You don't have to be in international waters to be independent | oceanic business alliance


(Wilfried Ellmer) #1

Continuing the discussion from How Eco Friendly?:


Oceanic freedom is based on a much stronger “common denominator” than “weak treaties like Unclos” it is based on the common interest of NOT disrupt worldwide containertrade that moves 90% of the goods. Global megacities depend on that on a dayly base. No capital city on the globe can survive a single day without it. Nobody will dare to interupt it with his “nationalistic violence shit”…this is a strong common interest that drives things. So nobody will ever apply his “National ruling, monopoly, interrupt and interference” on the oceans without provoke doomsday for everybody it is just another factor of “growing out of our childhood pants” as a civilization. Freedom of the oceans is not divided in zones - it is from shore to shore and it must be that way.



The first seastead will not be a libertarian utopia, it probably won't be libertarian at all
The first seastead will not be a libertarian utopia, it probably won't be libertarian at all
Islands Security
The road problem | 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 ugly4 definition - oceanic freedom - with footnote
TSI should officially endorse the unanimously adopted UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
The size of a seastead drives the size of its politics
"Ellmer Sphere" Ocean Sphere | oceanic business alliance
#2

If they can’t even grow pot when so many states are acknowledging the validity of it for medical and recreational use then what else can’t they do? Basically you’re not required to vote or have input into anything but still have to follow our federal rules. Like I’ve said previously it’s a step in the right direction but somewhere should be chosen that reflects seasteadings ideals


(Jonas Smith) #3

I just want to make sure I understand this correctly: You propose to build a large floating platform in the territorial waters (or EEZ) of an existing nation, and then ask that host nation to grant the floating platform insular area status?

First of all, insular areas aren’t something you fill out a form and apply for. It is a designation granted to certain land masses that a country owns and just doesn’t know what to do with.

Second, why would the host nation do that? What’s in it for them? They don’t get any territory or value out of it, and instead get a potential headache.

Thirdly, I don’t see a floating anything getting a status that is reserved for natural territory. You are floating, you are already designated a vessel and there is well-defined customary law dealing with vessels. You are as unlikely to get insular area status as a cruise ship would.

Lastly, that still isn’t complete autonomy. With insular areas the rights of the citizens is granted by an act of the government of the nation that owns it. It can be taken away just as easily, or have restrictions placed on it. And you can bet that if your experiments in new forms of government or society get extreme (allowing slavery, etc) your “owners” will come down on you pretty quickly.


United States government stops Gambian coup attempt
The economic size and standing matters
(Jonas Smith) #4

There are other options to getting independence. Here is my original post from the old forums, with a link to the thread…

So I finally got around to watching Jorge’s talk from the 2009 Seasteading Conference and I gotta say…I’m pretty depressed. I find myself unfortunately agreeing with Jorge that there will be no sovereignity without land. And without true sovereignity I really don’t see the point of seasteading. While flying a flag of convenience and getting “99% of what we want” might be okay for some, I had higher aspirations. It looks like, without some land to get our hands on, the whole idea of real seasteading is dead in the water.

So here’s the crazy idea / speculation…think of it as a thought exercise, a gedankenexperiment if you will.: you get some land and found your own nation. You can then make your seastead and fly your own flag of convenience. This nation will be designed to have an absolute minimum of laws. This way you can give flags of convenience to anyone who wants to make a seastead and live on that seastead by their own rules.

We don’t need good land…we just need a place to build a few structures and house a few dozen people as a permanent population so we meet the requirements of the Montevideo Convention. So where can we get some land? We either make our own, or grab some that is already there.

Making our own is the least viable option I believe. Starting a volcano is highly doubtful. Dredging, piling up rocks, or building up a reef is inexpensive but requires shallow areas of which there are none…and it is likely that this form of artificial expansion will still not be viewed as territory by existing nations. Any other methods anyone can think of? Remember, this must be land. Not floating or attached to the seabed but actual, honest-to-goodness terra firma.

So the only other option is to grab some existing land. I believe there are two realistic ways to go about this: you buy them out or chase them out.

