Welcome to Atlantis [Archive]

Anenome

06-22-2011, 10:42 PM

I consider this a central problem in modern politics--and I have the solution! Read the comic first, solution below:

http://i.imgur.com/FHifL.png

The solution:
Imagine if there were a state where only republicans were allowed to vote, and one where only democrats were allowed to vote.

In each state, that party would not be able to blame its opposition for the failings of its political policies.

Now, imagine these states separate but co-existing in the same region.

The democrats can have their law, the repubs can have their law, and citizens can choose which subset of laws they'd like to subscribe to.

This is the basis of the new legal order I'm building a new nation upon, a nation I call 'Atlantis.'

What's more, it won't be limited to two parties. If you don't like either the D or R political solutions, you start your own political party and anyone who subscribes is ruled by those laws instead.

And parties need not be comprehensive either. You might subscribe to one law that deals only with taxation, and another law that deals with housing.

What it results in is something admittedly more chaotic than the current system, but one in which you will never be forced to submit to the tyranny of majority just because they outvote you.

If you think another law is what suits you, and there's no moral or ethical reason why you shouldn't live by it, then you're free to do so.

It means the return of political experimentation. Experimentation that the US States were established to create, but which they've failed to achieve--largely because people don't like to move hundreds of miles to escape onerous regulations. In my system, you never have to move away from a political system you don't like.

And yes, there will be a basic bill of rights to protect basic fundamental protections and ensure no one can open a child-prostitution ring or the like. Everything must be between consenting adults, that is a fundamental organizing principle. It means a law governed by contract rather than by bureaucrats.

But where will you put this nation? I hear you asking.

The clue is in the name: Atlantis. It will be a nation on the water. An entire ocean of free space awaits us. Look at this image of the pacific ocean:

http://i.imgur.com/5Cn4U.jpg

That is a LOT of space.

I propose a method of living on the water that would see floating cities spring up, allowing permanent ocean-dwelling, all while being sustainable and environmentally responsible.

It would use the concepts be pioneered in what's come to be known as Seasteading (http://www.seasteading.org/).

And may look something like this, except with hundreds of them:
http://i.imgur.com/UtHjW.jpg

We can grow our crops Israeli-style in circular towers. We can use wave-motion to produce energy and clean water via reverse-osmosis of salt-water. We can produce sea-food likely cheaper than any land-based fishery, meaning an innate aquaculture advantage, and we never have to pave a road!

So, call me crazy, but you heard it here first! If I make a billion dollars off one of my novels, I will make this happen ^_^

Ravenus

06-22-2011, 10:53 PM

GBSOD

06-22-2011, 10:54 PM

Andrew, is that you? :)

Anenome

06-22-2011, 11:03 PM

Ummmmm..... so what, you're just gonna anchor that thing like 20 miles to the oceans floor and hope there are no waves that will crush your structure. It's a nice thought and all, but until the seas can be tamed, we will always need land.
I didn't wanna talk about waves because it's hard to explain in words, but the wave problem has in fact been solved.

Scientists discovered a structure that can route waves completely around any sized dwelling or ocean-city you'd like.

This structure is not a wall, rather it's like concentric walls, but the walls have evenly spaced holes in them that are the same width as the wall-part--so think of it as like square pylons set at a regular distance from each other, and several rows of them.

It turns out that when a wave hits this structure it sets up interference waves that cause the wave to route itself around the concentric pylons and then re-emerge out the other side, the far side behind the city, as if it had never encountered a wall at all. This is theorized to be able to handle even tsunami-waves, as tsunami waves actually only becomes really dangerous when they hit land and turn into large surging waves due to the shallow depth.

Actually, I envision these pylons functioning as energy collectors as well, capturing wave action as energy through existing devices. They'd also be a good platform for solar-cells on top (they may protrude 20+ feet above water), and for osmotic production of fresh water. We may also be able to use wave action to produce and capture pressurized air.

Pressurized air can be used to replace electricity and fuel in many instances. It can power propellers on boats in a completely green way (replacing cars--actually cars can run on air-pressure too), washing machines, power tools, and many other appliances. It can also power refrigerators. And because it's wave-produced, it may be virtually free.

There's also the ability to produce energy by capturing the potential energy in tide-fluctuations. You can capture energy through both high tide and low tide via commonly known means.

It's all doable, my friend ;) What's really needed is a pilot-city to pave the way, solve the initial problems, prove it a viable way to live, and that would be that ;)

Politics thread is politics thread.
No, it's about anti-politics :P It's about ending politics ;) The ultimate solution to the problem of politics. The end of political opposition. Take your pick.

Anenome

06-22-2011, 11:05 PM

Andrew, is that you? :)
What's this in reference to? :P I ain't not 'Andrew' :P

Agnostic Pope

06-23-2011, 10:54 AM

Bioshock Anenome...he was referring to Bioshock. Remember Bioshock? Fucking plasmids how do they work? :D

Johan

06-23-2011, 10:59 AM

Politics thread is politics thread.

Water is wet. Truism is true. You are correct.

What's this in reference to? :P I ain't not 'Andrew' :P

:facepalm: And you mocked me over missing a reference in someone calling someone else an asshole? :D

Suicidal ShiZuru

06-23-2011, 11:34 AM

It must be nice to live with your head in the skies constantly dreaming of things that will never happen.

Anenome

06-23-2011, 12:40 PM

AP: Plasmids turned out to be pretty boring >_> and I never got far enough to meet little sisters or w/e.

It must be nice to live with your head in the skies constantly dreaming of things that will never happen.
I'm a writer! ;)

This mostly comes from research for a novel where, shockingly, the characters end up living on the water in the form I propose :P

Still, the research has also convinced me that it's actually possible ;)

:facepalm: And you mocked me over missing a reference in someone calling someone else an asshole? :D
Own it, never beat it. Didn't actually play that much of it :\ Didn't "mock you."

Anenome

07-06-2011, 02:13 AM

Lilypad floating city concept (http://www.gizmag.com/lilypad-floating-city-concept/17697/)

http://i.imgur.com/qfRZH.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/g2UQB.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/BKODq.jpg
Three marinas and three mountains would surround a centrally located artificial lagoon that is totally immersed below the water line to act as ballast for the city. The three mountains and marinas would be dedicated to work, shopping and entertainment, respectively, while suspended gardens and aquaculture farms located below the water line would be used to grow food and biomass.

lockwoodx

07-06-2011, 05:46 AM

Are those mercedes symbols all over it?

nm obviously turbines now that I had a second look.

Syl

07-06-2011, 07:01 AM

All we need to do is change our democracy to the democracy standard that they have in certain european countries.

Instead of Party A winning or Party B winning -
If party A gets 30% of the vote, then 30% of the cabinet is party A, if party B gets 25% of the vote, then 25% of the cabinet is party B. This trickles all the way down to party Z if party Z gets enough of the vote to still have a statistical place on the cabinet - then there will be at least one member from party Z on the cabinet.
*Cabinet is the wrong term for this government.

and now i leave this thread forever.

Anenome

07-06-2011, 11:34 AM

sai tyrus

07-06-2011, 07:59 PM

"A man chooses, a slave obeys."

That aside, my only issue living on the water would be the Craken from Pirates of the Carribean II. That movie taught me so many things... like never seeing another one.

Sion

07-09-2011, 11:01 PM

"A man chooses, a slave obeys."

This is a good quote. I think I know exactly what you mean.

Agnostic Pope

07-09-2011, 11:58 PM

Have you played Bioshock Sion? It was a reference to...meh.

Anenome

07-10-2011, 11:19 AM

Have you played Bioshock Sion? It was a reference to...meh.
True, but it's also true IRL, no? After all, Bioshock was an adaptation of some of Rand's utopian ideas into a dystopia.

I think it's funny that I haven't yet played through Bioshock, yet I've set myself up as an Andrew Ryan figure >_> Promise I won't go crazy with power or w/e he did :P

sai tyrus

07-12-2011, 01:45 PM

Good because I'll beat you with a golf club if you do. Or you will. Because I... never mind.

Agnostic Pope

07-12-2011, 08:53 PM

Good because I'll beat you with a golf club if you do. Or you will. Because I... never mind.

He missed one of the greatest moment in gaming...sad.

sai tyrus

07-13-2011, 07:53 PM

There's plenty of good moments to be had. We've all missed some. :rolleyes:

Kreigmstr

07-13-2011, 08:06 PM

You should consider a power generation system based off of ocean currents instead of waves. You could have pillars that extend into the water and rotate. Then have turbines in those pillars similar to what they use in dam's. The rotation of the pillars would let you align the turbines with ocean currents to get the most effect from them.

You could also consider a Hydrogen Fuel Cell power generation system. The technology has come pretty far in the past few years. OSU created an 800hp fuel cell powered car that's going over 300mph a couple years ago. Use that kind of tech and extract the hydrogen from from the ocean water then use the exhaust water to provide more hydrogen.

OSU's Car: hw6vmy1nPVI

http://www.greenmuze.com/climate/cars/2979-the-buckeye-bullet-2.html

Anenome

07-13-2011, 09:10 PM

I expect to use wind / current / solar to generate hydrogen and oxygen from water, yes, and use that as a primary fuel. I also have a plan for harvesting energy from micro-sized wave-action and tides. The problem, perhaps, with currents is that you're being pushed by the current as you harvest it and must resist it, and I want to limit anchor usage--as it rips up the sea bed.

