Of Sealand, corp, and country [was: nation-state]
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Alfie John <alfiej@fastmail.fm> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014, at 08:32 PM, rysiek wrote:
I am waiting for the first multinational corporation to declare independence. Also: http://rys.io/en/77
Although not a multinational, The Pirate Bay did try to buy Sealand.
Sealand is only as unique as the price Bates wants (it's also probably structurally unsound after taking an ocean beating for 70yrs)... How much would it cost to build, float and sink your own concrete silo? Who's researching locations of low depth found beyond 3-12+nm/EEZ in international waters? How does this cost compare to building your own acres of floating pontoon, barge, boat, or raft? And who sayeth hoisting your flag does not make you a country be?
On Oct 20, 2014 3:03 AM, "grarpamp" <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Alfie John <alfiej@fastmail.fm> wrote:
Although not a multinational, The Pirate Bay did try to buy Sealand.
Sealand is only as unique as the price Bates wants (it's also probably structurally unsound after taking an ocean beating for 70yrs)... How much would it cost to build, float and sink your own concrete silo? Who's researching locations of low depth found beyond 3-12+nm/EEZ in international waters? How does this cost compare to building your own acres of floating pontoon, barge, boat, or raft? And who sayeth hoisting your flag does not make you a country be?
The UN has demands on what makes a nation. It requires land. I'm not sure if Sealand qualifies, but I think it's overhyped. There's plenty of island nations, why not buy one of them? If you agree to donate shares to the government they might be all ears. You could band together with some other corporations if you don't have the capital/value. Have to wonder what's the point though. Save tax? Apple already does it, no need to own the island to profit from it. Liberty? As if Google doesn't buy law already. It might make them too scary. I think Google should do it. It'd be a fun project, Google Nation.
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 6:57 AM, Lodewijk andré de la porte <l@odewijk.nl> wrote:
On Oct 20, 2014 3:03 AM, "grarpamp" <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Alfie John <alfiej@fastmail.fm> wrote:
Although not a multinational, The Pirate Bay did try to buy Sealand.
Sealand is only as unique as the price Bates wants (it's also probably structurally unsound after taking an ocean beating for 70yrs)... How much would it cost to build, float and sink your own concrete silo? Who's researching locations of low depth found beyond 3-12+nm/EEZ in international waters? How does this cost compare to building your own acres of floating pontoon, barge, boat, or raft? And who sayeth hoisting your flag does not make you a country be?
The UN has demands on what makes a nation. It requires land.
Is not the aim to demonstrate that by hoisting your flag wherever that you challenge that definition and fuxor their plans? At least to the extent that you force them to hypocritically behave in an unfair or ungentlemanly manner against you, or declare war on you. All of which serves to support your legitimacy. After all, if you are 'not' a 'something' as they say, then they would have no such interest in you at all.
I'm not sure if Sealand qualifies, but I think it's overhyped.
It itself is overhyped in media (RedBull), but the idea of challenge and independance it represents is buried as too troublesome to publish lest people get ideas.
There's plenty of island nations, why not buy one of them? If you agree to donate shares to the government they might be all ears.
It's not a purchase if you leave rights to the existing govt. That's called a lease. Leasees always lose in the end. Look at Hong Kong.
You could band together with some other corporations if you don't have the capital/value.
Dilutes your interests.
Have to wonder what's the point though. Save tax? ... Liberty?
Independance, set your own rules, the ability to generally say fuck off and deal with whoever you wish to deal with however. aka: DPRK, Venezuela, Iran, China, Cuba. It's not supposed to be easy. Being so closely tied to Britain, Sealand is probably not nearly as clear a situation as floating a square kilometer platform hundreds of km from any coast with many countries would be. Say off northern SouthAm, southeast Asia, west Africa.
2014-10-27 23:38 GMT+01:00 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com>:
Is not the aim to demonstrate that by hoisting your flag wherever that you challenge that definition and fuxor their plans?
