Different forms of government

(Bob LLewellyn) #43

[quote=“spark, post:41, topic:2689, full:true”]
Are these numbers set, or are these number negotiable?[/quote]
They are just an example, each business would have its own criteria of how much each position would make. Some one with a doctorate might demand 10% or even more if the business was running on his credentials. But each business would offer a percentage of the profits and after the first year or so give the perspective employee an estimate of what the percentage would be. Employees would get a draw to live on then when the profits are paid to the stock holders, the employees would get their pay minus their draws.

The nice part of doing things this way is that the position has the value of stocks and could have a vote in the business affairs of the board. Or the employees percentages could be divided off and those stocks treated as preferred stocks.

The other changes that I would suggest is to elect only a Vise President. He would spend four years as a VP then the next four years he is the president. After that, he spends 4 years as first advisor. Then he gets out of government. First advisor has the option of running for a second term and if he wins, he would be the new VP, and it starts all over again. I always thought that it was stupid to put the keys to the kingdom and nuclear bombs in the hands of a complete novice.

(.) #44

So, I donno. I have no set of anything, except it has to float.
Those might be good ideas. Monarchy could be a good idea too.
I like the idea of: “vote with your boat”, and that is not my idea.

(Bob LLewellyn) #45

[quote=“spark, post:44, topic:2689”]
“vote with your boat”[/quote]
Oh, I like that. Mind if I borrow it?

(Chad Elwartowski) #46

Most people here are seeing the inhabitants as educated first world people who are used to freedom and luxuries of food, energy, etc.

There are literally billions of people in the world that would be just fine with getting away from their current country to live anywhere that they won’t starve or has some basic amenities. They would not care about what government structure they are subject to as it is likely better than the one they are leaving.

If they have regular access to food and basic sanitation and the king says that everyone needs to wear a fuzzy hat…they’ll be wearing fuzzy hats, no problem. No marijuana? Ok. Not going into philosophical debates about consent of the governed and the right to do what you want with your body…etc.

(Kim Cowdroy) #47

What?! I don’t want to be included in that “all”.

I have always been of the opinion that any society system will “work” provided the members agree to make it “work”. One system may be economically more efficient than another, but that does not mean each will not be able to exist, given sufficient support.

Given the current levels of exorbitant taxation and governmental waste throughout the world, I think there must be plenty of people who would be prepared to pay some tax if they can live in an efficiently run and relatively crime-free society, regardless of who runs it.

Once you become part of the society then yes, you are “forced” to pay taxes. But your decision to join (or leave) that particular seasteading society is yours in the first place.

(Larry G) #48

This would be a “tax”.

“No taxation without representation” was the rally call, not zero taxation. If you can participate in deciding what is worthy of a tax and what isn’t, you’re not a slave. We are all servants. Without service to others, we can gain no benefit other than what we directly can make for ourselves, and that is a miserable life. There is nothing wrong with serving others.

Not necessarily. We’re each able to choose who the most important person is. It might be your spouse, or a child. It might be the common good of all mankind if you’re the Mother Teresa type. The real point of libertarianism is choice. You own yourself, and the output of your labor, and can choose to spend either in any way you see fit that isn’t direct harm to another.

Not really, still a bunch of them in the world. Some of them are called different things.

This is the shortsighted, dumbed-down explanation of libertarianism that gives it such a stink to so many people. Governments are not evil. They are not inherently inefficient, that depends more on scale. If you want to really put a fine point on it, autocracies (such as monarchies) are generally far less inefficient than democracies.

Individual PEOPLE in government and outside of it are evil. Evil people may be attracted to government; so are good people in many cases. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions” is true because people will allow good intentions to override results because it seems more expedient to use a hammer and force a solution than to tailor individual solutions.

The problem with governments is maladaptive incentives, often expressed as the agency problem. A good discussion of this is Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureacracy.

Well, telling someone their idea is ridiculous on the face of it, “we all know it” that they’re too young to have perspective (implying they can’t understand it if explained) and that you don’t need to take it seriously, is pretty dismissive and uncivil. If a college professor took that attitude toward your kid in a class, how would you look at it?

Indeed. And people become conditioned to the idea that they “should” or “must” pay taxes (often exorbitant taxes) in order to get those benefits, and don’t see that there may be other ways. Nonetheless, they voluntarily continue the system.

Things get much more clear if you apply libertarianism as a vector to a system, rather than as a system in itself. A libertarian direct democracy is very achievable at the city-state level. A libertarian republic should be able to scale more or less forever.

