovereignty'.
When you renounce your citizenship and leave, then I can accept that you are no longer obligated to this society. Until then, the rules apply. It's only fair.