How would you deal with people that break the law on a seastead?


(bill mapezzi) #14

I agree here. The problem is gone, the countries that check won’t inherit the problem, and they will just all gravitate together and go the Darwin route (even though I don’t think much of his theory it gives an example). So there is some “deterrent” after all.


(Larry G) #15

Technically, studies show that death penalty vs long term imprisonment has little difference in deterrent effect; the major deterrent effect is more closely related to likelihood of being caught than degree of penalty.

But more lenient locations with no death penalty do see some more heinous crimes, if not more absolute volume of crime. And banishment is just not a punishment in modern society. It’ll almost certainly have the same effect as failing to detect a crime at all.

I actually do study this stuff professionally.


(bill mapezzi) #16

But even if so, were talking seasteads here. If they are gone, left on a life raft with some water, dried fish, and a paddle, that a pretty harsh image to look forward to. If someone burnt their last bridge and is on their own, they are either shape up or ship out. Of coarse I’m assuming everybody knows everybody else on the seastead.


(Torrey Jones) #17

To me, that just smacks of ocean pollution, throwing your refuse overboard… It’s making that person someone else’s problem to deal with because you don’t have the moral fortitude to deal with the problem yourself.

“Get off my Boat” works. “Get off my marina” also works. Partly, they work because you have a higher legal authority to appeal to, when you become that higher legal authority, you are assuming the responsibility of dealing with those problems, not just setting them free and letting them go be a problem for “Anyone But Me.”


(bill mapezzi) #18

Your coming at it from a culture where crime is an institution, prison is an institution, career criminals. Our system is basically rat on people if you can and call the cops - professionals. Idk, i read everything yesterday and for me- Chad made the most sense. I’m thinking moving to a seastead is like one seastead one family(extended), Sure quite a few families can be compatible and live next to each other but each “unit” is unto itself only (pure anarchism or family monarchy), so your not on your own turf at all if you go visit your neighbor. There are no cops to call on. If discipline is not maintained in one and you got two or three generations of inbreeds/bastards and wanted rapists living next to your family…you’re an idiot and deserve it. I’m agree 100% with mobile seasteads.
Oceans can be tamed with “outer communities” growing seaweed and living near to seaworthy craft whle holding no rhyme or reason for being told what to do. To me self defense is whatever it takes. The same training does not allow pro-active mentality toward disciplining OTHERS.


(Torrey Jones) #19

I think this is where the problem lies. Even a large vessel, like a cruise ship or container vessel, is still viewed as a ship that is flagged to a Host Nation, such as the Philippines, or Indonesia, or even the USA. That makes you beholden to the laws of whatever nation you’re flagged to, and you don’t have a right to fly your own flag as you’re not an independent nation. It really doesn’t matter if you’re Harmony of the Seas or Barzan, you’re still just a ship, and not a nation, regardless of having more residents than 7 other nations.

A single “Homestead on the seas” which is one family, even if extended, is never going to have the authority to be left in peace as one might like. This is always going to remain true until you have a fixed geo-location under your control and rule of law that others also agree to willingly.

If someone comes on your family’s floating homestead and kills your brother, your host nation is never going to allow you to prosecute that murderer for a variety of reasons. Vested interest, lack of legal training, lack of advocate for the defense, etc. In a single family steading, you may well have to lock the perp in the bilge until they can be turned over to your parent nation for prosecution. Based on many nations laws, just letting the person go, ie banishment from your steading, would be viewed as aiding and abetting as you have let him escape legal prosecution.

Look back to the last time that there were homesteads on as lawless land as could be found, it was the American West. Even there, where you had settlers spread out over many miles, they still had County authorities to turn to, like a sheriff, when legal matters arose, and there was always a town (usually where the sheriff had his office) with an elected mayor somewhere near-ish by that was responsible for passing the laws that everyone in the area had to abide by, be they town-folk or homesteader.

So, depending on what you’re referring to, either a small floating homestead for a single extended family, or a larger community, your options and responsibilities are different, and those differences need to be accounted for.