(Larry G) #49
  • What makes the king “incorruptible”?
  • How are the officials elected/appointed?
  • what makes these officials accountable, and if the king chooses to remove them from power, how does he do it if they refuse to leave? Especially if they have immediate, current control of resources?
  • If the king and the official disagree on what constitutes “messed up too far” who decides? What constitutes “failed to gain the people’s support”?
  • How do I redress a circumstance where I believe the king is incorrect (perhaps missing information or has been misled by liars) or unfair?
  • With only one final arbiter, what happens if he is busy?
  • Is it direct democracy or representative republic? Does everyone vote on every issue?
  • Are there any absolute rights of citizens that may not ever be sacrificed for expedience of “the greater good”?

(Matias Volco) #50

@Shiina_Ai you mentioned the Monaco model, which is cool because it’s next to the sea and has the largest percentage of floating territory of any nation on Earth. It is also the only nation that has expanded its territory so much with purely pacific means (building on water). Monaco, like DisneyWorld, are both good (and somewhat opposite) examples of “Extraterritorialized”

However in order to address the poitical questions raised here you would benefit more from pointing to the Liechtenstein model discussed in post 15 of extraterritorialized

(Bob LLewellyn) #51

[quote=“thebastidge, post:48, topic:2689”]
In Marinea, we will ask business that wish to be part of our network to give 2% of the stock or ownership to Marinea.

This would be a “tax”.[/quote]
It would not, it’s completely voluntary and they are getting something for those shares. If you want to be critical call it what it is, a bribe.

So why are you being so critical anyway, did you forget to eat your breakfast this morning? GRRRR.

And Shiina_Ai this is how you handle someone raging on your dreams. Follow my lead, Hey Larry, Plplplplplppppp. This is known as a raspberry.

(Larry G) #52

Because the forum needs new blood thinking out loud, not leaving. Because the forum has a poor history with being inclusive of female voices. Because reasoned debate strengthens ideas.

Let’s all try being supportive and overtly non-combative, for a change.

(Bob LLewellyn) #53

Oh, good point…

(Larry G) #57

Back on topic, please…

(Matias Volco) #58

Because apparently that makes all the difference when evaluating concepts (or being “inclusive” of the voices expressing them) relating to permanent human habitation at sea!

@Shiina_Ai Obviously demonstrated an understanding of the gist of seasteading

  • (l)ibertarianism is about non zero sum games. }
  • if you build anew (non zero sum), historical politics is a moot point
  • Monarchy is a default conceptual anchor. Sovereignty is the concept. Venice was the most Sovereign Republic (The Most Serene, La Serenisima) - same title is used by other peace-mongering monarchies like Monaco - which Ai understands.
  • Residents of most sovereign (serenisimo!) states are always voluntary - not even citizens. It’s the same as Celebration by Disney, but better.
  • Ai understands that seasteading, as in ocean colonization, is a goal more related to MICRONATIONS than to social experiments or DIY reinventions of the wheel.
  • Ai understands that new kingdoms can only be built (not conquered) - by default at sea because of the free space
  • Ai understands the structure, for it to be seaworthy enough to be sovereign, must be large enough to allow for an[ inner garden ENTIRELY protected from the harsh oceanic environment.
    -Ai is able to think conceptually ( the fruting trees don’t even need to bear fruit - psychological)

-Ai understands the evolutionary context of Seasteading

I approach ocean colonization in a similar way as I would approach space colonization.

I see my and other people’s posts are being swiftly deleted destroying context.
For a flowing conversation contact users directly.


No. My “argument” was against the claim that we’re “expected to give money without having a say on where it goes”


I’m not opposed to a seastead being a Kingdom, @Shiina_Ai.

I, personally, would prefer a different form of governance … but I don’t object to your kingdom model.

  1. What makes the king “incorruptible”?
    The king does not make decisions. He provides a focus and listens to the people. But he himself does not run the government and therefore there is little sense in trying to bribe him. While this is not foolproof, it is much easier to teach common sense and ethics to one person than a whole nation. A whole nation of possible representatives with their own minds and sense of ethics.

  2. How are the officials elected/appointed?
    Through general elections. The people directly vote for people they want to be in office for 5 years. Citizens do not vote for representatives who then are given roles. They vote directly. So if there is an election for minister of finance, people will directly vote among the people campaigning for that position. This weakens the power of political dynasties as there is little room for favours. For example, there are two office currently vacant, the ministry of foreign affairs (campaigners: Albert, Beatrice, Carl) and the ministry of security (campaigners: Daniel, Elizabeth, Fred). People can’t vote for Daniel to lead the ministry of foreign affairs, because he’s campaigning for ministry of security.