What plans? If anything I find "their" plans to be highly turbulent and confused. It's as if speech disintegrates completely into white noise, and then people become soldiers and start marching in unison. Pretty insane, if you ask me. It's all build on the conceptions of God, King and Country. Now with God gone, Kings dead, and Country integrated with all the others, it becomes exceedingly unclear what people fight for. Economy? Terrorism? You tell me.
At least to the extent that you force them to hypocritically behave in an unfair or ungentlemanly manner against you, or declare war on you.
They send a Coast Guard Cutter and a squad of marines to escort you back home forcefully. Or just leave you, without giving a damn. They couldn't declare war without first declaring you a nation, which they won't, because internationallylegally you aren't. Unfair doesn't factor into it, if you ask me. Being a gentleman... well.. You'll probably be the offender in their eyes. The thing is, violence is difficult. You're not allowed to harm a foreign national (I'd be Dutch, you'd be whatever you'd be) for no reason whatsoever. So maybe the coast guard will trick you into doing something wrong, like shooting them first. There's no territorial waters when you're not a nation, so they'll be allowed to ship right in. But either they don't have a reason to care (and why would you do it?) or they cannot do something (which is highly circumstantial) or you're just not their match and lose. You'd say there's a chance you'd win, but there probably isn't without being huge (Cuba is big enough though).
All of which serves to support your legitimacy. After all, if you are 'not' a 'something' as they say, then they would have no such interest in you at all.
Somehow many nations still have never admitted to recognize Taiwan as an independent nation, nor recognized it to be part of China. Taiwan still claims to be the original and legitimate China, but sits on it's own seat in the UN. Bottom line? Who know what will happen! Sealand exists because at some point they were clearing it with a helicopter, but they had AA guns on the platform (wtf?!), so the helicopter went away again and Britain really isn't going to risk lives for winning Sealand back.
I'm not sure if Sealand qualifies, but I think it's overhyped.
It itself is overhyped in media (RedBull), but the idea of challenge and independance it represents is buried as too troublesome to publish lest people get ideas.
Like how a believe in a nation is similar to superstition?
There's plenty of island nations, why not buy one of them? If you agree to donate shares to the government they might be all ears.
It's not a purchase if you leave rights to the existing govt. That's called a lease. Leasees always lose in the end. Look at Hong Kong.
Well, Hong Kong's future is yet unsettled. It's held up surprisingly well, if you ask me. It sure is o-so-British to invent some kind of in-between-ownership-or-independence deal for 100 years. They always have a ton of fun, those British lads. See also: Kowloon <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City>.
You could band together with some other corporations if you don't have the capital/value.
Dilutes your interests.
Interests can be shared.
Have to wonder what's the point though. Save tax? ... Liberty?
Independance, set your own rules, the ability to generally say fuck off and deal with whoever you wish to deal with however. aka: DPRK, Venezuela, Iran, China, Cuba. It's not supposed to be easy.
So, those nations are doing well? I'm not sure what this does for you. Internally, the nations you mentioned give much less security, wealth, freedom and sometimes privacy to it's people. Internationally these nations have posed large national security risks time and time again, seemingly to very little avail other than to remain isolated, poor and sad. I really (really) think we have huge *huge* first world problems. But, I don't think the mentioned nations are doing any better. Will this independence be better? How, why? These aren't trivial questions. I believe the right conclusion for the wrong reasons is still wrong. Independence seems like the right conclusion, but you must know why.
Being so closely tied to Britain, Sealand is probably not nearly as clear a situation as floating a square kilometer platform hundreds of km from any coast with many countries would be. Say off northern SouthAm, southeast Asia, west Africa.
Power of law is a security as much as it is a risk. Humans act strangely around things such as "duty", "honor", "law", "allegiance", "right", etc. Haven't quite found the pattern, although one's own profit is a pretty constant factor. Sometimes honor is the act of defying game theory for the global better, but often it's not. (Also, let's stay away from the DPRK, k?)
participants (2)
-
grarpamp -
Lodewijk andré de la porte