The ugly4 definition - oceanic freedom - with footnote

(Wilfried Ellmer) #1

Continuing the discussion from [Is the freedom of the ocean divided in zones ? - not really]

It was discussed that the freedom of the ocean comes with a footnote. There are things you are not free to do anywhere on the planet, not in a “sovereign land state” not in a seastead ouside the 12 miles nor the 200 mile zone. If you engage in those “ugly4” somebody will interfere no matter what your “legal standing” is.

When ever we say “on the ocean you are free to do whatever you want” it comes with the footnote “except the ugly4”.

  • Spill
  • Resource Theft
  • Terror
  • Crime against Humanity

Is this atoll in any EEZ?
The first seastead will not be a libertarian utopia, it probably won't be libertarian at all
Is this atoll in any EEZ?
The economic size and standing matters
Creating a legal jurisdiction on former water territories
Is this atoll in any EEZ?
The economic realities and practicability shape the concept of freedom of the oceans - not legal hairsplitting - not gunboat politics | oceanic business alliance
The economic realities and practicability shape the concept of freedom of the oceans - not legal hairsplitting - not gunboat politics | oceanic business alliance
The economic realities and practicability shape the concept of freedom of the oceans - not legal hairsplitting - not gunboat politics | oceanic business alliance
Drone-based efficient items sharing
You don't have to be in international waters to be independent | oceanic business alliance
The end of violence in international relationships
Far from being a "copy of a land state" a seastead will be something new
You don't have to be in international waters to be independent | oceanic business alliance
Small steps in the right direction
Fieberling Tablemount (Guyot) as a possible seastead location
The size of a seastead drives the size of its politics
Mobilis in Mobili the factor of oceanic mobility a key for freedom
Seasteading needs to be inside human base ethics
A Constitution for Seasteads: The Las Portadas Investment Culture
C-shell floating house design for protected bays
Flag pirate vessel thing postulate | oceanic business alliance
Flag pirate vessel thing postulate | oceanic business alliance
Liberland - The newest libertarian country
Host Country interference level | Cartagena | Colombia | oceanic business alliance
Do we need any rules on a seastead - why not simply direct democracy
Do we need any rules on a seastead - why not simply direct democracy
Is this atoll in any EEZ?
Is this atoll in any EEZ?
(Mark Stephan) #2

You’ve probably detailed those somewhere else? Did you come up with the list? I can’t seem to follow some of your links at work :slight_smile: (firewall?). Anyways, yes these can be thought of along these lines: damage to economy, environment, way of life, peace of mind (perhaps - just brainstorming here)

So Spill could be: damage to economy and environment
Resource theft: damage to economy and peace of mind
Terror: damage to economy and peace of mind
Crime against humanity: peace of mind, way of life

(Mark Stephan) #3

What I’m trying to get at is the impacts to a country vs. actions that drive impacts

(Wilfried Ellmer) #4

In the medical seastead thread we had a typical example. You can build a medical seastead and operate it interference free without asking anybody ( including FDA ) for any kind of permit.

But this comes with a footnote - you can do that only as long as you do “ethical correct medicin on the seastead”.

If your purpose would be transfering kidneys from poor Indian people to rich Americans on the transplant waiting list, press would title this “crime against humanity” and somebody at some point would definitly interfere.

So i suppose you can sum up the ugly 4 under “activity rejected by mankind” - nobody in no configuration is free to do such things anywhere on the planet.

Is this atoll in any EEZ?
What can i do at sea i can not do in my house?
Violence in international politics is still a strong kung fu - doubth that - oceanic business alliance
What can i do at sea i can not do in my house?
You don't have to be in international waters to be independent | oceanic business alliance
Medicine on free waters
(Mark Stephan) #5

Yes definitely. Those types of medical experiments/procedures could be considered “damage to peace of mind” (of a reasonable human/community), but yes crimes against humanity could be a better means of describing that… maybe that would be part of the default x things that people just don’t touch. Does that mean a seastead couldn’t do that type of procedure? No (people do it nowadays in land based countries (organized crime, etc)), but then they suffer the consequences (Raids, etc.)

(Wilfried Ellmer) #6

It is a concept error in many of the seasteading discussions that they focus on “legal discussion” and “legal concepts” the base condition of a free floating entity is that “nobodies legal applies” because floating entities are “out of jurisdiction” by default ( flag of convenience) and this is ok because their mobility creates a “impossibility of reasonable application of any national law anyhow”.

The error that most commit is putting “out of jurisdiction” equal to “lawless” - good neighborhood behavior, good trade with anybody, fit in the ethical frame of humanity is still required even if a entity is “out of jurisdiction”. If not applying to those “universal ethical principles” you call in problems wherever you operate inside and outside EEZ it is just the same.


Well, on a practical level it could probably be summed up as “On the sea you’re free to do whatever you want provided you don’t offend the sensibilities of anyone with bigger guns than you.”

On a practical level I’d agree that you probably can’t organise kidney sales, not so much because all of humanity has rejected such practices as it makes the ones with the biggest warships feel uncomfortable (even though they effectively engage in similar practices themselves while turning a blind eye). Ethically I’d say it’d be wrong not to allow consenting individuals to make such a trade, but there are practical limits.

