2014-10-27 23:38 GMT+01:00 grarpamp <[1]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: [2]Kowloon.

   > 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?)

References

   1. mailto:grarpamp@gmail.com
   2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City