There are two ways you could buy them out. First, you come in and purchase a country. This could mean giving every person a fixed dollar amount to leave. Depending on the population size this could get very expensive. Plus you will find that many people have tribal or cultural systems in place that make the idea of leaving their homeland unthinkable. Second, tt could mean purchasing a large chunk of land and then bribing the government to allow a peaceful secession. This might be the most likely and least expensive scenario, especially if the land we are grabbing is completely unusable.

Chasing them out might not be that tough. It’s amazing how many weapons a few million dollars will buy. Or just hire any of the several professional security companies that are in business around the world…although invading another country might not be in their catalog. The problem with this method is finding a country small enough to invade that doesn’t have a decent military of its own and isn’t under the protection of another, well-equipped country. The best thing would be to find a country that is being a pain-in-the-ass to its neighbors…neighbors who wouldn’t mind a nice quiet group of seasteaders moving in and calming things down.

Any ideas anyone?

http://www.seasteading.org/forum-list/topic/viva-la-revolution/


Kerry to confront China on Spratly Islands
Can a libertarian paradise exist if flagged as a ship of a country
Register a seastead as a ship may not be completly convenient
What form of society would you pioneer through seasteading?
(Bob LLewellyn) #5

[quote=“Nigel, post:2, topic:99”]
If they can’t even grow pot when so many states are acknowledging the validity of it for medical and recreational use then what else can’t they do? [/quote]

That is just what is written in some stupid book, they’re islands my friend, everyone smokes. The people become a law unto themselves. The reason that the states are legalizing it and the Federal government is finally getting on board with Rand Paul’s new bill to legalize weed for medical purposes is because 56% of the country already favors full legalization.

Actually, this concern for liberty is largely mental. Once you go out into the sea, for the most part, no one gives a rats ass what you do. There are exceptions, child slavery will get someones attention and they will do something about it, but so would I. These aggressive governments are land based creatures, they don’t understand why anyone would want to live in the sea but think that is a good place for them. Really, even the governments leave you alone beyond 25 or 50 miles, they can have so much more fun at home.

As long as we don’t become a threat to the host government, we will just be an amusing curiosity and they will likely just sit back and watch what happens. Governments are good at watching, we just convince them that they are spying on us and it will keep them occupied for years.

Bob


(Wilfried Ellmer) #6

Could not say that better … in fact this is not only theorical. Here in the Cartagena Marine Business Cluster we organize ship repair as afloat repair because “interference factors” are so much less once you are on the water. You put all the welders compressors workshops on a barge and get the barge to the ship anchored in the middle of the bay, instead the ship into a land based drydock, this is how you get your business interference free by default. All the land based interferers just disappear from your project horizon. There is a very low number of offenses to commit (spill, terror, resource theft, crime against humanity) that will make a land based “interference officer” to take a boat to your worksite to interfere. In fact the interference situation does not better outside EEZ for (spill, terror, resource theft, crime against humanity) you will be hunted outside EEZ under any souvereignity, and in earth orbit - just equally - for all other activities - the freedom of the ocean applies. In other words if (spill, terror, resource theft, crime against humanity) is not your business plan - you are completly free on the water - just a few meter from shore.

workshop on a barge - afloat ship repair - interference free.


Cartagena Bay miles and miles of interference free hurricane safe workspace for a floating business cluster…


The floating business cluster is step 2 of a 3 phase approach


(Bob LLewellyn) #7

Jonas (I just want to make sure I understand this correctly: You propose to build a large floating platform in the territorial waters (or EEZ) of an existing nation, and then ask that host nation to grant the floating platform insular area status?)

Response; No, my proposal would be for platforms setting on the sea floor.

Jonas (First of all, insular areas aren’t something you fill out a form and apply for. It is a designation granted to certain land masses that a country owns and just doesn’t know what to do with.)

Response; Your dealing with a bunch of lawyers. They don’t make laws concerning things that don’t exist and for all of our good intention, they still don’t exist and won’t until a proposal is made and someone makes money on the deal.
Jonas (Second, why would the host nation do that? What’s in it for them? They don’t get any territory or value out of it, and instead get a potential headache.)