#20

While I agree and respect you expertise, society, as we know it on land, and future seasteads, as we can only try to imagine them, seem to have very little in common.

Well,… actually ZERO since there are no seasteads yet.

But, assuming a future seastead of about 100?-200? people, I think that it would be fair to say that law enforcement would not be a priority on such minor scale…


(bill mapezzi) #21

Yeah. Well I’m not a lawyer. I was just considering like the complete sovereign nation (city state) type deal. So far nobody has tried it outside EEZ, I’m not saying its presumptious, the majority share you view, but It is not a certainty that a new nation can’t “form”. If you are in the USA sphere of influence and they don’t bother you, and right away, I say that gives you a free hand to go to war with green peace, UN, China, Somalia…or anyone else who would challenge your sovereignty. I don’t think I would go along with any plan to sink an American warship or take hostage their boarding party, MAD at best, but I would certainly resist and be loud about it.


(r) #22

Does anyone think it could work this way?

The Intranet of iPhones is the SeaSpread’s governance, and it is held together with a block chain system. This might work from a member’s conductor and accomplishment aspect. A hometown newspaper if you will.

But step out of line and it is ostracism time. Remember your SeaStead is an island it can get pretty lonely and rough out on the beach with a fishing pole and water canteen. Especially when your friends and relations can’t go to see you for a while. “Mommy when is Daddy coming home?”

And the concept of the Icelandic Althing is very effective, for solving day to day problems but it was developed by some tough people living under difficult circumstances.

All members have a SeaSpread mobile phone and access to the block chain. Your personal code is your password and rap sheet (good or bad). Everyone knows each other’s activities through the system. You could lose every credit you have acquired in the system and wind up on the beach for wrong doings.

I know most utopia’s don’t work because people are involved. But the Ottoman Empire worked for 600 years through a communications hierarchy that makes the US Government look like the Boy Scouts.

Therefore, besides living in the SeaStead, you must police it as well. Everyone in our neighborhood keeps their lawn very nice, but skip a few weeks and lookout buster.

We could try ‘The System’ out as a movie or a reality TV show, just to see if anyone waves at it.


(bill mapezzi) #23

I’m not understanding much here. I sort of understand “blockchain”, active democracy, and administrating the “peoples decision” with the omnipotent and clear cut efficiency of a depersonalized “computer” Ottoman Empire, but not at all grasping the switching between SeaSpread and SeaStead, nor the conclusion to “police” anything.

How about “grey areas”. Law says no “dogfighting”. Accidentally two dogs “break loose”, dogs bred to fight and establish dominance. These are agile, strong, potentially dangerous dogs in the heat of battle so everybody claims that it couldn’t be broken up, and since nothing else could be done they decide to wager on the outcome of the “accidental disturbance”. Along comes Pristina Nosebody and with her cameras, shrieks, and general lack of a solution decides to “write everybody up” on the “blockchain”. Unfortunately being computer based it will only make a yes or no decision. Where does lead? To dozens of productive members being isolated out of the city walls for six months pondering ways to get back at the witch (even underhanded)? Not good. Better no police, especially no computer judges. Citizen arrests and organized militia for perimeter defense I think is best solution.


(.) #24

post withdrawn , content will be created elsewhere


(Chad Elwartowski) #25

Like Elmer you are confusing an AI running society and humans using computers to help them perform services more efficiently. A blockchain is just a public database. Databases can’t make decisions.

In your scenario though I would first say that there was no victim thus no crime, BUT if somehow someone in the scenario claimed to be a victim (perhaps the owner of the dog in the fight makes the claim that the spectators could have prevented it) then the victim would come forward and file a claim against the people wagering.

That claim might go up as a new entry on the blockchain, in a queue of other claims. Some human vehicle to determine guilt would eventually pull up that entry. It could be a judge and jury (maybe all over remote video so you don’t have to pay for court space). The verdict of the case would then go up on the blockchain and if found guilty then it would be known that those people owe the victim for their “crime”. Debts between people would be dealt in whichever ways those are dealt with.

