Forum Replies Created
February 24, 2015 at 12:11 pm #25757
a “real investor” would return my argument with a short line “give me an account to wire a first budget release of USD 100.000 – waiting for your project progress fotos documenting the conversion into floating real estate worth USD 10 million …”
Are you insane? All you’ve said is that you can build 1 square meter per day of floating real estate for US$166 and that you can sell that floating real estate for US$17000. You have no proof, no market, no business plan, and you base your numbers off of land prices.
And for that you expect someone to wire you US$100000!!!!
I’m sorry, nobody is giving you $100k for that.
Hey, any investors reading this thread, don’t listen to ellmer. I can build 2 square meters a day for US$100 and you can sell it in the Bay of Cartagena for US$17000. I will only respond to “real investors” who will wire me money right now…February 24, 2015 at 12:11 pm #25756
i am beyond seasteading phase1
Huh? You mean that one submarine you built? Or do you mean that little floating cup? I don’t see any evidence of a “small structure that makes a big point”…February 23, 2015 at 9:45 am #25739February 23, 2015 at 9:34 am #25738
It looks like “Shreddy’s La La Land” might actually become a thing…February 6, 2015 at 7:37 pm #25512
You can create all the “floating business CLUSTER” you want, but without complete autonomy and sovereignty you will not form a “‘Seastead’ as envisioned by TSI”.
Creating a floating business is easy. Creating a new independent nation on the ocean is incredibly hard, and maybe impossible. But it’s certainly not going to happen by just clumping together a bunch of “speciality islands”.February 1, 2015 at 10:09 pm #25468
But, what do you want to do now, rewrite the history of seasteading?
You can’t undo what’s already been done, but TSI can move forward by stressing the difference between seasteads…homesteads on the sea…and sea-cities or sea-nations which are seasteads created for the purpose of gaining autonomy and sovereignty and creating new governments. They can also be sure to put the definition of a seastead right there in black and white on the front page. A medical cruise ship is not a seastead, if you define a seastead as a “homestead on the sea”. So be sure to get that definition right in the open.
You can still call it “The Seasteading Institute” because “The New Sovereign Nations on the Sea Institute” doesn’t have the same ring to it. TSI can even continue to work on improving the engineering, legal, and infrastructure research available to the community. These new independent nations on the sea will be seasteads, and thus knowledge of marine engineering and infrastructure will be important whether your seastead is 40nm from shore or 400nm.
But where TSI should really put the majority of its effort is in the legal research, because that is the big difference between a “regular seastead”, something established close to shore for the purpose of “farming” a piece of ocean, and an “autonomous, sovereign seastead”, something established far from shore for the purpose of creating a new nation.
So continue with the seastead research, but be very careful to make that distinction.
And in fact, why where the homesteaders homesteading if not for a greater freedom?
Well sure, there were plenty of people who claimed a homestead and moved out west for some level of increased freedom…I already agreed to that in a previous post. And they certainly had greater freedom than folks living in Boston, just as you had more freedom on your boat anchored far offshore than you would living in an apartment in a big city. But that increased freedom is just because they are far from the authorities…they are not truly more free than the person living in Boston. They have to follow the same laws, are bound by the same regulations. Just because they are less likely to get a visit from the police doesn’t make them more free…it just means they are less likely to get caught if they break the law.
And not every homesteader went looking for more freedom or an escape from authority. Many just wanted a fresh start, some land to farm and call their own because they were dirt poor and couldn’t afford to live in the cities. But the improved “freedom from interference” as ellmer would say, was surely a benefit. Of course, it wasn’t all that great when the bandits came around and shot up your house and stole your stuff. Those are the times you are wishing you could call in help from the authorities…
How do you know that will never work as a business? How can anybody know how it will work? It was never tried,…
I can say that it won’t work BECAUSE it has never been tried. If there was any way to run a profitable business 400nm from shore, somebody would have done it already. But why run an oyster farm 400nm from shore when you can just do it at 10nm? Why run a kelp farm in the middle of the Atlantic when you can just run one off the coast of Maine? The bonus you get from being that far offshore (decreased regulation requirements) don’t come near to balancing the massive increase in costs for infrastructure, engineering, and transport. The only reason to establish a seastead that far offshore is because you want complete autonomy for the purpose of eventually claiming sovereignty with the goal of establishing a new nation…and that is not a business concern.
And a “bigger” nation than what? The one that was never tried?
I meant a bigger or grander purpose than just starting a business, not actually physically bigger.
What on this Earth can stop them from doing that? Is this 132 people “nation” a “real nation” or not? Is it big enough or not? And who is there to judge against the will of 132 people?