Response; Money, they get money. The only way a person is a citizen of the territories (whether natural or man made) is by their passport issued by the host country. The host country has every right to expect payment for their services, say $1000 for the first year and $100 for each following year. Now multiply that times 1 million people. Plus the close proximity means more trade and more taxes on anything purchased from the main land.

Jonas (Thirdly, I don’t see a floating anything getting a status that is reserved for natural territory. You are floating, you are already designated a vessel and there is well-defined customary law dealing with vessels. You are as unlikely to get insular area status as a cruise ship would.)

Response; this is restating the first statement above. We have no idea of the likelihood of anything as it has never been tried, yet.

Jonas (Lastly, that still isn’t complete autonomy. With insular areas the rights of the citizens is granted by an act of the government of the nation that owns it. It can be taken away just as easily, or have restrictions placed on it. And you can bet that if your experiments in new forms of government or society get extreme (allowing slavery, etc) your “owners” will come down on you pretty quickly.)

Response; To keep this from happening, we will need to get more people in the territories than there are in the host nation. Kind of hard to force changes down a people throat when you are in the minority and the majority are gun owners to boot. Honestly, there is nothing to worry about, people aren’t bad, greedy sometimes but not really bad. There is an old saying from my neck of the woods, money talks, BS walks. You know how to grease the wheel, you can get almost anything done.

Bob


(Ciprian) #8

While I admire your thought of practicality, I must say I find your last suggestion, “chasing them out” as morally stomach turning. Not only do I think it is abject as a fact in itself, but I imagine it forming irreparable bad reputation in international eyes. Think Israel… Not to mention, one of the facts why people want to get away from government is to avoid violence, basing a sea stead on this would entirely defeat the purpose. I think many would share my opinion that they would not be comfortable to live on a sea stead acquired in such a manner.


(.) #9

Hello
Post must be at least 20 characters.
I just wanted to say Hello.
What do you say after you said hello?


(Wilfried Ellmer) #10

@cipshadow,
Smith has always had this refreshing view that seasteading must and should develop along the lines of 19.th century gun boat politics and Machiavellic antisocial disorder…afortunatly “good business terms”, and “global cooperation” has replaced those “ways of doing things” quite completly already…we are living in a different world now - so this “retroviewing imaginary could be” to the 19th centuries laws of the seas is not to be taken too seriously i would suppose…
The whole idea that “all rights root in land” is nothing more than a romantic nationalist 19th century idea, turned “ad absurdum” by modern developments the idea that who has no land has no right and no legal standing is not the way we do things in this century. What points into a more realistic future is the subdue to nobody model. As long as you have a certain amount of economic power in your favor - land - and the “imaginary rights of a grounded state it supposedly brings” become just irrelevant. Today grounded states mean nothing, and transnational business and cooperation networks mean anything - in consequence rather than being a “19th century grounded state” a seastead will be a “oceanic mobile transnational real estate asset” standing in good trade with anybody - being subdue to nobody - just as Venice



(Bob LLewellyn) #11

The man can sure turn a phrase. Because when you’re right - you’re right and you’re right.


#12

LOL, not so fast… When you have a seastead you have “land” and if you live on it you have whatever rights you stand for. When you don’t have a seastead you don’t have “land” and your “rights” are dictated by whatever country’s government you live in. It is exactly how we “do business” in this century and in centuries to come unless change is coming.

“Subdue to nobody” as a “oceanic mobile transnational real estate asset” model? How would that make any difference in terms of “rights” for the janitor working 9 to 5 scrubbing the decks when the “government” now is the board of directors of the transnational corporation who owns the seastead? And why would the “transnationals” invest in a seastead? They already own the existing government-nation-states, they already subdue to nobody and they are already “standing in good trade” between themselves :smile:


Far from being a "copy of a land state" a seastead will be something new
(Wilfried Ellmer) #13

consider: mobilis in mobili
consider: real estate value near a existing skyscraper line - USD 1 convert to USD 100 - but only near a City center - not in international waters…


(Bob LLewellyn) #14

The person who wrote that was Elllmer, I just quoted him however, I do agree with him. A person living in a boat alongside our sea-stead is entitled to the same freedom and privileges that I am whether he is a resident or not. If he lives in a helium filled balloon is not important, that he is human is what counts. We don’t need land, we have water and even those buying land want to have the water rights that go with it.