  3. what makes these officials accountable, and if the king chooses to remove them from power, how does he do it if they refuse to leave? Especially if they have immediate, current control of resources?
    Since they’re voted into office by the citizens, that is their job and they are immediately accountable as they have the power to implement policies without interference from the other ministers or the king. The king will not normally exercise his power to remove a minister, unless things has gone too far and the minister still refuse to step down for whatever reason. The ministers do have immediate and current control of resources, but in the case they refuse to step down, the king can use force.

  4. If the king and the official disagree on what constitutes “messed up too far” who decides? What constitutes “failed to gain the people’s support”?
    The people decides it. When things have gone too far, the people can request an impartial royal inquiry into the matter they are concerned about. The inquiry will focus on gathering evidence that supports or disputes the allegations. To ensure no disturbance from the minister being investigated, he will be suspended from office and the king will handle his tasks until the inquiry is done. The evidence will be made public but it’s the king’s decision what happens to the minister.

  5. How do I redress a circumstance where I believe the king is incorrect (perhaps missing information or has been misled by liars) or unfair?
    On Risenia, there is a public hall planned with direct access to the king. If the king is online, anyone can talk to the king directly through video conferencing or phone from this terminal. We may tweak this idea a little over time, but right now, we believe everyone should have the right to speak with the king without interference from others.

  6. With only one final arbiter, what happens if he is busy?
    That problem does exist. We do not have a solution to it. However, we think this is not a significant problem as Risenia’s 1st District is not designed to provide residence for more than 10,000 people. While it shouldn’t sink even at 20k people, we want to provide an aesthetically pleasing city. So we’re limiting the people who reside there.

  7. Is it direct democracy or representative republic? Does everyone vote on every issue?
    I don’t think there has ever been any government similar to ours, so I can say which one is closest. Basically, the elected ministers have free reign to implement policies or build anything as long as it is within their budget. While the result of public voting on issues is not going to be binding, the people can make their opinions known through various medias.

  8. Are there any absolute rights of citizens that may not ever be sacrificed for expedience of “the greater good”?
    The people have absolute rights to:

  • Leave at any given time
  • Gain employment without discrimination on gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation
  • Free public education without discrimination on gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation (though we do not approve of faith schools or public display of religious items while in school)
  • Freedom of religion and worship
  • Freedom of speech (though some degrees of slander will be against the law)
  • Freedom of sanctuary in their own homes (what this means is, police can’t break down their doors unless with a court-issued warrant and they can do whatever they want in their own homes. this is important because in some muslim countries, you can be assaulted in your own home if people think you’re sinning against God)

People will probably wonder, what about the freedom to bear arms? That is not a citizen’s absolute rights. They have the right to get a license for arms if they so desire and to keep it in their homes, but they’re not allowed to carry it in public unless they have the ‘license to carry arms’, which is a license on top of the ‘license to keep arms’. Non-lethal weapons such as tazers, pepper spray and baseball bats are fine to carry without license.


Your description sounds more like a referendum based direct democracy, rather than of a kingdom or monarchy. You can easily replace the word KING with PRESIDENT or HEAD REPRESENTATIVE, etc.

Few years ago I had envision an oceanic direct democracy (OASEAS PROJECT) based on the principles of UNANIMOCRACY and ALTERNATIVISM

UNANIMOCRACY, as defined by us, is a referendum based democracy in which a supermajority high percentage vote is required for any legislation to become law. This high percentage number will be known as Unanimocracy Percentage (UPER) and will be determined according to Chapter 5. of the Oaseas Charter. It is our belief that the unanimocracy system will create a smaller government, fewer laws and diminish political opposition, thus reducing social antagonism. All of those combined, will result in better preserved individual freedoms and a better, more stable and fair political system.

ALTERNATIVISM, as defined by us, is an economic ideology alternative to socialism or capitalism in which individual wealth and ownership of private & productive property are highly desirable for all the members of society, and where the means of production are ideally being spread as widely as possible among the general populace, rather than being centralized under the control of the state (socialism) or a few large businesses or wealthy private individuals (capitalism).

(Matias Volco) #63

I don’t believe that’s what she’s saying at all: she specifically retierated that they want to create a pleasant environment that would not eventually go to shit like every other city in the World (ref. Why can’t we have nice things?)

A way to make it more palatable to regiophobes here in the Western suburbs would be to think of it as a company seastead. ref. When Copanies becomme countries they will float in their own infrastrtucture.

But when one looks at the “downtown” of the World, you’ll see the most humane and cleanest countries are all monarchies. Without any exception (heck even Hong Kong used to be a Monarchy until 1997).

Since the whole political point of Seasteading is the opt in opt out mobility, the non zero sum game, all systems of government would be by default libertarian, or rather, free, so long as this rule is upheld.

Much like one can do from a website when it becomes noxious


That sounds like referendum to me. General election are referendum.

But you can believe anything you want.

(.) #66

(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)