(Wilfried Ellmer) #8

It is not really a 19.century gunboat politics thing… :blush: - in marine practice we don’t do things that way anymore. It has more to do with a “customary agreement” that forms the “minimum base” anybody who has “political and economic influence” can agree to… oceanic freedom is the core of free container trade that moves 90% of the goods all land cities of all nations need equally to flow freely - gun blasting interruptions are not welcome and rejected by mankind for good and practical reasons…

Even the biggest gorilla in the monkey cage of nations can not afford to stay without friends in a globalized container trade world. So nobody is “shooting this out in wild west way anymore” we made the last intent to do it that way between 1918 and 1945 - lead us directly to two world wars and guaranteed mutual atomic destruction - since then we have learned that cooperation is a better way to go…this is why the oceans are free and will stay free and nationalist jurisdiction can not be extended to it.

The economic realities and practicability shape the concept of freedom of the oceans - not legal hairsplitting - not gunboat politics | oceanic business alliance

But ultimately it does come down to naval intervention. If you piss off a country with more guns than you then you end up with a blockade at best and an invasion at worst.

(Wilfried Ellmer) #10

…Naval Intervention… - Neandertal behavior is not any longer the “leading politics” it can not be afforded on a 7 billion planet that needs close cooperation to make survival of mankind possible - nationalist muscle play with naval forces is out global cooperation networks are in - it is part of humanity growing out of its childhood pants leaving stupid behavior behind in the process. :relaxed: read more what is going down the drain and what is upcomming… the basic minimal cooperation on the oceans is just the tip of the iceberg of a new world comming and seasteading will have an important part in it.


Well, you can argue that if you like, but the USA still has a rather large navy and they’re inclined to use them if you piss them off.

Edit: And ultimately any law or principle is completely empty without enforcement, whether it’s an international agreement or a local ordinance.

(Wilfried Ellmer) #12

In the international marine context the USA is doing a lot of things in practice that go beyond the customary legal base. I assume that is the privilege of being the biggest Gorilla in the monkey cage of nations - so it is definitly indicated for a seastead not to piss off sufficiently to call the attention of this Gorilla on your seastead. Two business strategies are possible DISTANCE and NICE BEHAVIOR with good trade relations - engaging in the ugly4 will definitly call the attention. All things that will not call the the rage of the US-navy can be considered the “frame of oceanic freedom to exercise and do business interference free”.

(Wilfried Ellmer) #13

In general i think if we look at the size of the navy we are looking in the wrong direction.

In our global networking world guns has become less important because there are very few things you can shoot at that bring any benefit into your pocket at the end. Real power has shifted from guns to money and money is not gold anymore you can violently dragg away from the central vault of the community you subdue, with guns. Money today is numbers in global computer networks - and that changes the game fundamentally.

So to understand the way our world works and what and who is “playing the music it dances to” you better look at money than at guns. The nationalist, gun, violence, and subdue business, is just being replaced by the global network, cooperation, opt in, opt out, business. Another sideeffect of technology leading to something new. First envisioned by the Enlightenment movement.

(Daniel N.) #14

While “pissing off” a country with a navy is a legitimate concern, which I do share, it is dwarfed by a more likely threat- the acts of pirates or terrorists similar to what we see off the coast of some African countries. Whatever is built and inhabited in our seasteads will have to incorporate a system of defense- either passive or active. Either a way to lock radical Muslim invaders out, or a rather large gun mounted on a turret to “get them” before they “get to us.” Playing nicely with countries is one thing… surviving surprise attacks from invaders is another.

Ever heard the phrase “Low hanging fruit?” I do not want to be the easy target for those who have not yet evolved past barbarism.

(Wilfried Ellmer) #15

who said that these are “likley threats” at all :blush:


in 2006 a volume of 1200.000.000.000 tons of trade goods was moved over wide extensions of ocean by indefended civil units called ships. What percentage of this trade was affected by pirates and terrorists - according to your estimate - so you can speak of likley threat on foundation of facts.

What percentage was affected by navies and naval blockades ? - are we talking “real world” or violent inexisten phantasy world ?

(Daniel N.) #16

I understand your point, and your desire to understate the fear, if not alleviate it all together. Maybe this map and link will be enough to move past the “violent inexisten phantasy world” perception.

It’s an issue to address. Low hanging fruit, man… 5 guys, 2 boats, and some machine guns against whatever we have… I don’t intend to be an easy target. Can’t exactly call the authorities, out there, can we?

(Wilfried Ellmer) #17

you are aware that i could put a “UFO activity map” or a “paranormal energy activity map” with about the same amount of “fact foundation”… :smile:
This kind of maps is normally made when navies try to convince the public that their budgets should NOT be cut back again and again…

(Wilfried Ellmer) #18

so the point for the violent world is absolutly not made by a map…it must be made by a “percentage” … and hard facts to have any cientific weight…

(Daniel N.) #19

Surely you are not being serious. If you equate the existence of robbers with guns and boats to extraterrestrial aliens… heaven help us.

Is the BBC credible enough for you?

(Wilfried Ellmer) #20

I don’t see any solid statistics ships passing / ships affected - what would be the only base to talk about severe threat - the rest is media hype and quest for rating increase… when i look at trade statistics i see no “graph indent due to priracy” what indicates a “cero problem in relevant context”. A “spectacular and media rated exeption from the rule” is not a disvalidation of the rule it is a validation of the rule. (if there where no rule there where no exeption) - and the rule is “there is no signifficant threat at all”. The still exising gunboats are more than sufficient. No more budget for gunboats…

oceanic world trade seems to develop just fine along the customary freedom of the seas and not to be slowed down by any threat.