So, how wouldmit be, if there were a version of seasteading thT involves little money and lots of time?
@spark you would probably start with a small business on the water and take it from there…
This is probably not for you.
There were those hippies in Sausalito, California, USA.
They found abandoned navie ships in the harbor, and they lived on it.
And they called it the Last Free Ride.
Those are different ideas from investment talk. They needed no investment.
And they did not want to make a fortune. They just wanted to make a living
on tney own way.
Some people cannot even imagine life like that. Just like some people could not
understand 500 years ago that the Earth is not flat.
“You cannot sail that far because you will fall off the edge of the world.”
"Then you can start a family business."
May be no kind of business is the motivation of seasteding.
There could be many different kind of seasteading, and we will see wich one
Investment and returns, are not independent way of thinking. There are expectations.
And expectations are premeditated disappointments.
So, the investment and investors, and expectations, and what happens when expectations
are not met. When there are expetations for investment return, is that an independent
no interference zone?
So, for me the words investment, and business investment and expected return, does not
So, Neo, the matrix has you! On land there is no free ride. Someone owns every square inch.
Who made the owners the owners? After all in the US all land was the property of the
Indian Nations (native American indians). (They still own some reserved land)
But the rest was transfered somehow to the ownership of other people. And now, they are the
owners. Owners charge. It is like the game of monopoly.
The game is so well designed that most people cannot even imagine not to play the game.
A machine can fly? And the Earth is not flat? And anarchy is not chaos?
Is dictatorship the chaotic form? Natural Laws could be enough to govern a group of people?
Investment and business return will just expand the already existing ownership.
Owners will charge, because owners do charge now.
How about free of charge? Little money and a lots of time type of seastead would be a different
life. By lots of time, I mean an individual could spend his or her time working for self, and that
would not be taxable, because it would be outside of the taxation area, and it would be
outside of the ownership zone.
Navy. autocorrect typing on a touchscreen can get tricky
When a seastead is built with time, and not with money it is difficult to put
a monetary number on the value of the seastead.
When the building takes only time, the building can be restarted when a seastead is lost.
There would be not much point to defend the ownership of a seastead when it is only
time to build another one. There would be no reason to exile anyone because people
can just move away form undesired situations.
There might be new technologies that would make seasteading structures a low cost
startup. One if this could be seawater electrochemistry using sea, elecrrodes solar panels,
or other type of electric sources.
One of these new technologies could be Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC).
Some of these technologies are readily available, such as solar photovoltaic panels.
Solar panels can produce low voltage direct current for seawater electrolysis, and over
a long time lots if buildin materials can be electrolysed out of seawater.
This would take a little investment and a lots of time.
There are other technologies too, and thise could be used inconjunction with each other.
Users and owneroperators are needed, I guess. Or it is possible.
Biorock alias seacrete is possible, and there are workshops and articles and research
There might be other applications of seawater electolysis too. And there might be other
I have a solar panel, and I have two electrodes, and there is seawater around me.
I am glad to report that biorock is true, and it works for me too.
I have limitted experience with it right now.
I think the main value of a seastead should be the human beings living on it.
When people can leave the seastead the value would decrease, and people
would be free to leave the seastead. Or float away from each other.
That would give some security to the seasteading system, that structures, and
hard goods are not the value of a seastead, but people are.
This might be a self evident truth, that the value of a community is the human beings on it.
Since the human beings could not be posessed, there would be little reason to forcefully
occupy or invade, or posess a seastead.
I think, the purpose and intended use of a seastead needs to be considered to a certain
extent, before building a seastead.
The defense mechanism, is hide, run, fight. In that order. If the seastead has no
value to posess, then it becomes unattractive for those who would forcefully posess it.
So, the seastead would hide into being valueless.
This is the reason, why I think there should be a little money as possible to be invested
into a seastead. Lots of human time investment would be OK, since that would be
difficult or impossible to posess. Each human individual would posess his or her time.
You realize that many regimes limit emigration for EXACTLY that reason, right?
Also, unless you can synthesize the raw materials the platforms are made out of from the ocean itself, they will likely, if not always, have higher monetary value than the people. It might take years to afford more material from land to build replacement platforms with.
The ocean is so big, even the protected coasts are so underused, that all alternatives are valid. It’s a wide frontier.