We say that every man/woman or half and half is entitled to Life, Liberty and Water. (The US human rights used to be life, liberty and land, it was change later to the pursuit of happiness but that is redundant to freedom).
Bob


(Wilfried Ellmer) #15

It is not about “territory” and “legal standing of any kind” - persons have rights independent of their club and state memberships - that is our modern view on the matter. The question is only one of “practical implementation” - as a “subdued employee”, “paying tax”, “working off your bankster loan” your “practical freedom” is “close to minor slavery” (your boss, fiscus, bank, owns your soul and your future), - as megayacht owner on the subdue to nobody plan (with powerful freedom tools at your disposal) you can implement your right to freedom on any level you consider necessary. So the task is find practical means to allow the “subdue to nobody plan” for John Blow.(not only billionairs on their yachts, not only multinational companies with their business and asset networks)…to uplift all humanity to basic enlightenment ideas. Seasteading in this context becomes the task to provide freedom tools under a non-violence code to everybody.


Seasteading provide freedom tools
#16

This all depends on what each person wants of their seastead really.

If you are OK with only partial independence, in territorial waters is just fine. Some of us, however, want to make a full nation, rip up our old passports, renounce old citizenships, and become citizens of a new, independent nation. That would require being in waters outside any other nation. This would also give the advantage of having your own EEZ and territorial waters, which is good if you want to stay as far away from land-based insanity as possible (which some people certainly want).


(Wilfried Ellmer) #17

The quality of your independence is not depending on your shore distance You can have a 9.9 on the interference freedom scale just a few meter from shore. Venice has only 300m shore distance and defended its freedom 1500 years. The quality of your freedom depends on your weight as local economic power.


#18

True, but times have changed since Venice was founded. Venice came to power when there wasn’t really a shore-based government, and no international maritime treaties or anything similar. Independence was maintained by force as much as power brokering. In today’s world, you’d need to be internationally recognized as a sovereign nation to really be completely independent and taken seriously in international matters, which would be hard to achieve close to shore, or in the EEZ of an established, recognized country. You would have to make it so that nobody could easily lay claim to the territory you found your nation in, which roughly translates to the high seas. Remember, not only independence is important, but international weight. As a nation on the ocean, you would need to have weight in maritime matters, which is much more plausible if you aren’t enclosed within the territorial waters of another country. Also, I still am counting on the situation of the modern land-based governments to get steadily worse, and that makes them more aggressive to potential sources of wealth. Having an “easy grab” close to shore with a lot of money is too tempting, making it more isolated is a better option. Also, being entirely within a country’s territorial waters means you are more easy to cut off since they control everything around you, but if you are near nobody, you are safer in many respects.


#19

Look at Taiwan. China lays claim over it, but it’s far enough from the mainland to keep China from easy pickings. If you had an independent place within easy hitting range of another country, you would be much more vulnerable, and any disputes involving them would likely involve you, due to proximity.

Furthermore, look at Gibraltar. It is right next to Spain, and they are constantly having problems with Spain as a result. You wouldn’t want that as a small sovereign nation, Gibraltar at least belongs to another country that carries more clout than if Gibraltar was independent. Or look at the Falklands, right next to Argentina, who claims them. If Britain didn’t control them (and fight to keep ownership), they wouldn’t stand a chance. Being outside the zone where somebody can lay claim would be pretty important.


(Jonas Smith) #20

Bullcrap.

Bullcrap.

It was its isolated location that helped it…nothing to do with its distance from shore! And later it was its conquest of territory and land expansion…that thing you don’t think we need anymore…that secured its commercial grip in the Med.

Bullcrap. The quality of your freedom depends on your weight as a local military power. Your economic power will just get you raided.