Would these sea steads have a military?


(Jordan) #84

I feel you. However, and I don’t have any data to support it right now, I think that the combination of sensibilities and cost and large-scale violence appeal would probably not hit society all at the same time.


(adam ulbrich) #85

just saying having a small trained militia wouldnt hurt


(Jordan) #86

It depends on what you mean by hurt. Who will pay for it?


#87

A militia would just be the local citizens with their personal weapons, I’d assume. That is kind of the definition of militia.


#88

Definition of militia
1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency The militia was called to quell the riot.
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service


(Mezza-Garcia) #89

My experience with militias and forms of military or defence training is that they end up working against the wellbeing of the community. Think, for example, of paramilitaries in Colombia, which were supposedly created to fight the organized groups of farmers that then turned into guerillas and created a 70 years conflict between them and official militaries. Also… surely by the moment seasteadings become technology will be advance enough to have, for example, microscopic drone shields that would self-organize without having to have any inhabitant performing a function that will be outdated.


#90

I suspect the first citizens of “these united States” (formerly, “British citizens”) would probably have disagreed.

In fact, I believe there is a historical monument located in Concord dedicated to what are now commonly called … “the American patriots”.

And than, of course, there is the “Liberty Bell”, which people can go see … and a song out there about “the Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave” … and a document on display in a museum in DC that speaks of militias being “necessary” for a “free State” … and even a Supreme Court decision that says a guy named Heller has the constitutional right to “keep” and “bear” arm because militias are valuable for the preservation of peace and security.

But, definitely, potentially oppressive governments (and warlords in places like Columbia) can certainly impose tyranny upon people who have no collective mechanism for security.

We should all agree that such tyranny would be a bad thing for any citizen.


(.) #91

Thank you for writing. Hi. Welcome. Please write more.

My first idea of defense is not to become a target.
My second idea of defense is to run.
Confrontation might be necessary, in that case, well, I do not fight fair.
I do not know much about Colombia.

Respectfully;


(Mezza-Garcia) #92

Hi, Robert.
Thank you very much for your comment. Although I definitely and very respectfully disagree with you. Let me see if I understood well what you mean. Are you saying that a monument commemorating the deaths of humans who died on behalf of the abstract concept of a nation is a good thing? Also, the first inhabitants of what is not the United States were not British immigrants, it was indigenous communities that were exterminated by militias. There is definitely a bit of colonialism bias in that thought…
Regarding ColOmbia, I would suggest not calling it a warlord place. As my comment implied, it is in fact Colombia´s government who has been more actively involved in the execution of actions against the population, in addition to financing, under the table, most of the events that you´ve probably superficially heard of, which are leading you to say it is a warlord place. Colombia´s guerrillas at first were, like other militias in the second half of the twentieth century in Latin America, were liberation armies against the oppressive states. Remember, states make wars. And the existence of, for example, forced military service, like Israel or Colombia, and “voluntary” military service, like in the US (where kids are thought to think that they live in the most free place in the world), result in in political, psychological or economic tyrannies. Whether seasteads should have militias or not t´s a basic Prisioner´s dilemma case.


(Mezza-Garcia) #93

Hi, Spark.
Thanks for the welcome.
Confrontation might seem necessary. But it pays better to invest in avoiding it. The view of militias and wars it´s too primitive and makes me remember one of the answer to the Fermi paradox: why haven´t we got in touch with other species from other planets or solar systems yet? -because some “technologically intelligent” human civilizations might extinguish themselves in the process… Militias would be a step back in what an independent community on the sea would represent: the end of the need for invading someone else´s territory.


(Jordan) #94

Hi Nathalie_MezzaGarcia. I tend to agree with your hesitance about a militia. Especially in the French Polynesia area, it probably would not be necessary because there is virtually no pirate presence there.

What if a seastead were in an area that did have a pirate presence? Or what if a pirate presence grew up around the seastead, drawn by the wealth the seastead contained?

My long-term goal would to invest heavily enough in high-tech, preferably non-lethal defense, that it would deter pirates. But what about an area like FP, which has no expectation of aggression? In hindsight, not expecting the problem is never an excuse. What kind of preparations would you have for emergencies?

One solution is that the private security force(s) that exist on the seastead could have emergency protocols in case of emergency, though that might just mean that whoever controls those forces would just be motivated to make or allow or encourage those kinds of emergencies, I don’t know. I guess that’s a matter of making sure you trust the person who directs the security forces.