Nobody knows. This is a legal grey area and there is very little precedent. Physical size of the territory doesn’t seem to matter much, since the Vatican City and Monaco and several other recognized independent nations are less than a square mile in area. Population doesn’t matter much either, since there are a few countries with less than a thousand people, and several countries with less than 10000.
What seems to matter is a permanent population and a government that is willing and capable of governing that population. But this is all completely arbitrary and, as usual, the biggest bullies make all the rules. That’s why Palestine still isn’t a recognized member of the United Nations. There will be a lot of challenges to creating a new independent state on the ocean, and those judging it and trying to stop it will be some of the most powerful members of the international community. We need to do everything we can to improve our chances, and that means not using floating platforms and instead planning on fixing the structure itself to the sea floor and growing the structure as big as possible before trying to claim anything.January 31, 2015 at 8:29 pm #25442
you insist in the smith-stead in its tower version and its base argument that territorial claims are the axis of any seasteading project.
And again, it shows that it is pointless to post stuff on these forums, because nobody bothers to read what is posted.
I’ve said multiple times that a seastead DOES NOT NEED TO MAKE TERRITORIAL CLAIMS. A seastead is a homestead on the sea, and a homestead DOES NOT MAKE TERRITORIAL CLAIMS, so a seastead DOES NOT NEED TO MAKE TERRITORIAL CLAIMS or have any level of autonomy.
The only reason you need to make territorial claims is when you are creating a brand new nation on the ocean. You can have a seastead and NOT CREATE A NEW GOVERNMENT. A kelp farm in the Gulf of Mexico can be a seastead, and it doesn’t make any territorial claims.
It’s like talking to a bunch of brick walls.
Are you defending that just for the sake of the argument in salon talk or do you see yourself really as DEVELOPER with a business plan proposal to get there.
Creating a brand new nation on the ocean will never work as a business. There is no business that you can do 400nm from land that you can’t do 5nm from shore. So if you want to create a marine business or a seastead that is close to land, then go ahead. If you want to do something bigger, like create a new nation, then you have to stop approaching it as a business because you will never find an investor.
I am defending what I believe is the proper definition of the word “seastead”. You asked what we think the definition is, and I believe that it is obvious. A seastead is a homestead on the sea. So a seastead should have the characteristics of a homestead. We know what homesteads are, they have been around for centuries. So if you build something on the sea, and it doesn’t look like a homestead, then it isn’t a seastead. I think that is about as obvious as you can get.
For instance, homesteads were not “autonomous” or “environmentally conscious” or “mobile” or “modular” or “independent” or develop “high-end niche markets in order to meet financial necessities.” So if a seastead is just a homestead on the sea, why would a seastead have any of those things if a homestead did not?
I am engaging in this salon talk because I think misuse of the word “seastead” has caused confusion not only in the seasteading community but in the general media. Not all seasteads or seasteaders are interested in creating new independent and autonomous nations or experimenting with new forms of governments…some just want to grow oysters.January 30, 2015 at 12:55 pm #25425
the deal maker or breaker for smith-stead is not the “legal standing” it is the financial feasibility of building it and the real estate cost per squaremeter
Wrong. There are plenty of very rich people who build things more expensive than a “smith-stead” that are far less financially feasible.
The only thing holding back the creation of a new ocean-based sovereign state is the “legal standing”. The engineering issues are solved. Money is just money, you just need to get enough of it. But there is no point in building one if it will not have the “legal standing” required to be fully autonomous and sovereign.
A sphere is the most economic thinkable solution to enclose living space Draupner safe in the high seas due to the space/hull surface geometry
It might be the most economic in terms of engineering but it is most certainly not the most viable. There are too many engineering and infrastructure issues to deal with. How do you bring deliveries of supplies in from surface ships? How do tourists get in and out?
Anyway this thread is about the definition of a seastead. There are other threads where people discuss submerged seasteads and I (and others) explain why they are not a viable solution. So let’s keep this thread on topic, shall we?January 30, 2015 at 12:51 pm #25424
in practice this would not even matter because nobody would have a “conflicting interest” with it anyhow so nobody would “challenge that claim” anyhow.
Of course there are people with a “conflicting interest”…many existing nations would “challenge that claim” because they don’t want to see new countries forming that might experiment with new forms of government. They have a monopoly on land and power, and they don’t want anything to ruin that. So they have an interest in keeping new nations from forming.January 30, 2015 at 12:48 pm #25423
@smith, you sustain that a tower structure has a different legal standing than a anchored structure, i invite you to think about the question – if that would be so (and it is in question)
The restriction against artificial islands generating maritime claims was actually a late addition to UNCLOS, and early attempts by the international community to codify maritime law actually didn’t make any case against them. It was the US specifically that fought to have the restrictions put in place.