As I was telling you via pm, Richie Sowa has built an island through time, not money.
By collecting plastic bottles and attaching them together to create a floating island he effectively made land out of trash in a more innovative way than a landfill,
shantytowns are characteristic of rapid urbanization. in some countries some of the people who live in those shantytowns have to resort to “recycling” trash in the worst conditions as the only both legal and moral activity they can find. Unfortunately the flotation value of bottles is lost when they smash them to sell as plastic.
In the specific case of Richie Sowa, (he built the island in Cancun) Mexican authorities decided the floating island was Mexican soil, not vessel, so he could not float it out to other countries. Still Mexico has many “defensive” territory-related legal idiosyncrasies not found in other Latin American countries.
So every week I walk with a buddy in the center of my city. There’s a large river there. This is a boat on the river. I always laugh a bit, because this reminds me of the Seastead for the 99%.
The basic boat is about a 26 foot motorboat. Along side it is a wooden floating dock, with a couch and a big screen TV. Last fall there was a tarp. But a big windstorm took that off. Check out the cool water slide.
the water slide is a pretty cool touch, is that Portland? still looks like seasteading for the 9%, not the 99, a concept I find difficult for Americans to grasp.
I understand homelessness has special legal status in that city, but still is that platform just anchored in the middle of the river? no permit or private property nearby, maybe that marina on the background?
In Oregon, all shoreline is public property (a park, basically, from the high water mark down to the actual water line). So it is always legal to walk on it, and I suppose land your boat. There is no private ownership of beaches here like there is in California. People who own beach homes, control the land only to the high water mark.
And yes, this is a form of homelessness. I don’t believe a permit is required. City regulations say you can only park for 30 days at a time. After 30 days, you are are expected to move five miles or more up or downstream. I think enforcement is lax, since this house/platform combo has been in the same mile or so for almost a year. About half the boats in the marina in the background are also residences. Also, out of the picture on the right is another 10 boats (nicer looking) that are pretty much full time moored and have been there for a year or more.
So I guess I can talk seasteading from watching people doing riversteading every day. My workplace looks out over this same river just slightly downstream from here.
That’s pretty cool for somewhere so close to a city center, and I’m not just saying. In New York, even the outer boroughs, something like that would be very difficult to pull off. Port Authority controls the very busy waterways. There are some floating bars in Brooklyn and a municipal floating pool in the Bronx.
In Florida, within the man-made canals, every bit of surface is either transit or a valuable mooring or dock.
Yes to synthesize raw materials from seawater: seawater electrolysis, and may be illegally
digging up some sand from the bottom, collecting plastic to recycle, and othe silly things.
Deep cargo rereival of steel shipping containers… etc
semi legal, negotiable, and to negotiate.
Deep see mining is OK by US out of US EEZ.
International seabed authority, a wanna be authority, who is going to enforce, specially,
if it conflicts US rules.
With a lot of time you could begin working on incremental ferrocement pieces of your seastead starting with enough for a small platform growing larger and larger over time.
Like the guy that built an island out of water bottles.
Yes, that would be the idea.
This requires a building technique of being able to enlarge the structure
while it is already floating out there.
As far as the guy in Mexico with the plastic bottle island, I heard
Mexican authorities declared his island Mexican territory, and
did not allow him to move to open sea.
Nanny state in action.
3.141592 at 50,000 feet.
Since I started this thread, I would like to continue.
I saw a youtube video about, I think, Modern Sniper Coast Guard.
In the video it is shown and explained what the US Coast Guard is willing
to do to stop a vessel. There has to be several key factors to open fire.
And even the last resort is to disable and to stop the vessel for inspectio.
One of the key factor is no national identification.
So, I guess if I have a speedboat with a US flag, they can stop me, but
unlikekly to open fire.
There are all these urban legends about what will happen when, by persons
who do not even have a boat.
Anyways, the video explains a bit.
I think, in the defense of a seatead the first thing is to hide. The second thing is to run.
And these speed boats can run. Even the USCG needs trained personnel to stop and
capture. Running from a less trained unit can be more successfull.
Multiple speedboats running from a seastead in different directions can increase
the chance of getting away from unwanted visitors. And here I do not mean the USCG.
No need to run from USCG because it is easier to hide in compliance. I see no need to
break rules that the USCG enforces.