Long-term, I can see these cities being fusion powered.

Anenome

10-13-2011, 04:24 AM

Recently I've been looking at whistling buoys:

v5arqY6t0vI

These things use minor wave action to produce pressurized air. The train whistle that produces the moan requires ~70 PSI to activate.

70 PSI is a ton of pressure. I figure these things can produce pressure and capture it in its body via one-way valves. This can then be piped out to do work, from running boat outboards to running air-powered generators. It's basically free energy.

Each wave-wall pylon could have a pressure column in its middle like the whistle buoys, resulting in a whooole lot of air pressure being collected from minor and major wave action. In fact, the heavier the seas the more air pressure is produced.

Surprisingly, even though whistle buoys were invented in the 1880s or so, no one's ever tried to capture the air pressure a whistle buoy produces and use it as an energy source. Even Feynman said there's tons of energy in the motion of the sea but it's not available as you need a temp difference--well, not so fast :P

I'm still looking for a flaw in the idea but haven't been able to find one. With 70 PSI you can run a generator, and with that create drinkable water from seawater. That's our two major problems solved: power and water.

blackzc

10-13-2011, 12:06 PM

I actually like this idea but dam the scurvy we will all have.

Syl

10-13-2011, 01:16 PM

inscribed

10-14-2011, 01:49 PM

JRDSkinner

10-18-2011, 11:29 AM

The buoys might be able to build up pressure enough to briefly blow a whistle, but I doubt they could provide the constant pressure gradient required.

I have to agree that at the moment individual buoys would be pretty low-power,
but consider how much ocean there is to harvest from - and efficiency is only gained through repeated, refined, implementation.

Fantastic idea, Anenome.

Mazzicc

10-18-2011, 01:02 PM

and there's no moral or ethical reason why you shouldn't live by it

critical flaw. Who decides if its moral or ethical?

Everything must be between consenting adults

another. who decides who is a consenting adult?

Neat idea, but those two flaws alone create plenty of problems in my mind.

Anenome

10-20-2011, 07:56 PM

Why don't we just use the democractic that every country uses that's not america. There are X amount of seats to give away, and XYZ party gets %X of the seats based upon % of votes. Therefore no one party "wins" and it's not a binary selection as america turned out to be. My system goes well beyond that, so I'll give a few reasons.

First, despite a republican democracy being a system of minority rights and majority rule, the stasis that's come about has been the majority of poor people deciding that they have the right to pilfer the pockets of the productive members of society, and politically parties find it expedient to support this policy, so it continues.

Only a structural change in the way democracies work will fix this problem, and it's the most contemporary problem we have. Al Queda never achieved and never will achieve the damage caused by those pushing the various communalist policies that damage the economy despite good intentions.

Secondly, I was to create a political right of separation. If you don't like a law enough to decide you want to leave the jurisdiction that has that law, you should be able to do so. Currently that's very difficult and expensive, but in my society should be much easier and cheaper, creating competition among city-jurisdictions for citizens and responding much faster to dissatisfaction.

Lastly, I'm playing with some other concepts, like instant online voting rather than scheduled elections, automatically expiring laws, etc., and one other thing that is a must:
the separation of economy and state.

With that in place, crony-capitalism ends forever, all law-created monopolies end, buying off politicians for favors ends, etc.

So, I don't just want each %'age of the populace to have a mere place in the legislature, I would want them to have their own legislature! That way, if their system works and they can convince people to follow them, then it's there for the world to see and they can blame no one for their problems or success but themselves.

Anenome

10-20-2011, 08:08 PM

You would need a constant pressure gradient to drive an electric motor, and with 70 PSI, it would be a relatively small motor.
1st question; are you by chance an engineer? :) Would be fun to work on this project for real.

Yes, you'd need constant pressure, and each buoy's body is a pressure vessel, collecting pressure over time to a constant gradient.

I looked into the Coast Guard buoys, their whistling buoys range upwards of 17,000 pounds. I figure at that weight we could put much more than a single air chamber in them, probably multiples of them, producing comparatively large volumes with each swell. Beyond that, since these buoys form the protective wave-guide that walls the city, there's at least dozens to hundreds of them, meaning a large amount of energy is captured from each swell.

I can think of a few scenarios:

1. We pipe air pressure to a central area where it's used collectively to drive a generator at constant pressure. There might be intermediate devices that step up the air pressure at a loss of volume to achieve the requisite ideal PSI.

2. We can use even 70 PSI to drive water purifiers. I think this is an exciting application, because I know for certain that 70 PSI is enough to do it, and that it doesn't take much, meaning that we could create a self-powered water purifier for the 3rd world coastal regions. One of the recent new WP techs I read about was built into a straw and used the power of suction from the human mouth to drive the gradient process :P So, 70 psi can surely do it.

3. We pipe large volumes into one of the super efficient circular-vane generators (forget the name...). They can operate at up to 90% efficiency but require very low volume. Meaning one on each buoy could do the job. (IIRC it was Tesla that invented these?).

The buoys might be able to build up pressure enough to briefly blow a whistle, but I doubt they could provide the constant pressure gradient required.
Again, each buoy is a pressure vessel. the 70 PSI is not simply sent to the generator, it's capture and stored with each swell, to be piped out later when full. Buoys could then be tapped in serial or chained together to provide constant flow.

For that matter, compressed air can be used by itself to power all sorts of things, and is far more wet-environ friendly than electrical power.

You could for instance drive an outboard motor via compressed air. And 70 PSI actually is a ton of pressure depending on the volume you give it. On Myth Busters they shot the chicken-cannon at some 300+ mph at 50 PSI :P The volume of air is probably more important, and this system should generate a whole lot of volume with all the buoys I need total.

Anenome

10-20-2011, 08:09 PM

I have to agree that at the moment individual buoys would be pretty low-power,
but consider how much ocean there is to harvest from - and efficiency is only gained through repeated, refined, implementation.

Fantastic idea, Anenome.
Thanks :) The more thought and research I've put into this whole thing the more plausible and non-crazy it sounds. So it's good to hear some feedback and challenges and make sure it's not just cabin fever talking :P

Anenome

10-20-2011, 08:14 PM

critical flaw. Who decides if its moral or ethical?
One of the things that's different about objectivism is that Rand claims to have discovered a "scientifically provable ethical system." A discussion of that is outside the scope here, but suffice to say that her root value is life. That which furthers life is ethical and that which does not is unethical. There's a whole chain of ideas after that, but I recommend Leonard Peikoff's book "Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand" as a starting point (he being the modern, living popularizer carrying her torch and her avid student while she lived).

It's a rational ethic based on reason.

another. who decides who is a consenting adult?
This one's actually far easier than your previous question. Rand herself provided a rubric and it was this: self sufficiency.

If you're able to support yourself via a job or w/e, you're considered a responsible adult, can vote, and have accepted the keys to your life, etc.

If you're not self-supportive, you may no longer vote. Thus, anyone accepting state welfare would be unable. That sure would change things in our current society.

Neat idea, but those two flaws alone create plenty of problems in my mind.
They're not insurmountable :)

Anenome

10-20-2011, 08:19 PM

I actually like this idea but dam the scurvy we will all have.
:) It's possible to grow fruit on the sea in enclosed towers. In such a system you'd use artificial light, temperature control, and could grow any crop year-round by making it say think it was summer when it's winter via temperature cues.

By enclosing the crops you could stop use pesticides, and water doesn't leak away into the water table or on the wind. You could also increase the latent CO2 % in the air causing the plants to grow like crazy!

What holds this back is mainly the cost of energy. But, if the buoys provide essentially free energy, you could do it.

Anenome

11-10-2011, 10:59 PM

I'm now calling this "Project Atlantis" as "Atlantis" may not be the most appropriate name for the final state.

Also, my concept has progressed in a few ways since the initial post. Rather than having competing governments within one jurisdiction, which is basically impossible and rife with contradictions, I want to extend the right of free association to create a legal and political right of separation.

If you don't like the policies of a state, you can extricate yourself from it instantly and join another--or start another. Rather than having states like the US states, that is large jurisdictions, jurisdictions would be limited to cities and their surrounding economic zones. Thus, if you want to start a jurisdiction, a city, next-door to an existing one, feel free.

The ramification of this creates what my original post sought--competition for citizens, just by another mechanism, one that would actually work.

The root crux of the modern political problem is that the majority can always outvote the minority, and the minority cannot escape the majority. It's the latter that I seek to rectify. Because what if the minority is right? Then they'll suffer the same fate brought by the majority's wrong-policy simply because the majority is obstinate.

So, the solution is the political right of separation, allowing people to escape from under the jurisdiction of the majority and start their own, unopposed.

No longer will party A be able to blame party B for the state's failures, as the two can separate and achieve unopposed power over their own fate.

I think this is a game changer for two reasons:
1. In a such a situation, the modern frustration caused by political disagreement would be completely eliminated. Think of how beautiful that would be. Regardless of your political ideals, you'd be free to exercise them and chase them to their ultimate end (as long as you respect the basic rights of all under your jurisdiction, meaning this is a voluntary society).

2. We'd finally have an answer as to which political ideas actually lead to successful societies. Once you separate them and allow them to exist side by side without the interference of the opposite ideologies and policies, you get pure ideology, pure principle applied to the problems governments are used to solve.