The 1930 Hague Codification Conference held by the League of Nations attempted to address several aspects of international law, including how to define territorial water boundaries. Several states, including Germany, made arguements that artificial islands should constitute “islands”:
“Artificial islands (artificial constructions) should be assimilated to natural islands provided they rest on the sea bottom and have human inhabitants”
The Dutch argued that an island is defined as “any natural or artificial elevation of the sea bottom above the surface of the sea at low tide.”
The Second Committee actually added a comment to the definition of “island”, saying that “the definition does not exclude artificial islands provided they are true portions of the territory and not merely floating works, anchored buoys, etc”
In 1927 a Council of the League of Nations went so far as to specify that floating works should be treated as ships, when it stated that “islands created by human beings and anchoring at the seabed without fixed connection to the seabed, but used as a stable base for an enterprise to promote aviation…this kind of fictional islands must be considered as ships sailing the high seas.”
So while the legal definition of “artificial island” is blurry, there is far more legal precedent for making maritime claims for a structure that has a physical connection to the seabed than just an anchored floating platform.
For reading I suggest “The Maritime Zones of Islands in International Law” by Clive Symmons, “The International Legal Regime of Artificial Islands” by Nikos Papadakis, “The Impact of Artificial Islands on Territorial Disputes Over The Sparatly Islands” by Zou Keyuan, and “Climate Change, Sea Level Rise,and Artificial Islands: Saving the Maldives’ Statehood and Maritime Claims Through the ‘Constitution of the Oceans”” by Michael Gagain. There are many others as well…
is “legal standing” really what matters for an ocean settlement? – i doubth that.
It depends on your goals. If you just want to run a medical facility on a old cruise ship that avoids FDA regulations, or build a floating bait shop, or live on a seastead that farms kelp, then no it doesn’t matter at all. If you want to create a new country that is experimenting with new forms of government and society, then yes it matters very much. Because as much as you say that certain existing governments will let you do whatever you want in their territorial waters, I just don’t believe it. To get the kind of autonomy required to really try out new forms you will have to have your own sovereign state outside of any existing state, and to do that you need that “legal standing”.January 30, 2015 at 12:48 pm #25422
A “seastead” can not be mobile because a “homestead” is not mobile. Following this logic i asume that you will send back the “flying locksmith” as a fraude if he arrives fast but in car instead of helicopter.
That is a stupid analogy.
You don’t call person who fixes locks a “doctor” or a “farmer”. You call them a “locksmith” because they are a “smith” of “locks”. Just like a “silversmith” is a person who works with the metal silver, and a “wordsmith” is a person who works with words. A “locksmith” is a person who works with locks. So a “seastead” is a homestead on the sea.
If a seastead is a homestead on the sea then a seastead should have the same characteristics as a homestead.
Do you believe that the definition of “seastead” is “homestead on the sea”?
By the way, what the hell is a “flying locksmith”?January 30, 2015 at 12:48 pm #25421
Solution 1: Simply buy a country, then make what rules you want and use their flag to register the seastead.
This was all discussed in my “Viva la Revolution” thread…http://www.seasteading.org/forum-list/topic/viva-la-revolution/January 30, 2015 at 12:47 pm #25420
Article 89! Article 89! Article 89! Article 89!
Just build a floating seastead and declare it a “floating state” on the high seas. What keeps anybody from doing so? There is no law saying that you can’t.
Do you even read what you write? In one breath you say that Article 89 prohibits establishing states on the high seas, and in the next breath you say someone should make a floating state on the high seas and there is no law saying you can’t.
So which is it?January 30, 2015 at 12:47 pm #25419
Cruise ships never have declared or been declared anything different than “being a boat”
That’s because that is all they are. A boat. Just like every other boat on the ocean. They don’t have to declare anything.
but in business terms they negociate as what they are “floating cities with negociation power over ports harbor cities and countries”
No they don’t negotiate as “floating cities”. They negotiate as a freaking boat. They are registered with some nation’s registry of ships and fly that nation’s flag. They must follow all maritime laws regarding maintenance schedules, ship crew requirements, safety regulations, pollution requirements, etc etc etc. It’s JUST A BOAT not some new special kind of floating city.January 29, 2015 at 8:26 pm #25398
I’m gonna post this for the last time: Article 89
And I’m not gonna answer this anymore, because you obviously haven’t read any of my several rebuttals to this statement.
Posted on at