Different forms of government


Who’s going to be king? Not very many people are fond of the idea of having a king rule over them. Perhaps you were trying to think of another word.


The designer will be king, unless he croaks, in which case I’m second in line. If I croak too before the project achieve its milestone, one of the others will be the king.

Sure, there aren’t many people who want to be ruled by a king, but not everyone wants to live in a libertarian society. Some people require order and the comfort that someone up there is looking out for them and if that person doesn’t look out for them, then they can legitimately make complains. Can’t really do that with a libertarian society considering that if you don’t get what you want in a libertarian society, it’s your own fault for being useless. Libertarian society is also not a model for charity or welfare, so unless there are charitable people within that society, the poor will become poorer with no support from the state. Even if we assume that only 1% of the human population will support a monarchy, 1% of the human population is still 70 million people. That’s a lot of people.

Besides, just because there’s a king, doesn’t mean people will be oppressed. People are already being oppressed under ‘democracy’. It’s time we return to the simplest form of governance, where the one with absolute power is aware of the heavy responsibility instead of worrying about ‘public sentiments’ or ‘lobbyist support’…

(Larry G) #3

Not even close to libertarian philosophy.

[quote=“Shiina_Ai, post:8, topic:2616”]
if you don’t get what you want in a libertarian society, it’s your own fault for being useless.[/quote]

The point of a libertarian society is that overly-controlled societies hold people back from their potential.

You don’t always get what you want, even when you’re wealthy. This is not because you don’t deserve it, nor because you’re useless. But sometimes what you want is not economically feasible. Scarcities always exist, even in affluent societies, and prices are a signal of that.

The poor don’t become poorer for lack of a state. They usually become poorer due to the state.

Charity is necessary for emergencies, not for lifting people out of poverty. Neither charity nor taxation have ever lifted the masses out of poverty, nor will they ever. The most they do is sustain people IN poverty. A libertarian society wants people to do well, and recognizes that wealth is “plus sum”, not “zero sum”. The majority of modern wealth is achieved through value add services and arbitrage, not discovery of natural resources. So everybody benefits from trade, and becomes that incremental bit wealthier. Restrictions on people trading are restrictions on wealth building for everyone, not just on the rich.


Well, I was trying to make it sound simple.

While it’s true that charity does not lift people out of poverty, as you said, charity is necessary for emergencies. When someone is stuck in a pit, who will help them? In a libertarian society, there would need to be someone kind enough or with enough justification (whether profit or personal satisfaction) to offer their hand. With the existence of a state, the state is obligated to offer some form of assistance after a certain threshold is met. Nobody but the state is expected to foot the bill, and that money is actually already given by the community in the form of tax, similar to an insurance.

I do not see how taxation can be seen as restriction on trading unless the taxes are purposely burdensome on those it’s applied to. We are not interested in burdening the people. We won’t even implement income tax because seriously, nobody wants to do income tax. A state that cares for its people is not worse than a theoretical system that sounds just like utopia, and unfortunately, utopia is actually dystopia.

Anyway, I’m not putting down libertarian ideals. I’m just saying there are a lot of people who do not want the libertarian model and are just looking for more progressive versions of existing governments where their representatives aren’t from corrupt political dynasties. We offer that by putting an incorruptible person with absolute power at the top who keeps watch over the representatives elected.

Obviously, I’m not explaining everything as we still don’t have enough data to make a firm resolution on what we want to be. Also because none of us are well-versed in politics, so we’re doing this through trial and error. We’re all businessmen in our own fields.