The result, I predict, would be an devastatingly successful society for those whom share my own political ideals and value (naturally, don't we all think this :), and utter failure for my political opponents. But, the key here is you'll be free to try. It creates room for whatever kind of society anyone wants to try, as long as they respect basic rights. You want to create a Sharia law society? Fine, but it will be entirely voluntary still. And if Sharia law says X must be whipped or killed for doing Y, he'll have to consent to the punishment and undergo it willingly :P

Major Dan

11-11-2011, 05:15 AM

Andrew, is that you? :)

This, it would be safer UNDER WATER!:D I see what you did there.

Maybe something like this could work. I have heard a big cruise ship like this too.

Agnostic Pope

11-11-2011, 05:22 AM

Fun fact. Anenome has never "played" Bioshock. Mostly because it shits all over Rand's ideas. :P

Anenome

11-11-2011, 08:28 AM

Fun fact. Anenome has never "played" Bioshock. Mostly because it shits all over Rand's ideas. :P
Not quite, i never beat it, because I couldn't get into it. Never got far enough to learn it was cast as an anti-randian dystopia. I would say we have already enough of those (anti-randian dystopias) and I'd like to try out the concept for real.

Anenome

11-24-2011, 01:58 AM

Condo, anyone?
http://i.imgur.com/dTuk2.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/DDgA5.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/0ZfTL.jpg

And, crazily enough, these concepts are currently in development (http://www.gizmag.com/dutch-docklands-rescue-world-project/20569/).
"Floating islands are environmentally friendly and leave a zero footprint after its lifespan, and opens opportunities where there is a scarcity of land," Jasper Mulder, General Manager of Dutch Docklands Maldives told Gizmag. "They are the answer to urban limitations and climate change. It secures a safe and sustainable future where conventional building methods fail."

The 89 floating islands proposed for the Middle East includes residential and commercial floating developments with a total surface area of 220,000 square meters (almost 2.4 million sq.ft).

inscribed

11-28-2011, 11:05 PM

Anenome, someone beat you to the punch. Visa-free work centers in international waters off the coast of California:

http://www.blueseed.co/

Anenome

11-28-2011, 11:43 PM

Anenome, someone beat you to the punch. Visa-free work centers in international waters off the coast of California:

http://www.blueseed.co/
Yeah, there's a couple "efforts" to do similar things out there. What I'm trying to lay down is an intellectual and philosophical foundation for an offshore community that can spread throughout the world and indeed into space itself.

To do that, to spread onto water and into space, we'll need to deal with new challenges, need new political structures--hopefully improved ones.

The United States is a product of the 18th century, the culminating political achievement of the enlightenment period. But it's been downhill since then. The US Constitution wouldn't pass a majority vote today.

That link you give is useful ;) I'll read up. But it's vision is small in scope--just routing around visa problems. I'm trying to create a system that will last literally millennia.

Anenome

11-29-2011, 03:15 AM

Programming for all schoolchildren (article):
Coding - the new Latin (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15916677)
Today the likes of Google, Microsoft and other leading technology names will lend their support to the case made to the government earlier this year in a report called Next Gen. It argued that the UK could be a global hub for the video games and special effects industries - but only if its education system got its act together.

The statistics on the numbers going to university to study computing make sobering reading. In 2003 around 16,500 students applied to UCAS for places on computer science courses.

By 2007 that had fallen to just 10,600, and although it's recovered a little to 13,600 last year, that's at a time in major growth in overall applications, so the percentage of students looking to study the subject has fallen from 5% to 3%. What's more, computing science's reputation as a geeky male subject has been reinforced, with the percentage of male applicants rising over the period from 84% to 87%.

But the problem, according to those campaigning for change, begins at school with ICT - a subject seen by its detractors as teaching clerical skills rather than any real understanding of computing.

And it seems school children are getting that message too because the numbers studying the subject are on the decline. The answer, according to the firms and organisations calling for change, is to put proper computer science in the form of coding on the curriculum.

And it looks like they've found what could be a great slogan for their campaign. "Coding is the new Latin," says Alex Hope, co-author of that Next Gen report which kicked things off. "We need to give kids a proper understanding of computers if they're to compete for all kinds of jobs."
...

Anenome

12-04-2011, 02:48 PM

The Economist did an article on the Libertarian dream of seasteading entitled Cities on the Ocean (http://www.economist.com/node/21540395?fsrc=scn/tw/te/ar/citiesontheocean). It's funny that I'm discovering all these other people who've come to the same conclusion as me, and from the same political origin... This is how libertarians revolt--not with a gun in hand, but by creating something new. We have a commitment to the NAP, the non-aggression principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle), and thus a bloody revolt is out of question. But a "leave us alone" revolt where we separate ourselves politically is not only allowed, it's what originally created the United States.

Cities on the Ocean (http://www.economist.com/node/21540395?fsrc=scn/tw/te/ar/citiesontheocean)
Seasteading: Libertarians dream of creating self-ruling floating cities. But can the many obstacles, not least the engineering ones, be overcome?

http://i.imgur.com/AYp58.jpg
... read the article for the rest.

So, here's an update on my own thoughts. In the pict below you can see a modern spar-buoy based oil platform. This is the design the oil industry uses to creating floating platforms--obviously by now it's a pretty damn mature technology. You float a platform and attach it to the seafloor with at least three cable. In the pict above that accompanied the article, you see a floating platform resting on four spar-buoys. This is the direction I'm leaning in now.

http://i.imgur.com/94CAA.jpg

Problem is, it's not very comfortable, it tends to rock up and down with the waves, and perhaps side to side.

My solution is to connect 3-4 of them as sort of like the legs of a table, with the platform being the table portion between them. It would have to be well trussed, but the result would be much harder to tip side to side, and the added weight would make rising and falling less likely.

Of course, it may be possible to create a compensating mechanism for wave list that could actively counteract the force. On the other hand, my wave wall concept could remove wave problems entirely.

I was looking at Google Earth yesterday and identified some underwater seamounts--volcanic-created structures that are basically underwater mountains and provide both a rich sealife climate as well as shallower water to anchor a structure to. I found one about 435 miles off the coast of California called the Fieberling seamount with a water depth of about 1500 feet. It's actually a group of three seamount, but that one looks the nicest.

There's another group of seamounts off the coast of San Francisco, the Taney seamount, that's only 150 miles--might be a better place, but this puts you within the exclusive economic zone of the US (250 miles), so there may be legal wrangling there.

However, it might be worth starting there until the US gets angry and then moving to the Fieberling seamount :P

http://i.imgur.com/lctDD.jpg

Johan

12-14-2011, 05:20 AM

You need a billionaire patron saint. Find him/her, and you can do it. Absent someone with deep pockets, it's a pipe dream.*

* It'll never happen.

Anenome

12-14-2011, 07:33 AM

You need a billionaire patron saint. Find him/her, and you can do it. Absent someone with deep pockets, it's a pipe dream.*

* It'll never happen.
Got one:
Silicon Valley billionaire funding creation of artificial libertarian islands (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/silicon-valley-billionaire-funding-creation-artificial-libertarian-islands-140840896.html)

Johan

12-14-2011, 07:46 AM

Mazzicc

12-14-2011, 08:42 AM

But a "leave us alone" revolt where we separate ourselves politically is not only allowed, it's what originally created the United States.

....Did you miss the whole "war" aspect of the "American Revolutionary War"?

As for the idea about using an oil-rig type platform, while that is fairly matured, don't those still need evacuation in the path of storms due to the dangers? It likely wouldn't capsize if you have the 4 connected, but I also wonder just how much weight they can actually bouy up.

I'd be interested in seeing one of these cities up and running, but I'm still not convinced they would last in the long term. I'm sure at first it would be great, because only the people that want them to succeed would go. After a while though, you'd start to attract people trying to take advantage of and manipulating the system, and I think it would eventually fail. I'd put the successful timeframe at 20-50 years, and not much past.

Johan

12-14-2011, 09:10 AM

Morphiuos

12-14-2011, 09:16 AM

Well, you're definitely not invited to the floating island Johan. It's for your own safety of course. People would more than likely beat you to a bloody pulp within minutes of you opening your mouth.

Johan

12-14-2011, 09:18 AM

Well, you're definitely not invited to the floating island Johan. It's for your own safety of course. People would more than likely beat you to a bloody pulp within minutes of you opening your mouth.

See, now you're bordering on getting a call from authorities investigating threatening, stalking behavior. EvAv should deal with your harassing, threatening behavior.

Morphiuos

12-14-2011, 09:21 AM

See, now you're bordering on getting a call from authorities investigating threatening, stalking behavior. EvAv should deal with your harassing, threatening behavior.

You're mistaken Johan. I would not lay a finger on you. I would just laugh and point. ;)

Johan

12-14-2011, 09:24 AM

It's a direct comment on the standards of the site that you're allowed to continue this with no repurcussions. Threatening physical harm to another forum poster is out of bounds and illegal.

Com_Gaunt

12-14-2011, 09:46 AM

I think it was just his way of saying you are annoying.

BeardedSonOfNel

12-14-2011, 09:59 AM

Johan, Morphiuos didn't directly threaten you in his post.

Morphiuos, stop thread jacking. Ok, you don't like Johan, or what you perceive his beliefs are... We get it! In fact I wouldn't have a problem with you arguing with him if there was some substance to what you type beyond personal attacks.