Another scenario for determining guilt (and this is getting into the depths of blockchain here) could be prediction markets.
Something like Augur allows people to predict the outcome of something. All random people from everywhere allowed to bet on what they think the result will be. For something as simple as a football game the mechanics are simple, people predict the outcome with their money, as the outcome comes closer and closer to being realized more people “trade” for the eventual outcome. When the time limit is reached, the majority of bets get to divide up the minority of bets. Assuming everyone knows what the outcome is, they will bet on the side of truth (because they think everyone else will also bet on the side of truth). Now, then comes the question of…what if someone with a lot of money just bets on the false outcome to get a majority and take all the money from those betting on the truth? They can do that, but then they run the risk of someone else with a lot of money betting on the truth since the odds are in their favor.

This type of decision making incentivizes people with the knowledge to bet toward the outcome they know to be true assuming that others will also find out that knowledge. For a trial, people with knowledge in the case will want to make it known to the other betters. To make it more likely that their bet will win. The other side might want to get as much information out as well to get their side known. Even people with insider knowledge will want to bet for the truth because they have the inside scoop.

Of course, that is all theoretical. But it is people deciding the outcome, not some blockchain Artificial Intelligence that decides “yes or no”.


#26

LOL, just got yourself in your own “Off topic” bin,… :wink:

How can money have anything to do with “justice”?.. Well, unless you want to revisit the US corporate-state run for profit prison system… It seems to be a very SOLID BLOCK CHAIN. Literally that is.


(Chad Elwartowski) #27

That’s the whole point of this thread…dealing with law breakers and how to fund it.

Unless you have a system where it costs nothing, the first person to say “this should not be allowed” means you need to have a way to get funds on your seastead. Funding leads to centralization of power, centralization of power leads to tyranny, tyranny leads to…suffering…


#28

Maybe philosophically so. But so what?

In reality, will you refuse to pay for (fund) a “justice system” on the French Polynesia seastead? I mean,… the fairest solution would be to be able to “opt out” from whatever “government services” if one chooses to do so.

BUT, if stuck in a “democratic dictatorship” of a majority, what really choices are out there in the absence of an already in place constitutional amendments to opt out?


(Chad Elwartowski) #29

In French Polynesia we will be under the French Polynesia justice system so there’s really no debating the early phase pilot project and how that will work.

When there are actual competing governances in international waters then I would gravitate toward moving my home to one that is more in line with my ideals. Even though I know I will have to compromise due to the fact that not everyone has the same ideals.


(Wilfried Ellmer) #30

| seasteading | oceanic freedom | subdue to nobody | interference freedom |

at which point seasteading has become about rules, frames, policing, locking people in, taking away their freedom, limiting their potential to act and create, building walls, subduing, …

did i miss out on this “mega paradigm shift”…

this was once libertarian core territory…


(Chad Elwartowski) #31

It always comes up.

There are actually very few people who actually want to truly be free. Even if they like the slogans.


(Wilfried Ellmer) #32

Sure a sheep feels good having the ass of another sheep in front to follow…that is how “global control” of the 0.001 % over the planet works…


(Torrey Jones) #33

I think you’ll have to fund it the same way other nations do, from the profits of your other enterprises, voluntary and involuntary taxes (to your individual preference).

It is logical, and quite reasonable, to think that by the time a Steading is expected to provide for its own justice system, that the realities of the situation would be that it has already been doing so, and paying for it from its own coffers with funding from “private” ventures owned and operated by the steading owners/developers, and charging for the optional services of Government. If, as the site owner’s videos suggest, that at first, when it’s just a handful of house boats connected to a mobile marina floating in a protected bay, that the Steading would be dependent upon the host nation for Justice, and that as the floating community grows and moves to ever deeper waters, it’s reliance upon the host nation for any particular matter diminishes, including for Justice and the establishment of your own system of Laws, be they as extensive or brief as the Steading Founders desire.