Well I don’t think it’s constructive for us to get to arguey about what ideals are best. Because we are all here to try out our system of governance or build our businesses. If you think if you can build a kingdom or liberation government good for you and good luck. But just my personal opinion is that we have already tried kingdoms and they can work well but they can also fail greatly depending on who is the king. That is why democracy is dynamic. And BTW we have never tried a real democracy. One in which money is taken out of politics, and one in which corporations have to be a democracy too. Those are my thoughts. But if you can find a way to make a kingdom work good for you. But one thing that I have learned is that the heart of reality and truth is decentralized, including science, and a kingdom would be antithetical to this. But if you can prove me wrong then good luck. :wink:

(.) #6

They wanna get a statement for Jesus’ sake
It’s like a talking to the wall

(Chad Elwartowski) #7

The great thing about seasteading is that we can see what works and what doesn’t in at a faster pace.


The great thing about having a homestead at sea, for seasteading is not being burdened by such things. Sure, you can tax my goods in your market, if they go there, tax my purchases from your market, but, at the end of the visit, I get to go home and let y’all deal with whomever happens to be trying to be a freeloader.

(Bob LLewellyn) #9

[quote=“Shiina_Ai, post:4, topic:2689”]
In a libertarian society, there would need to be someone kind enough or with enough justification (whether profit or personal satisfaction) to offer their hand.[/quote]
The real problem with libertarianism is that no one seems to understand it. I copied this young ladies quote as an example of how others see us. We have put several thousands of dollars into the Marinea Project and at 65 what am I going to get out of it? The knowledge that I helped the next generation to survive is all that I really want. Beyond food and shelter, I have few needs so the work that I do is a contribution to the general welfare of humanity. I just can’t take it off of my taxes is the only difference.

So what is the best government for an ocean community? Any government that needs to use force to make people do what the government wants them to do is evil. This obviously includes the U.S. But when your home is mobile and you can leave one country and join another, force won’t work either.

I don’t have a crystal ball, so what I wisdom I will leave is that said by other long ago. “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. “The best laid plans of mice and men, all go astray”.

When you put these thoughtful saying together you get, “And the best laid mice corrupts power and men astray absolutely power corrupt go-plans of absolute all.”

(.) #10

May be a little explanation:
Everybody wants to be a king or a queen. Nobody comes up with the idea that
they build a seastead or a kingdom and they want to be the servants.

So, a king or a queen is a sovereign individual. The anarchist idea is,that every human
being is a sovereign individual. We are equal in being sovereign.
Nobody wants to be in slavery.

( Fable: "I am free! - said the monkey to the cage.
The cage said: " I am not free. I am locked around monkeys.)

(Chad Elwartowski) #11

A small seastead kingdom could be perfectly fine. Calling it a kingdom carries a lot of historical weight but if you change the word “king” to “CEO” then it changes the perception even though they’re filling the same role.

I say a small seastead kingdom works only because people know what they’re getting into when they go there. You could call it a cult, a commune with a leader, a team with a coach, etc. As long as everyone supports the vision of their leader then things should work out well. As long as you can leave there should be no concern. There are still kingdoms in the world. The United Kingdom still has a queen and they’re a modern society.

It all depends upon what is done with that power and how the citizens perceive it.


" A boat, my kingdom for a boat" :smile:

I guess if you built that “floating kingdom” with your own money than it’s your kingdom and you are king…


Taxes aren’t “given” …
… they are imposed by law and taken by the force of law.

If I don’t want to drive an automobile, then I don’t need to buy auto insurance.

Not so with taxes … because they are not voluntary.


In a cooperation, you’re expected to give money without having a say on where it goes, isn’t it? You only knows that it benefits all the members collectively and you give money because of that very fact. Some cooperation expects you to pay once and they use that money for investments. Some other type of cooperation expects you to pay annually and this money is used to help members without having to ask for money every time. The cooperation can buy wheat flour to prepare for famine, but you don’t eat bread, so you have no need for flour but the others do.

As for insurance, well, you’re using a very detailed insurance there. With insurance, you pay for the general stuff. Let’s take the average health insurance. You get hospital benefits, medicine benefits and when you die, your relatives get some money. You pay every year, but do you use it every year? Probably not, but your money that you don’t use helps pay for people who do need the healthcare, and on some years that you do need the healthcare, you use some other people’s money to pay for your bills. For example, you only paid like USD100 per month, but one day, you got into an accident and in that month, your healthcare bill is USD10000, now where would that money come from?

