- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 9,306
Floating nations
- Thread starter Loppan Torkel
- Start date
aelf
Ashen One
What's the difference between this and living on a tiny island nation?
No previous rules.
aelf
Ashen One
Well, somebody had to make the rules in tiny island nations too once upon a time.
But they already exist. And so they would have to be changed. So you'd need enough immigrants to change the minds of all the current inhabitants.
aelf
Ashen One
But it's not like you get to decide what the rules are yourself, right? Unless the floating nations come with preset rules, which seems less plausible.
aelf
Ashen One
So the nations are strictly non-democratic?
Well I suppose all shareholders would have a vote. But like with a common stock company, votes would be based on share of ownership rather than by person. It really only makes sense to have equal voting if there is equal ownership. But would there be? Any ocean habitat that it sustainable over the long haul is going to be very expensive. Would the people financing that be inclined to give everyone who comes there an equal say in what is going on? The ship would need crew and service workers as well as other citizens. They'd have to make have high income jobs to support the ship. So you have a big disparity between those running the show and those running the ship. Not that that is unusual in societies. But what would be the motivation to create a new artificial one and then do the same thing as the place you left?
Silurian
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,567
The large vessel would have to set sail then try to get its self recognised as a nation.
Until it is recognised it could be treated as a pirate vessel.
I cannot see costal nations recognising it because of the conflicts over resource rights.
aelf
Ashen One
The thing is that's just implausible. I suppose this is why references to Bioshock have been made. There seems to be an implicit expectation that people who move there would agree with the original vision of whoever started the community and not have serious disagreements. Whereas most real life communities work to some extent on the basis of collective decision-making by the current inhabitants, even if there is some kind of hierarchy present (which would have taken time and tradition to cement anyway). Yes, societies have existing rules, but its members have the collective ability to shape it. Not to mention the prospect of intergenerational conflict in these floating nations, which is highly likely with such an inflexible social contract.
I thought we're looking at it from the perspective of the inhabitants, not international law.
Silurian
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,567
Well if the inhabitants are willing to become stateless persons with all the problems that creates. (like Palestinians)
If the citizens did not give up their original citizenship then those countries would feel that they have a right to intervene to protect their citizens (say like Grenada)
The state the vessel was launched from would view the vessel as part of its territory, unless it recognised the vessel as a state, and so may internee to collect taxes etc.
Where would the vessel go? If it was within 400 miles of a states waters or on the continental shelf, it would have a claim on them if it was recognised.
If the citizens did not give up their original citizenship then those countries would feel that they have a right to intervene to protect their citizens (say like Grenada)
The state the vessel was launched from would view the vessel as part of its territory, unless it recognised the vessel as a state, and so may internee to collect taxes etc.
Where would the vessel go? If it was within 400 miles of a states waters or on the continental shelf, it would have a claim on them if it was recognised.
aelf
Ashen One
We might as well talk about potential engineering problems and challenges.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
Because to leave would be to spoil the secrets of
I would think that the people who bought in to the project probably would share a basic point of view of how to do things. Otherwise why by in? But what about everyone else? You aren't going to fill all the crew and service jobs with people who buy in, because it will be very expensive to do so. So you hire non-citizen "guest workers", with all the long term problems that that entails, and you deny them a path to citizenship, and you have a two tier society.
One invasion (August '78) is too few to speak of?
Notice also that we Brits had to help Sealand out with a helicopter and a lifeboat when it suffered a small fire in 2006.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 9,306
This is true. The hazards of being a small self-container overwater living area - you can't necessarily solve all the problems yourself. I'd say one invasion over 40 years is good enough considering some were concerned that there might be piracy problems if your whole nation was on the high seas. And overall, one invasion isn't too bad for a new country starting out. It's a smoother start than the United States had.
So far they've avoided sovereignty issues, though. And they're only a few nautical miles off of Britain. Set up a ship in the mid-Atlantic, and you'd be even further in the clear. Though you'd also be out of the range of rescue helicopters.