Johan

12-14-2011, 10:03 AM

Johan, Morphiuos didn't directly threaten you in his post.

He did threaten me, and he has also been consistently cyberstalking me across mutiple threads, which is obvious from the number of his posts which are focused purely upon insulting me and nothing more.

Online threats and cyberstalking are illegal. The response of the site...nothing...speaks volumes.

Dag-Sabot

12-14-2011, 10:25 AM

Well maybe he donated too.

BeardedSonOfNel

12-14-2011, 10:39 AM

TDiddy

12-14-2011, 10:42 AM

He did threaten me, and he has also been consistently cyberstalking me across mutiple threads, which is obvious from the number of his posts which are focused purely upon insulting me and nothing more.

Online threats and cyberstalking are illegal. The response of the site...nothing...speaks volumes.

First, he didn't threaten you. He stated his belief that, if you went to this fantasy platform in the sea, you would be attacked after stating your opinion, an opinion of yours I actually agree with for once.

Second, if he did actually threaten you somewhere else, do you believe (fear) he will carry through with his threat? If not, there is no crime. Without fear, there is not crime. If somebody were to call the police about a threat and they told the police they were not afraid, the police would not take the report. Fear is key.

And if you believed he would, could he? Does he know how to physically find you, have the ability to go to your location, and have the physical skillset to cause bodily injury to you, whether through fighting ability or a weapon? If you answer no to any of those there is no crime. If a 5-year old told me he was going to kick my ass while standing in front of me, he knows my location, has found me, but I do not believe he can actually follow through with his threat, making it so there is no crime.

Back on topic: I agree with Johan and Mazzicc about disagreements and people trying to manipulate the system leading to this fantasy society turning into every other society ever. Sure, it could start pretty smooth, but being confined, especially with people who don't agree with what you believe in, would escalate things quickly in the wrong direction.

lockwoodx

12-14-2011, 11:31 AM

Morphiuos

12-14-2011, 11:48 AM

I think it was just his way of saying you are annoying.

Bingo! It's beyond funny that he finds me threatening. What am I going to do, reach through cyberspace and strangle him? lol Besides, I never threatened him. I just pointed out that people,even people trying to get along with everyone, would despise him.

Morphiuos

12-14-2011, 11:49 AM

Mav

12-14-2011, 12:19 PM

Mazzicc

12-14-2011, 12:34 PM

back on topic...

I think it would last, at least in the short term, because the people most likely to move there at first are people that largely agree. Now, there may be some hiccups, but I think a group of like-minded people would get past those, at least temporarily.

Where the issue comes in is when people who disagree see eploitable opportunities, and move in as well.

I also don't know if I would say this is a "utopia" or such, as much as it's just a more efficient and/or friendlier, more responsive system of governance. I don't think it could be self sustaining for the sake of "national" defense if nothing else, but small countries have existed and negotiated deals with countries that could protect them before (See Vatican and similar tiny countries). If it's not self sustainable, I don't think it's really a utopia, but that may just be squabbling of terms.

as for the off-topic: /sigh.

Morphiuos

12-14-2011, 12:42 PM

Enough Morphiuos. I'm not going to edit or remove the post that was reported, because A) I don't want folks busting out the anti-censorship pitch forks & torches but B) because you should know better. This is not the first time you've popped into a thread and started something with Johan. What you said was kinda borderline, you wanna troll do so but keep threats of potential violence either direct or indirect out of it. Johann isn't completely innocent either but this is getting ridiculous. Keep at it and we'll take it directly to EvAv.

Understood, number one

BeardedSonOfNel

12-14-2011, 01:06 PM

I think it could last for awhile, because I don't see a lot of people who aren't committed to a specific ideology moving to a small manmade island. Sure, you're always going to have someone try to take advantage of the system, but this is a very different system that wouldn't offer very much to those who would want to leech off of society.

Free heath care? No.
Free education? No.
Unchecked free welfare? No

The list goes on and on.

You really would have to be committed to a true free market, capitalism, and personally responsibility. For a lot of folks those ideas would keep them away; that and the fact you would be living in the middle of nowhere.

Dag-Sabot

12-14-2011, 01:15 PM

blackzc

12-14-2011, 01:23 PM

See, now you're bordering on getting a call from authorities investigating threatening, stalking behavior. EvAv should deal with your harassing, threatening behavior.

Really? Really? Statements likes this makes me want to poke you in the forehead.

LOL you sissy.

blackzc

12-14-2011, 01:24 PM

In other words: if you donate to the site you can be a complete ass, likening people to germs and so forth (see occupy thread) but make a very likely prediction based on facts available but not have donated you will get a finger wagging!

Ive not seen this.

SaintBlitzkrieg

12-14-2011, 01:27 PM

Really? Really? Statements likes this makes me want to poke you in the forehead.

LOL you sissy.

:eek: you threatened him!!! LMAO this was a really funny post.

Morphiuos

12-14-2011, 02:17 PM

Morphiuos

12-14-2011, 02:18 PM

Really? Really? Statements likes this makes me want to poke you in the forehead.

LOL you sissy.

Careful now or you will get accused of threatening deadly finger pokes. lmao

Mazzicc

12-14-2011, 02:21 PM

hmm. If that's the way this site works Dag-sabot, you should be the better man and leave. I'm sure your value adding posts will be missed, and maybe they will see the error of thier ways when they realize the system has cost them your membership. I don't know why you would stand for that sort of system in something you spend your time and contribute to.

Dag-Sabot

12-14-2011, 02:32 PM

Ok two things guys: Yellows do not donate, as in are not $$ contributors of which I am proudly one.

2) there's an ignore option. Although I think hes great and would never wish a run away steamroller to flatten him, I just can't bring myself to hit that button.

Dag-Sabot

12-14-2011, 02:32 PM

I've never donated to this site. So if you are inferring that I get let off the hook because I gave them money you are wrong.wow i see what you did there!

Johan

12-14-2011, 02:40 PM

I've never donated to this site. So if you are inferring that I get let off the hook because I gave them money you are wrong.

You get let off the hook because the site is run by cowards who won't actually moderate their own site. It's that simple.

Considering the lack of pageviews and lack of posts, the result is pretty apparent to see, as well. Welcome aboard the fail train!

Mazzicc

12-14-2011, 03:16 PM

hey now, theres a new thread for baseless personal attacks and accusations. Move it there.

Anenome

12-14-2011, 03:28 PM

Well, that is indeed a huge hurdle to overcome. Perhaps it is possible. Personally, I think any attempt at a utopian society is doomed to failure, but with funding you've overcome one of the biggest roadblocks.
It's not an attempt to create a utopian society anymore than the founding of America was. It's just a new society organized along libertarian Principles that the US constitution comes close on, but was too historically early to incorporate as they hadn't been fully realized yet.

Anenome

12-14-2011, 03:52 PM

....Did you miss the whole "war" aspect of the "American Revolutionary War"?
No, but that only happened because the US extricated itself from an existing jurisdiction, as a colony. An offshore island should have no jurisdictional counterclaims and be built peacefully with no opposition. The true problem is gaining traction in terms of population.

As for the idea about using an oil-rig type platform, while that is fairly matured, don't those still need evacuation in the path of storms due to the dangers? It likely wouldn't capsize if you have the 4 connected, but I also wonder just how much weight they can actually bouy up.
The largest cargo container ships are currently capable of moving 500 million pounds of cargo--not including the weight of the ship itself (18,000 cargo contains at 14 tons each). It's always surprising to me just how much weight water can support--water is damn heavy.

I don't know if they evacuate for storms, I doubt it. But they are a single pylon design that can tip heavily in very rough seas. A design of multiple pylon-buoys with a flat center of gravity would in theory be much more stable in even the roughest of seas. And the larger the vessel the more stable it is simply by way of weight.

The British aircraft carriers are small, and use four gigantic gyros to stabilize them in motion, but the US ones have no gyros at all, they're just so massive that roll isn't much of a factor.

The real thing to worry about are rogue waves. I'm betting that my anti-wave wall system would cut any wave activity, including rogue waves. It's a unique technology that most people have no idea about, and it's a bit hard to describe as well.

When we think of a wall we think of a contiguous vertical structure. But this wall is more like a checkerboard--yes, that's the perfect way to describe it. Think of only the black squares on a checkerboard, but with much more separate between the blacks, not touching each other. Each black square is a pylon floating on the water. When a wave hits this broken-up wall, it sets up interference patterns within the structure which causes the wave to be redirected laterally around the wall and then they reform on the opposite side where the interference patterns reform and continue on as a wave at that point--making the structure inside the circular wall basically invisible to wave action.

In theory, this would break-up even the energy of a rogue wave.

I'd be interested in seeing one of these cities up and running, but I'm still not convinced they would last in the long term. I'm sure at first it would be great, because only the people that want them to succeed would go. After a while though, you'd start to attract people trying to take advantage of and manipulating the system, and I think it would eventually fail. I'd put the successful timeframe at 20-50 years, and not much past.
I'm not sure what you mean--I could understand this critique if I was intending to build an anarchist society, because such a society would not have laws or a police force at all, but that's not my proposal. We will have law, we will have law enforcement, and courts of law.