Or, let’s go with your example, auto insurance. Now, this is a very specific insurance, concerning itself with only one thing: automobile. Now, not everyone has a car, and taking a car insurance without a car is pointless, and even stupid in hindsight. So the people taking the auto-insurance are people who have a car. If you have a car, you take the auto-insurance, then when you do get into an accident, you use other people’s money to fix your car. You take an insurance out of fear that something can and will go wrong, though in some countries it’s a law to have auto-insurance if you have a car.

You give this money to the community because you are selfish. This isn’t charity. You want an insurance, in many different ways, because you are afraid that something bad will happen to you. You and neighbour give your money to this community, because if either one of you got in trouble, you have to help each other, but neither of you wants to bend over backwards to help each other with everything you have. You expect the whole community to pitch in, but your community probably doesn’t want to pitch in. There’s where community funds (cooperation) comes in.

A government (and taxation) is essentially the same thing. Sure, it’s not voluntary and I will not argue with you about that. However, they perform the same function. You give money to the government, and the government either make things that benefit you or help you when you’re down. You don’t have to bend over backwards to help your neighbour, the government takes part in helping your neighbour.

You want to go to university? The government can give you a loan (where you pay for it after you graduate), subsidize it (so that it becomes cheaper for you) or give you a scholarship (where you don’t have to pay a single cent), with everyone’s money. Each person giving maybe $5 for your education. Now imagine asking 4,000 people $5 to get $20,000 to fund your education. Can you do it? Let us ignore the fact that you probably have the money to pay it yourself, and let us assume that you’re a 17 year old kid with no asset or rich parents.

Let’s ignore American politics, Rothchild and the IRS, because your new seasteading community will likely not have their hand in it. Someone will probably mention or think about it the moment taxation comes up in American context.

[quote=“ForexBob, post:9, topic:2689, full:true”]

[quote=“Shiina_Ai, post:4, topic:2689”]
In a libertarian society, there would need to be someone kind enough or with enough justification (whether profit or personal satisfaction) to offer their hand.[/quote]
The real problem with libertarianism is that no one seems to understand it.[/quote]

Exactly, nobody really understands what it is. Everyone seems to have a different understanding when the word libertarianism comes up. If you ask 100 people what is libertarianism, 100 people will give 100 different answers. Even in the same group of libertarians, their answer will be very different. The only thing that everyone will agree on is that libertarianism makes emphasis on personal freedom. Some would not even answer beyond ‘no taxes, do whatever you want, no government’ and then point you to the wikipedia article because the wikipedia article explains it better.

Marinea’s brand of libertarianism (not that I really know in depth as I’m not a member of Marinea) is likely different from Minerva Project, Project Entropy or the Blue Sea Project’s libertarian ideals. For example, the Blue Sea Project do not care about enforcing self-ownership, as they’re based on the original Utopian ideal. That is, every citizen can do whatever they want, can take whatever they want, and live wherever they want. They won’t even have to work, because they have slaves to do that for them. Yes, the original Utopia promoted slavery.

There are so many different brands of libertarianism, some with conflicting ideals and most with vague ideals that only your own brand of libertarianism matters. This makes it a problem, because an argument about one project will most likely be a non issue with another project, Arguing for or against libertarianism is hard because the answers are different for different projects but they’re all called libertarianism. So when you argue about something, you’re bound to offend someone else because their brand makes that issue a non-issue. Arguing about communism is much easier in comparison, because you have Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism. They’re all communism and they’re all the same, but there are subtle differences that sets them apart, the same can’t be said about libertarianism.



The purpose of discussion and debate is so that ideas (including expenditures) can be presented and various members of an assembly can learn each other’s perspective and possibly be persuaded by the best presentation.