What do you think?


(Jordan) #95

I don’t know if that actually is the definition of a militia, though I agree that when I think of one personally, it generally calls up images of people owning their own equipment etc. I admit I assumed that AdamU was being loose with his terminology when he said “militia”. What I think might work better instead of your definition of a militia, would be something very similar.

I haven’t bothered to flesh it out yet because I’m saving the brain-work for when I know how the seastead in FP will be regarding the dispoisition of the National Gendarmerie and French military forces toward the seastead. Perhaps it’s nothing more than academic if they have forces on the seastead (hopefully not). But if they don’t, then I was thinking about a couple options. Private security could have emergency protocols that authorized them to use greater force against outside threats in certain circumstances. Or regular people could offer to be part of a reserve in exchange for a reduction in what they pay for security forces as long as they go to trainings. Or a combination of both. Like I said, I haven’t bothered to flesh it out yet because I don’t know what the seastead in FP is going to look like yet.


(Mezza-Garcia) #96

Hi, Jordan.
I like your answer a lot and agree with it. Completely. And the subject you mention at the end is the most sensible, indeed, when you think on this subject because having any sort of private security force goes against the libertarian ideals that would make a human settlement on the sea, built from scratch, differ from, let´s say, non artificial islands that already exist and are under the control of a government. The idea of having a government is as dangerous as the idea of having a private security force for any libertarian project. I could think of having an “unhackable” open source distributed infrastructure in charge of the artificial “polices” (but truly open, not like open source and its seemingly horizontal structures). This may sound quite precarious, but since we are talking of small islands, there could be screens in public spaces broadcasting the editing of the code in a live manner with nice artistic colorful designs that matched the beautiful blue and green scenery of the landscape. Wouldn´t that be simply amazing! ><


(.) #97

Security and use of force is always a controversial issue.
Different people think differently about it.

My experience with US Navy, that they called me on the radio and asked me
not to approach them with my sail boat. I did comply immediately.
After that everything went well. I did not hear anything else.


(.) #98

Broadcasting video is probably a good idea.
Publishing it is the next good idea.


(Jordan) #99

Can you tell me a practical application of the distributed infrastructure that you’re talking about?

And I see what you’re saying about private security. However, I don’t know that it HAS to be against libertarian ideals. Libertarians don’t like being ruled. They don’t want to be told what to do. They don’t want their rights infringed upon. But NOT all of them are willing to handle that themselves. I look at private security as something that people voluntarily participate in.

Take me. If I were on a seastead, and someone attempted to commit a crime against me. My inclination is to defend myself, with violence if necessary, but hopefully not. However, what if the crime is committed and wasn’t immediately aware of it? What recourse do I have? What if I’m the kind of person who does not prefer to handle things myself? I think it’s naive to say that the seastead will not have crime or fraud. How will those things be handled?

Worse still, what if the idea of seasteads presents such a threat to traditional government that they incite some radical person to try to sabotage it so that it won’t be successful? I’m just throwing out ideas.


#100

Nope. I think you missed it entirely, @Nathalie_MezzaGarcia .

The point being … what did the people who actually resisted tyranny think about resisting tyranny?

You and I can have any opinion we choose to entertain.

But, when it comes to oppressed people resisting tyranny …

how do (did) THEY think about resisting tyranny?

History consistently shows that THEY think a collective resistance is worth every cost …

… regardless of what modern interpretation one wants to put upon their sacrifice.

Bottom line for them is that …

… freedom is worth dying for.

How modern people think about that is irrelevant when considering how the people who sacrificed (and died) thought about their own resistance to tyrannical oppression.

Some modern people say … “Can’t we just all get along?”

The American patriots who fought against King George’s oppression decided that fighting against tyranny was worth every cost …

… regardless of modern interpretation to the contrary.


#101

Nope.

I’m saying they thought freedom was worth fighting for.

Modern people might reinterpret their sacrifice …

… but THEY sacrificed for what THEY believed was important.

Nothing more.

And, definitely, nothing less.


#102

Nope. They definitely considered King George as the governing authority.

<b<Read … the Declaration of Independence.

“He” has a name. The name was King George.

You might want to reinterpret history according to your own political bias, @Nathalie_MezzaGarcia

… but the Declaration of Independence was most definitely written as an rejection of King George’s oppression against the American colonial peoples.


#103

You would do well, @Nathalie_MezzaGarcia, to read and understand John Nash …

… before you try to quote John Nash.