Would these sea steads have a military?

(.) #104

Hello again;

Seasteading might not be well received by the public. There are some negative
broadcasts about the idea of seasteading. Proponents of seasteading might want to
treat newcomers with patience and tolerance. The sea is harsh enough.

One of the defense technique, I see, is being able to survive in open ocean environment.
Not many people will come out there, beyond 200 nautical miles from shore, to destroy anything.
Many neigh sayers will shake their fist from shores, but I bet, not as many will come out to
open ocean environment.

(Wilfried Ellmer) #105

(world famous picture-“children running from war horror” - deleted on request of @spark -see below-)

• The ultimate weapon to “end all violent approaches” is reason…and public reject…

• This foto ended a war …military was renderd useless…

• Force is NOT the ultimate arbiter…in an “interconnected internet world”, where “media can not be controlled anymore”…public opinion is.

It is not about the use of force - it is about the use of reason

(.) #106

Thank you for positive images.
Would you please delete that picture.

(.) #107

OK. I am done. Please delete my membership here. Good bye.


That photo did not end the war, not was any military force rendered useless…

From wikipedia:

“Phan Thị Kim Phúc OOnt (Vietnamese pronunciation: [faːŋ tʰɪ̂ˀ kim fúk͡p̚]; born April 2, 1963), referenced informally as the Napalm girl, is a Vietnamese-Canadian best known as the nine-year-old child depicted in the Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph taken during the Vietnam War on June 8, 1972. The well known photo, taken in Trang Bang by AP photographer Nick Ut, shows her at nine years of age running naked on a road after being severely burned on her back by a South Vietnamese napalm attack.”

FYI, The Second Indochina War, aka Vietnam War, officially ended with the fall of Saigon, 30Apr75

Once again, @ellmer shows his lack of any factual basis for information spouted…

(Mezza-Garcia) #109

Hi, Jordan, sure!
History has a few examples. Some of them are the Cybersim project, by means of which the ideas of the cybernetician Stafford beer were tried to be extrapolated to control the whole national economy of Chile during Allende´s government and the other one is the proposal for a layer on top of the internet called the Global Brain. The thing with these is that, although distributed, they are cybernetic-originated and, therefore, focus too much on control.

Regarding someone attempting to commit a crime against you in a seastead, your question is very interesting and I have definitely thought for an answer. It is not an easy one, though. The first that comes to my mind is that those who commit certain crimes get ostracised, like in old times. However, that would require fixed principles that were so fixed that maybe could be contrary to those of another seasted or any other political entity and, therefore, would create the need for some system of protection. I´m in a thought loop at the moment, as you can see. I will keep trying to come up with a solution.

(Mezza-Garcia) #110

I am speaking from a complexity science point of view in line with Robert Axelrod. And yes, i have read John Nash, for which I can confidently say that in a simple prisioner´s dilemma situation, cooperation -under perfect information- is the best alternative. The problem is that perfect information requires extreme surveillance in this case.

(Mezza-Garcia) #111

There are layers of politics over politics in this example. In this case, it is the political ideals from the “americans”, king George´s, and… what about the indigenous who were there first? On a separate note, I think that extrapolating political problems from old political systems to a future-oriented seastead project is irrelevant.

(Jordan) #112

Thanks for the explanation.

Regarding crime. I guess the way it’s dealt with will depend on how the seastead is set up. Take a look at this research paper done by STI.

It discusses the different ways a seastead would operate from a business standpoint. Perhaps a company owns all the platforms and rents them out. Perhaps they own all the platforms and owns the businesses on the platforms. Perhaps there are smaller platforms and each business owns the platform that it’s on. There are many variations, and each one will reflect a different solution for security and crime.

Let’s just take one. Say it’s a large company that builds the platforms, and then sells it to a real estate company who then rents out space on the platforms. Lets say the terms of the lease say that the real estate company is responsible for the safety of people on the platform. They could then hire private security to maintain that safety. If they want to have good business, the security will not be heavy-handed, but it will do a good job of preventing crime and addressing crimes if it happens.

This is not authoritarian because people are entering into voluntary interactions. The terms of the lease stipulate the security, and the businesses can choose to enter the lease or not, given those terms.

In reality, the security is a plus, however. Imagine the liability and bad reputation that the businesses themselves as well as the real estate company would suffer if it weren’t a safe environment.

You’re not replacing one overlord for another, because the security company is subject to the market, and if people have bad experiences with them, the businesses and the real estate company will find another company that does better business.


You can say, “confidently”, whatever you want, @Nathalie_MezzaGarcia.

One can speak with confidence … and, nevertheless, speak in ignorance.

The Nash Equilibrium has NOTHING to do with “cooperation”.

It has EVERYTHING to do with one unilaterally choosing the best alternative for oneself, REGARDLESS of the choices of others (which, in Prisoner’s Dilemma, are stated to be unknown … with which “cooperation” is inherently impossible).

That IS, after all, why it is called a dilemma.

In any security environment, suggesting “cooperation” with the enemy is an idiotic proposition.

If it were truly possible to “cooperate” with the enemy … then they wouldn’t truly be the “enemy”, would they?




(Mezza-Garcia) #117

Very nicely explained!; thank you very much. I´m going to read it right now. (cool!)

(Jordan) #118

Thanks. I’m as anti-authoritarian as anyone. I believe government is by definition immoral. However, private, voluntary interactions are a totally different story.

(adam ulbrich) #119

Im just saying what do you get when you have pirates come in when you are not in a countrys territory?

(Larry G) #120

All nations’ navies have a nominal duty to suppress piracy within their territory or on the high seas.

(adam ulbrich) #121

but what if you are 250 miles off their coast?

(Larry G) #122

Otherwise known as “the high seas”…

(Larry G) #123

If you’re a fat target In a high risk area you cannot rely on national navies to protect you. Especially in a High risk area with weak, corrupt governments.

But suppressing piracy is something all oceanic nations do to some extent. It’s just a matter f they happen to be in the area at the right time.