In that context - which is the foundation of democratic governance (in its various forms) - there is no blind contribution to an unknown cause.

EVERY cause (and expenditure) is, thus, presented publicly and debated before it is accepted (agreed upon) by the assembly.

Read Robert’s Rules of Order.


And that’s what a nation’s Budget presentation is supposed to be. The head of state or the economics minister or whoever in charge of presenting the annual budget for your country is supposed to make the allocations public once every year. In a true democracy, citizens can object to this within varying periods of time permissible by the state. The reality of today’s democracy is, such period of objection is not open to the public, it’s open only to politicians elected into the hall and these people have only their own interests in mind.

And this doesn’t argue against taxation, it only argues against the lack of transparency. Therefore, your argument here suggests that you’re not against taxation, only that it’s used in areas you do not agree with, perhaps maybe the military and the war in Iraq?

It is the same in a cooperation. They can make a big meeting with all the stock holders present and they will then argue on how much money is allocated to certain stuff or projects. But once that has been agreed on, the members have no say on what it’s used for within the allocations agreed upon. They can bring it up in the next meeting, but until then, the executors have all the decision-making powers within the scope of the allocations.


Where does the military and war on Iraq come into seasteading? Having a defense of some sort makes sense, but, unless you’re joining a military force involved in Iraq, I highly doubt a seastead would have any involvement, other than taxes paid to a host nation involved there, or supporting humanitarian efforts.

My brother was shot and nearly killed by a sniper in Mozul. He STILL wants to go back, for humanitarian purposes, and continue the good things he did, besides fighting ISIS.


I’m just mentioning the military and the war in Iraq as an example of budgets that people would not approve of to make my point. After the war in Iraq was concluded, evidence piled up that Bush made everything up and acquired all the money through unconstitutional means. I’m sure Americans have heard this before. If Americans were given a choice of attacking Iraq in the first place after decades of embargo, would they have agreed to it if presented with the real facts and the projected cost of such an invasion? Would the taxpayers have said, “Go for it” if they knew all the facts?

Anyway, my point in the post you quoted was not the evils of the military, but that the evil does not lie in taxation, but how the taxes are used. I was not talking about whether or not it’s human to fight evil.


Actually, the evidence was ignored by the press and swept under the ‘rug’, by all the nay-sayers, but what do I know? I’m just ex-Army, saw the telecast watching the convoy move the missiles to Syria, via satellite tracking, as well as the radar tracking it. Where did you think the Syrians got the stuff
they used, from Walmart?

Getting back to the subject:
How is your kingdom going to ensure the taxes are used the way the people want? How will your rulers earn their income, or will they also sponge off the taxes?


How will the rulers earn their income?
The Monaco model. Bet some of you don’t know what the Monaco Model is, right?

How is my kingdom going to ensure the taxes are used the way the people want?
The UK model, except imagine the Queen having absolute power and the elected executive office only borrows her power and she can sack them any time they went too far.

Seriously, I’m getting tired of people dissing the kingdom model just because they can’t see how the kingdom model can work and they’ve set it in their minds that total freedom is the only way to go. This is not a forum for 12 year old trolls. This forum is where we share our dreams. Is there any reason for acting like kids at the playground? Has anyone even read Elwar’s short reply? This paragraph does not refer to Frusha, Bob or Bob. I have no problem with arguing my ideals. But don’t diss people because your mind is closed, that’s incredibly rude.

I have so many topics to discuss and a few findings I’m willing to share from our research to give back for the information I’ve received here. But it’s clear to me that apart from a mere few, the rest are only here to make fun and harass those who think different. Oh I’m not talking about this thread, but also in PM. Sorry Frusha, I don’t think I’ll be staying in this place after all.

Has anyone even asked me how our kingdom model will work other than Frusha? I was already prepared to show diagrams in case anyone ask. But no, the fact that nobody asked shows that everyone already have it set that “This is never going to work.”