In such a society as this, if I can nail the tech for living on the water, and also provide a libertarian government that functions adequately--that alone equals a revolution that would change the world. The government system by itself is revolutionary, but the very libertarian principles I wish to live by rule out violent revolution to put in a new system (unlike the communists). Would this governmental system work on land--yes it would. We've had it de facto in many historical periods but it never lasted because it was only de facto and not as a result of conscious principles (and one of these periods was the early American society before the revolution, and much of early industrial England where capitalism was so new the government just left it alone).

So that leaves just the water-living technology. You need to displace water to float, and this is supposed to be a permanent structure.

So, you want to create unsinkable designs (shades of Titanic >_>). But the Titanic was a stupid design that wasn't really unsinkable. Unsinkable means that there's no way for water to collect in enough areas to lose positive buoyancy, and there's a lot of boats currently that are designed to be permanently positively buoyant.

The trick is to fill up the buoyancy-producing areas with a light material that will prevent water from entering, even if the skin of it is breached. Usually they use expanding foam.

So, I'd use these gigantic legs and fill them up with a closed cell plastic or foam, and there's your unsinkability, in a material that does not biodegrade, impervious to water.

So again, the main problem is gaining traction in the first place. Since the society has zero direct taxation, no property taxes, etc., many people will be able to move there and spend some on a living area that would've gone to taxation just in the first year, to buy an equivalent house.

Anenome

12-14-2011, 04:00 PM

It won't last ten years, if it ever gets off the ground. The problem with all of these 'utopian' ideas is that every single human society in existence has to have a framework within which to operate while simultaneouly recognizing the reality that not everyone agrees with what the boundaries for society will be, therefore some entity within society has to be set up as an enforcement mechanism to prevent society from exceeding the boundaries allowed by mutual agreement of a majority of the participants, and of course you'll never get universal agreement on every single issue that presents itself in such groups.
Such is called law and law enforcement, and it will be there. Libertarians are minimalists governmentally, not abolitionists as the anarchs are. You seem to describe here an anarch society, and that's not what is being proposed.

Beyond that, my government has a novel scheme for eliminating political frustration: the right of political separation within an overarching framework.

Don't agree with group X, start your own group and govern yourself. Both groups will then exist under a minimalized federal government which is tasked purely with geographic defense and human rights enforcement--which are non-political goals.

In other words, you will either have anarchy or force.
Again, we will have the rule of law--which is force. Suggest you read up on libertarianism >_>

The only place one can find universal agreement on how to organize a society is within one's own mind. Bring two people together and you've got the beginning of arguments. It's that simple.
The right of political separation solves this. The right of political separation is a new political right which I myself have originated; it is a derivative of the right of freedom of association.

Its essence is that no one can force a law upon you, you must agree to live by all laws in the society. If you do not agree with a law, you separate yourself from the jurisdiction it was passed in and can either form your own jurisdiction alongside or join another jurisdiction.

Such a system results in micro-cities competing against each other for citizens, many with contiguous boundaries. No more monolithic states. We're flattening out the governing bodies. No more fed / state / city / town. Now it will be a strictly limited Fed with city as the final governmental level, and the right of political separation makes it viable.

Anenome

12-14-2011, 05:45 PM

Well, you're definitely not invited to the floating island Johan. It's for your own safety of course. People would more than likely beat you to a bloody pulp within minutes of you opening your mouth.
Wow. Alrighty then. Ahem. Let's keep things friendly, k?

Although, I think in a world where you can separate yourself from anyone, resorting to violence is much less an issue. He wants to live in a city with economic intervention, fine, but it will only be voluntary. You won't be able to have a political order where the poor masses vote themselves largesse at the expense of the rich unless the rich willingly stay, and nothing can make them stay (unlike in our current system where escape is essentially impossible). This is where my system is disruptive. Because if I can gain traction in a society and then drain off your top producers who are fleeing majority-oppression world wide, then I win.

See, now you're bordering on getting a call from authorities investigating threatening, stalking behavior. EvAv should deal with your harassing, threatening behavior.
Nah, he hasn't outright threatened you. He's tiptoeing the line if anything. Seems to be still within legal boundary. It may not have been a nice thing to say but you're going a bit overboard on reaction :P

Anenome

12-14-2011, 05:46 PM

It's a direct comment on the standards of the site that you're allowed to continue this with no repurcussions. Threatening physical harm to another forum poster is out of bounds and illegal.
I think it's an admirable commitment to free speech, on behalf of the site. They should deal with harassment / outright threats. I haven't seen harassment from this guy. You seem to be overly sensitive.

Barring harassment, they shouldn't do anything until a crime has been committed. That post wasn't a threat.

Anenome

12-14-2011, 05:54 PM

Back on topic: I agree with Johan and Mazzicc about disagreements and people trying to manipulate the system leading to this fantasy society turning into every other society ever. Sure, it could start pretty smooth, but being confined, especially with people who don't agree with what you believe in, would escalate things quickly in the wrong direction.
This is where my political system is different from any that's been put into practice to date. It is specifically designed to deal with this problem.

Basically I look at politics and see two sides with an ideology, a view of the world, and a belief that things would be better if their policies were put into practice without the interference of the other side. Each side blames the other for their policies not working by being watered down even when they are put into practice. And who's right?

Well, says I, why not create political enclaves where each side can have total control over their policies and see who actually comes out with a functioning society.

Way I see it, modern society is like a man who saw someone drowning in the sea and swam out to rescue him. But when he got to the drowning man, the drowner was so panicked that he held the rescuer under the water in his own attempt to reach air, and so both men are now drowning.

And who can say who is downing who ultimately at this point, with both men fighting for air. But one thing is certain, both will drown if they don't separate.

We have two sides arguing over who's actually able to swim and who's actually drowning, about who's rescuing society and who's pulling it under.

Let the two men separate and let's see who can swim.

Anenome

12-14-2011, 06:03 PM

I think it could last for awhile,
Finally some support ;) heh.

because I don't see a lot of people who aren't committed to a specific ideology moving to a small manmade island.
Let's look at some (communist) communes of the past. Often these are ideologically formed by very committed small groups. Usually one of two things happens:

1. The commune is successful because everyone works really hard. At which point they wonder why they feel like they aren't getting a lot of return for their effort and the communism dies out while the colony continues. This is exactly what happened with Oneida silver, bunch of silversmith commies who tried to form a commune, it did really well, they abandoned communism and kept it going as a capitalistic enterprise and did very well.

2. The commune is unsuccessful because no one wants to work very hard, and people float away until it dies. This is what results at most hippie communes, where people would rather discuss ideas and do drugs and sex than do productive work, and soon they can't feed themselves.

I think a society based on libertarian principles would both attract the most productive members of society and be very productive economically. So I think option 1. would result, as long as we can get the technology of living on the sea long-term to actually work.

Sure, you're always going to have someone try to take advantage of the system, but this is a very different system that wouldn't offer very much to those who would want to leech off of society.
Exactly. In fact it's specifically setup to avoid leaching. The zero taxation also means no free state benefits. You in need, rely on charity and then get a job. No state safety net, but people are free to setup a private one.

Free heath care? No.
Free education? No.
Unchecked free welfare? No

The list goes on and on.
This is also why it can grow very fast, because there is literally zero state infrastructure needed to be put in place. There's no government schools for instance, there are for profit schools only. The gov cannot legally even start a school.

You really would have to be committed to a true free market, capitalism, and personally responsibility. For a lot of folks those ideas would keep them away; that and the fact you would be living in the middle of nowhere.
Nah, you'd be living within say an hour or two's travel to the coast of California. For many people that would be a massive standard of living upgrade :P Weather-wise as well. I plan to create a system of ground-effect flying-water transports; take you to the coast at a hundred miles an hour+.

Ideally, the society would become so successful that it created the "streets paved with gold" effect that New York held in the 19th century for immigrants.

At that point, the society would begin to grow rapidly, and entrepreneurs would need only invest in an ocean platform and begin selling the real-estate they created, onto which others would buy-in, and within a year you've got a full system going on in a new oceanic city.

Anenome

12-14-2011, 06:06 PM

You get let off the hook because the site is run by cowards who won't actually moderate their own site. It's that simple.
You know what, you deserve a temp-ban for impugning the efforts of our reds just because they don't suit your whim.

I think the reds are doing a fine job and have been exceptionally reasonable in dealing with issues. And you're blowing things ways out of proportion.

inscribed

12-15-2011, 01:21 AM

I think you are going about it the wrong way. Instead of planning to build a giant "free city" and expecting to get investors on board and entice people to move there, you should start smaller. Build a way station of sorts for ships and boats, a place to refuel and get supplies and relax for a while. Find a boat lane that sees a lot of traffic from families and private parties. The south east coast/carribean areas come to mind first, but you have the west coast in mind it looks like.

There has been a large growth in the number of individuals and families going to a live-aboard lifestyle, and that's the market you'd want to go after. Every coastal city in the US is running into problems with an increase in people buying wetslips for their small house boats and sail boats and living there full time, because this lets the boat owners live in a town without actually having to pay taxes or otherwise contribute to the town. We're not talking rich and well off people either... plenty of middle class tradesman types are choosing to give up rent and utility payments in favor of a cheap monthly wetslip and the occasional boat repair. Those are the people you want to go after.

First people are stopping by to visit and resupply and maybe even stay for a few days. A few days turns to a few weeks, then eventually you'd have a few actually living there full time, once they had a chance to dip their feet in the water, so to speak, and saw opportunity for work or to set up shop. Have a large number of docks with wet slips up for sale, to give people a chance to grab a foothold in your city without having to fully commit. Once you had a larger amount of boat traffic and an influx of money, you'd have the makings of a self sustained economy. At that point, finding investors or convincing others to move there long term would be simple.

I think it'd be important to not market it as some new society or anything, as you risk making it sound like a cult where people have to convert to some new religion. Keep it unassuming, start small, and let the city build up around it. Instead of people thinking they are moving to a new society, people are instead thinking they are moving to new city with great work opportunities, but they might have to give up some government comforts that they might have grown accustomed to.

Anenome

12-15-2011, 01:50 AM

I think you are going about it the wrong way...
Thanks, these are good ideas. I do intend it to be self-supporting from the beginning. I've been looking at various ideas for how to actually get it started, as you say not as some new society, but as something with an existing reason to exist--especially in its first incarnation.

I've thought about starting as something of a research station--at least the one well off the coast some 140 miles. You could get a grant to build a permanent structure there and host all sorts of incoming research grants. The cost of running a boat long-term by a seamount is gigantic compared to a floating self-sustained structure.

Beyond that, there's economic things like aqua-culture that could be huge money-makers. The first experiments with in-ocean aqua-culture just got off the ground recently. I saw a fascinating video of tuna being farmed inside a floating enclosure. Huge schools of large tuna in these gigantic floating enclosures, get fed regularly using sustainable soy feed, and the nets keep predators out. Meanwhile the net floats with the current. Ideally you map the local current and keep it in a large-scale eddy and only have to move in once a week or so (tracked by GPS). But in any case, aquaculture in the ocean has got to be orders of magnitude cheaper and easier than aquaculture on land, and to be honest it's something we need to start doing more of. I'm concerned about all the over-fishing going on.

Eventually I'm thinking we could build floating ports >_> and that would really piss of the US if we started to replace their port traffic with floating ports. The main advantage of a floating port? Drastic cost reduction.

I used to work for the Port of LA, you're talking something like $50,000 an hour at dock while they unload. The service is so valuable that the dock workers unions have a stranglehold. So, we replace dockworkers with a far more efficient and far cheaper robotic dock, and then boat the cargo in the remaining distance in smaller shipments able to spread out and rent some land to get it on shore from, complete bypassing existing ports :P

Of course, the unions would try to have me killed for that (literally), so it can't be something done right off the bat :P

There's also the idea of creating a place for foreign workers who have trouble getting an H1-B visa, so they can't stay overnight on US soil. So they can stay on a boat outside territorial waters (15 miles) and boat in and out each day.

Water-transportation is a business in its own right when a society gets big enough.

Another way would be to create simply permanent oil platform that actually drill for oil, as well as supporting other economic activities, including living and fishing, etc. Probably wouldn't be very nice because oil platforms are probably noisy and at fire risk :P But would sure be nicer than what those guys have to live with the way those rigs are setup now.

inscribed

12-15-2011, 02:21 AM

Anenome

12-15-2011, 03:05 AM

anenome... don't know if you live close to a coast or not, but have you considered living off a boat for a little while? as much as you want to build an ocean based city, living in an ocean based house might help to gain additional perspective of the little details of day-to-day water-based living you might not otherwise think of.
I have never lived on the water, but I do live very close to the Pacific. I can see the ocean from my window here in fact. I have sailed in the past and know the basics and am planning a trip around the world with a friend (who himself has lived on a boat), so I would say I am at least familiar with how it goes.

Thing is, living on floating land shouldn't be much different from living on actual land one you get to truly large sizes.

I'm more worried about piecing together the technologies that are only now maturing that would make it possible on a long-term basis.

One of these is competitive solar-cells. A floating city has potentially a lot of sunlight. What you don't want is a facility completely dependent on importation of diesel fuel or the like. Energy independence is almost paramount.

Also, you need a facility that can produce its own fresh water. That's virtually a solved problem. In both cases I can use the generated air pressure from the floating wave-wall pylon to generate the pressure and energy needed to make a multi-stage desalinator function on a mass scale. And we may then use the resulting clean water to run things like an artificial leaf (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/artificial-leaf-0930.html).

With an artificial leaf you then have oxygen and hydrogen production, which equals both energy and heat. Piped compressed air can run most or all household appliances with some conversion.

It's a radically different way to live, but the uniformity of the ocean mean that once you find a collection of technologies that function as a complete system, you can infinitely extend them (practically). The ocean is the ocean wherever you go (essentially).

Cities today run out of real-estate, prices kick up. That's not a factor in an ocean-based city. Similarly, if you take a job somewhere, you need not commute, you can just move your floating house closer to work. And if you hate a "neighborhood" you simply float to a new one. I doubt most people on land would sell their house if it were that easy to move it.

Of course there's the little practicalities like waste disposal, food, etc. The free market can take care of most of those simply enough. Sewage can be bought as fertilizer (human sewage is the best fertilizer in the world, once sterilized of course). Simple enough.

A libertarian society requires much less direct planning than any other centrally planned kind. The idea is to not be centrally planned, to let the market meet needs as they arise in the most efficient means possible and through a free market.

sai tyrus

12-15-2011, 05:02 AM

sai tyrus... the subject had been dropped, why bring it back up?

Fixed that. Thanks for the heads up.

BeardedSonOfNel

12-15-2011, 06:51 AM

I'm sure I'm not the first nor will I be the last, but about a year ago I had this idea. I want to buy a cargo ship, and turn it into a floating adult resort. It would have different levels for different paying classes. This ship wouldn't go anywhere, and the clients would have to fly, or be ferried out to it. My ship named Ditto-head would provide the forbidden fruit that my customers couldn't get legally in the states.

It would be a ship of liquor, drugs, and prostitution with great musical acts to boot. Now there would be restrictions. Guests would have to sign NDAs that would state they wouldn't tell people who they saw on the ship as business men, Hollywood stars, and the guy down your street would more than likely not want the public to know they were there. Cameras and cell phones would also be collected upon arrival too. Communications to the main land would be handled through the ship secure systems. This would be a place to get away from it all.

Guests would be allowed to bring their own party supplies, or could purchase them (at a fare price) on the ship. This could include toys, and liquor, and drugs. The only thing guests would not be allowed to bring is minors, as they would not be allowed on the ship. I see this ship as being Vegas, but with far fewer restrictions.

The working women, and men on the ship would be tested often for STDs, and every guest who wanted the services of those employees would have to provide a STD report from a verifiable source that is up to date.

I have a much more detailed plan for the ship, and what it would have to offer at different price levels, but I think you guys get the point. Just think of it as a ship filled with booze, hookers, drugs, games, movies, and music. A spot for fine dining, or if you like fast food. Locations for the refined and spots for the unwashed. The boat would have it all.

Unfortunately to run this thing I couldn't really take part in the drugs, and booze because I'd need a clean head to run the business, and I love my wife too much to get with the working girls, but man the cash would be worth it!

If I could build this I'd use part of the revenue to fund your island plan.

Dag-Sabot

12-15-2011, 07:13 AM

BeardedSonOfNel

12-15-2011, 07:39 AM

you've never seen a cargo ship have you? Better idea: buy an old motor yacht and bury it to the water line and voila: instant cottage. Get a bunch of them and you can rent them even more you have a marina rv park.

I'm not saying the cargo ship wouldn't need work, but in my research it would be more cost effective than trying to buy a cruise ship, and easier to modify for my needs. The ability to mod is a must!

Motor yachts are just too small for my needs, but thanks for sharing your thoughts. A large yacht might be nice for a test.

Anenome

12-15-2011, 11:32 AM

BeardedSonOfNel

12-15-2011, 11:51 AM

BSN: I'm not really interested in that sort of "pleasure cruise" personally, meaning that's not what motivates me in all this. They do have things like that tho. There's always been parties outside territorial waters, and abortion ships, etc...

I wasn't saying you had to be interested in it, nor that I wanted to bring this business to your island, but I'd be happy to help fund your island with profits made from my said business. Of course if you don't want my dirty whore drug money that's fine too :D

BeardedSonOfNel

12-15-2011, 11:57 AM

Anenome

12-15-2011, 01:23 PM

I wasn't saying you had to be interested in it, nor that I wanted to bring this business to your island, but I'd be happy to help fund your island with profits made from my said business. Of course if you don't want my dirty whore drug money that's fine too :D
Yeah, it's all good, I'll take your money :P Anything generated via voluntary transaction is moral in my book.

I was just thinking that these sorts of businesses are not what I'd want to start up the island as, since the goal is to attract permanent residents. I'd hope those sorts of things would arise on their own later on and segregate themselves, as you say.

Anenome

12-15-2011, 01:28 PM

I'd like to live on your island, and run other businesses there, and have the above side business a few hundred miles away. Cash and personal freedom motivate me, and while I think people should be able to run businesses like the one above, I'd still like to keep them away from populated areas.
Yes, yes. Well, you know, why not create Vegas on the sea? Lots of Californians would love to go to something like that rather than travel all the way to Vegas. It's too hot there :P Much better to have Vegas with an ocean view, dinner on the water! and snorkeling too ;)

It seems like for that happen though, I'd need to have matured the living system on the water before we could see big name investors dropping hundreds of millions on a floating casino.

I'm thinking of interlocking pylon groups that can be added in modular fashion and moored together for longer periods yet separated as needed. These would have flat tops equivalent to a foundation-ready soil upon which building could begin immediately.

The key is to create a pylon top that can potentially last 100+ years. For that, you need to build in brass, only brass is impervious to seawater corrosion. Or at least coat structural steel members in brass.

BeardedSonOfNel

12-15-2011, 02:03 PM

I see where you are going, but using existing tech on a cheap used Ship I could get my operation started for around 8-15 million. This includes gambling. A large cargo ship would allow me to create my own deck design without compromising the integrity of the ship, and is more cost effective that buying a used cruise ship. The thought process is; I start with this to bank the money I need to build the future platform structures you talk about. The success of the prototype would not only net me the cash I need to build bigger, but would attract more investors. I see having these on both the west, and east coasts. Starting on the west.

Anenome

12-15-2011, 02:23 PM

Certainly.

In fact, it occurs to me now that actually there's a market for the floating platforms alone.

What I really need to do is start a company to design, build, and sell floating platforms. The rest will take off from there.

Johan

12-15-2011, 02:44 PM

You know what, you deserve a temp-ban

Nobody gets a ban, least of all low-post-count morons who enter threads just to insult people.

Also, your idea is doomed to failure, because it requires peaceful agreement upon boundaries/limits, and where two or more people get together, you have disagreement.

Floating fail.

Anenome

12-15-2011, 03:55 PM

Also, your idea is doomed to failure, because it requires peaceful agreement upon boundaries/limits, and where two or more people get together, you have disagreement.

Such a closed-minded statement. Why not ask me how I intend to deal with that issue rather than declare it unsolvable, lol. I actually have a very good answer.

Also, your idea is doomed to failure, because it requires peaceful agreement upon boundaries/limits,
I have written about the political right of separation and the ability of people to freely move their home when their home is floating on an ocean. Because of this, the ability to change where you live is far easier on the water than on land, where if you want to move you exchange homes, not move homes (typically).

Now, in this city, a jurisdiction is formed by the contiguous boundaries of those who accept the jurisdiction, and they will group together to be contiguous, thus separating themselves physically and politically. Thus, if you disagree with the jurisdiction you're in and want to leave, you simply declare yourself separate and that jurisdiction no longer applies on your property. You can then move to a new jurisdiction or form your own.

Boundaries will be formed freely based on who accepts a given jurisdiction and how much property they have, that is a jurisdiction's boundaries are formed by the limits of all the property holders that subscribe to that jurisdiction, and no further. Jurisdictional boundaries then become apolitical, and are not a matter for agreement or disagreement. They become a derivative of property rights that only you can choose for yourself or not.

and where two or more people get together, you have disagreement.
That's the great thing about property--it is owned, and the owner of that property has final say on what happens to that property. Thus, if the owner decides he wants to change jurisdictions, no one else has any say over whether he does that or not.

So, problem solved. And you really should try to be a bit more open-minded.

Major Dan

12-15-2011, 04:11 PM

Boundaries will be formed freely based on who accepts a given jurisdiction and how much property they have, that is a jurisdiction's boundaries are formed by the limits of all the property holders that subscribe to that jurisdiction, and no further. Jurisdictional boundaries then become apolitical, and are not a matter for agreement or disagreement. They become a derivative of property rights that only you can choose for yourself or not.

Like I mentioned in the Bioshock thread, this is tribe mentality, or will breed tribe mentality, or think of it in the gang vernacular, my turf. Same idea, before you know they will want to break away from the central government all together. Especially as one gang sees more "affluencey" over another. Yes in your scenario they can just float on over to the other gang, but being gangs will the new gang accept a member of the former rival gang?

I see your logic, but people are deeply flawed, at least some of them, and well again I wish you luck.

Anenome

12-15-2011, 04:59 PM

Like I mentioned in the Bioshock thread, this is tribe mentality, or will breed tribe mentality, or think of it in the gang vernacular, my turf. Same idea, before you know they will want to break away from the central government all together. Especially as one gang sees more "affluencey" over another. Yes in your scenario they can just float on over to the other gang, but being gangs will the new gang accept a member of the former rival gang?

I see your logic, but people are deeply flawed, at least some of them, and well again I wish you luck.
But consider my Federal government, whose job it is to oversee the protection of right among and between the cities.

When we use the word 'gang' we imply illicit activity, preying-upon activity. How would one city prey upon another?

Let's say we had a city that grouped together and began pirating shipping. Nearby cities complain either to the Fed and fund a navy, or bring their own forces to bear with Fed support. The offending city has its federal charter revoked and warrants issued for offenders. Done deal.

I don't want to suggest that cities can just go rogue. They're operating under a framework of protection of basic rights operating at the federal level via a federal government whose only role is to protect rights. And should it need to invade and disband an offending city, it's capable of that.

So, let me look at it from another angle. Suppose that you had a city which refused to allow others to join its jurisdiction, thus maintaining your tribalism idea. Can it keep others away from its boundaries? no. It can keep them out of its owned property, but so can people on land.

Can it stop anyone from setting up a city on the edge of its borders, nope. Can it set itself up as the eminent authority in the region and leave the federal government's charter.

Here's where things get interesting.

Yes, it can leave the fed's charter and start a new one, but part of what makes this society disruptive is that people can sue for entry into an existing jurisdiction or apply for jurisdictional protection while within the confines of another jurisdiction. Beyond that, if they begin violating others' rights, anyone has the right to invade them and ethically prevent others' rights from being violated.

I think it's important that there be more than one fed. So I plan to start at least one for each ocean, in the long term. The Pacific ocean could probably support at least three such feds, each regionally located and independent of each other.

Rather than monolithic political organizations, my system encourages micro-societies, grouping together only for gross political support. In the ancient world, everything was city based, but the modern world forced cities to coalesce into nations or face ruin.

But in the society I envision, we return to a political order on the basis of the immediate city and create a political collective that's far weaker than the US's fed, put in place only for dispute resolution among the cities and national and regional protection via military.

So, I agree that this system would tend to splinter a society into many groups--that's exactly what I want. I want a single physical city to be composed of many jurisdictions so that people have a choice and jurisdictions can serve as political experiments to find the best way to live. I would consider it a minor failure if each city was only composed of a single jurisdiction.

I just disagree with your comparison of it to tribalism. Rather, it's as if all the republicans and democrats in a city moved to opposite ends of that city and decided to govern themselves only.

I think if such happened that the producers and property owners would probably go to the republican side and the poor and need would go to the dems. But the dems wouldn't have the producers to leach wealth from to buy votes from the poor and needy, so they'd be foiled.

Meanwhile, the productive repub side would start up charities and the like and the poor would end up there, and be far better served than ever they were under a bureaucracy.

And the libertarians would have their enclave, and the communists would have their drama-filled enclave :P and there's the goth part of town--that would be cool. Etc.

blackzc

12-15-2011, 05:17 PM

Imma say this right quick, fuck a bunch of atlantis. I need land to drive my car on, . You aint neva gon catch me livin on some big assed buoy.

Anenome

12-15-2011, 05:19 PM

Imma say this right quick, fuck a bunch of atlantis. I need land to drive my car on, . You aint neva gon catch me livin on some big assed buoy.
In theory, these buoy units would be stable and modular and connectable at the edge, creating large swaths of "land," eventually large enough to support territories on which you can indeed drive.

But you won't want to actually drive by then. You'll want to let an intelligent machine drive you w/e you want to go while you read, talk, game or w/e else you like :)

We already have self-driving cars now, just you kinda need all the cars to be self-driving to have a consistent and reliable system. Put even one human at the wheel and you don't have a predictable total system, even if you do have avoidance mechanics.

blackzc

12-15-2011, 05:29 PM

In theory, these buoy units would be stable and modular and connectable at the edge, creating large swaths of "land," eventually large enough to support territories on which you can indeed drive.

But you won't want to actually drive by then. You'll want to let an intelligent machine drive you w/e you want to go while you read, talk, game or w/e else you like :)

We already have self-driving cars now, just you kinda need all the cars to be self-driving to have a consistent and reliable system. Put even one human at the wheel and you don't have a predictable total system, even if you do have avoidance mechanics.

What is the point of having a machine do everything for you? Feed you? fuck you? Tuck you in at night? Do your work? Why dont we just kill ourselves now since life is just a expression in autonomy and doesn't matter....How fat and lazy do we want to be? I cant wait for virtual reality contact lenses so we can live our fake world no matter where we are.

Sorry but a car following a predetermined path via maps and gps data points isnt really impressing me much. Then again tech overall is kinda meh to me at this point. Its gone from cool to pathetic.

Anenome

12-15-2011, 05:38 PM

What is the point of having a machine do everything for you? Feed you? fuck you? Tuck you in at night? Do your work? Why dont we just kill ourselves now since life is just a expression in autonomy and doesn't matter....How fat and lazy do we want to be?
Ironic, since the same argument was made by horse-breeders when the car came out, and here you're using it in defense of the car :P

Suffice to say that every generation becomes comfortable with their lifestyle and every generation is replaced by a younger generation more comfortable by the new tech. Adapt, or become old, die, and let the young replace you.

There's still people who refuse to carry a cellphone :P Personally I prefer to adopt new tech.

I cant wait for virtual reality contact lenses so we can live our fake world no matter where we are.
The end-point of stasis is death. Life requires change. I don't blame you for wanting to maintain stasis, but there's no need to rant about we who embrace tech changes.

Sorry but a car following a predetermined path via maps and gps data points isnt really impressing me much. Then again tech overall is kinda meh to me at this point. Its gone from cool to pathetic.
It's not predetermined maps and gps data points. It's real-time machine vision and artificial intelligence, using a combination of video-camers and LADAR to determine road conditions, actively avoid obstacles, calculate routes, avoid accidents, etc. Machines will soon be better drivers than a human being and capable of more.

Johan

12-15-2011, 08:13 PM

Thus, if you disagree with the jurisdiction you're in and want to leave, you simply declare yourself separate and that jurisdiction no longer applies on your property. You can then move to a new jurisdiction or form your own.

So, everyone will be floating on their own raft.

You cannot possibly have a society of more than one person with perfect agreement upon the boundaries within which society constrains its members. You will either need force, to mandate the operation of society within the bounds of the majority, or you will have anarchy and conflict.

Or, you can all float on your own dinghies. Alone. In perfect social harmony.

Anenome

12-15-2011, 08:45 PM

So, everyone will be floating on their own raft.

You cannot possibly have a society of more than one person with perfect agreement upon the boundaries within which society constrains its members. You will either need force, to mandate the operation of society within the bounds of the majority, or you will have anarchy and conflict.

Or, you can all float on your own dinghies. Alone. In perfect social harmony.
The root concept of this governing system is that each person is their own society. Each man a nation unto himself. What more could be needed than individual subscriptions to a jurisdiction along property lines? Are you saying there would be property disputes that a court couldn't resolve? I'm a bit lost here.

Again, I never said this was an anarch society without the rule of law. There is law and there are courts and law enforcement. There's your force. So what exactly is the issue.

Neither do I say that there won't be political disagreement or discord, I say instead that this is the first society that gives you a way to avoid the frustration of that discord by deciding what laws you will live under rather than having them foisted on you. We know that discord is caused by frustration, and frustration caused by the overruling of one's own will. So, we have in this society a ruling system where no one can override your will. Which means it will be the least frustrating society ever created, and have the fewest political squabbles imagineable.

Wherefore then is your concern.

TDiddy

12-15-2011, 10:18 PM

The root concept of this governing system is that each person is their own society. Each man a nation unto himself. What more could be needed than individual subscriptions to a jurisdiction along property lines? Are you saying there would be property disputes that a court couldn't resolve? I'm a bit lost here.

Again, I never said this was an anarch society without the rule of law. There is law and there are courts and law enforcement. There's your force. So what exactly is the issue.

Neither do I say that there won't be political disagreement or discord, I say instead that this is the first society that gives you a way to avoid the frustration of that discord by deciding what laws you will live under rather than having them foisted on you. We know that discord is caused by frustration, and frustration caused by the overruling of one's own will. So, we have in this society a ruling system where no one can override your will. Which means it will be the least frustrating society ever created, and have the fewest political squabbles imagineable.

Wherefore then is your concern.

So there are going to be laws, but you don't have to listen to them? That sounds like a recipe for anarchy....

Anenome

12-15-2011, 10:51 PM

So there are going to be laws, but you don't have to listen to them? That sounds like a recipe for anarchy....
If you left a jurisdiction and refused to form a new one or join another, you'd be in a state on anarchy, sure.

However, given the fact that governments have arisen naturally all over the world since ancient times, it seems most people recognize the need for an impartial authority, especially for national defense.

I think such would be a quite temporary state. And in any case, any nearby authorities in a jurisdiction would have the power to enter places left in anarchy should there be accusations of rights being violated, just as anyone can ethically interfere in a robbery or a rape and use coercion to end aggression against an innocent.

For instance, as part of this scheme you have to imagine how children figure into this society. We shall look at children as self-owners not yet capable of making all their own decisions, and thus are in a legal state of being a ward to their parents. Much as an investor has a fiduciary responsibility over the cash they tend, so a parent has a responsibility to make choices in the best interest of their children and respect their rights as well.

A child therefore will be raised within the jurisdiction their parent raises them in, but what happens when they take responsibility for themselves and move out on their own.

Well, they have no contract with an existing jurisdiction, for they have not agreed to join one, having just become a fully responsible legal person, and must choose at that point--or form one of their own :P

Say one wanted to start an anarchist city. The truth is, they wouldn't be stopped under this societal system. They could create a charter with the federal rights-protecting order and setup a city with no governmental system at all, composed of the jurisdiction of those members who've signed on. It would then be a jurisdiction with no active enforcement mechanism and no law to speak of. I don't think it would work tho, it would devolve either into gangs, or more likely people would simply leave and join other jurisdictions.

They'd be perfectly free to try. That's the beauty of the system, that it's tolerant of a vast range of political systems

TDiddy

12-16-2011, 12:10 AM

They'd be perfectly free to try. That's the beauty of the system, that it's tolerant of a vast range of political systems

You're trying to cater to all sides at once and you are not making a stance on anything. It isn't a question of would your system work, but of how quickly it would fall apart.

blackzc

12-16-2011, 12:12 AM

Ironic, since the same argument was made by horse-breeders when the car came out, and here you're using it in defense of the car :P

Suffice to say that every generation becomes comfortable with their lifestyle and every generation is replaced by a younger generation more comfortable by the new tech. Adapt, or become old, die, and let the young replace you.

There's still people who refuse to carry a cellphone :P Personally I prefer to adopt new tech.

The end-point of stasis is death. Life requires change. I don't blame you for wanting to maintain stasis, but there's no need to rant about we who embrace tech changes.

It's not predetermined maps and gps data points. It's real-time machine vision and artificial intelligence, using a combination of video-camers and LADAR to determine road conditions, actively avoid obstacles, calculate routes, avoid accidents, etc. Machines will soon be better drivers than a human being and capable of more.

I knew the horse thing would be brought out and sure my car is totally dependent on an infrastructure, but im talking more about where do we draw the line. I dont care that a machine will be able to drive better than a man, they do most things more efficient than man already, its to be expected

In the past couple years ive just come to realize that imo all this tech is making us miserable. Constant media, constant surveillance, no one even thinks anymore. Year after year how do people get excited about a movie or video game thats been made 10 times before? SKYRIM!!Dumbfuck, its been done already and then before that. Its like how pathetic is your life. It feels like the twilight zone and freaks me out sometimes.

Its coming to an end i say. We are losing our spirituality and the dependance on technology is a big factor. And once we completely hand over our lives to our machines thats when we will get bit and wake up. Hell, if a huge solar flare hit us now and knocked out the electricity we would be screwed. Not me though, i welcome it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5z343ee50xc

blackzc

12-16-2011, 12:21 AM

You're trying to cater to all sides at once and you are not making a stance on anything. It isn't a question of would your system work, but of how quickly it would fall apart.

Any system would work if everyone were on board but unfortunately or not it only takes 3% of a population to change the entire path of a country. And people love drama. So of course it wont work. People wont be content to be their own society. Thats fake and everyone will know it. People think bigger than that and need power.

Anenome

12-16-2011, 12:33 AM

You're trying to cater to all sides at once and you are not making a stance on anything. It isn't a question of would your system work, but of how quickly it would fall apart.
The same could be said of those who sold you an erector set. What fun is it to build something yourself, they said. Kids want things already built. How wrong they were.

I want to do one thing, to reduce society to its absolute minimum necessary level and allow people to add on whatever bells and whistles they desire.

It's the difference between buying a Linux machine versus an Apple machine. Living in any modern country today is like using Windows or a Mac, varying degrees to control taken away from the end user.

But you move to this floating society and you've got a Linux machine, where I'm providing only the minimum core of what a society needs to continue.

You say it would fall apart, but why?

I say it has what a society needs to remain in place, which is at minimum the rule of law and courts for dispute and contract resolution. That's all you need for a society not to fall apart.

Anything on top of that is gravy. And if anyone wants to start a charter to add in that gravy, feel free, but you will only have the people you can agree to stay in there with you.

Government is just a group of people. There's nothing a governmental group can do that a private group can do. You want to setup welfare, set it up on a voluntary basis. You want medicare, set it up privately.

The separation of economy and state is key here, and likely the lesson that will be learned from the spending excesses of the world's countries during the 20th, once the world's currencies come crashing down. Which will leave Bitcoin in an excellent position.

Anenome

12-16-2011, 12:38 AM

Any system would work if everyone were on board but unfortunately or not it only takes 3% of a population to change the entire path of a country.
Under the existing system, not under my system. Have you read the whole thread?

In this society, if you find one of the 3%, you walk away from them and separate yourself politically, easily, done deal. Because no one is bound by the tyranny of the majority vote, the 3% you're referring to that in the US wields disproportionate power has virtually no power at all in the society I'm proposing.

And people love drama. So of course it wont work. People wont be content to be their own society. Thats fake and everyone will know it. People think bigger than that and need power.
If this were true the US wouldn't work either, being a system of limited power and checks and balances, where dictatorship is not possible. But hey, it won't work because "people need power."

Anenome

12-16-2011, 12:43 AM

You're trying to cater to all sides at once and you are not making a stance on anything.
As for this, I challenge that. I'm standing for the NAP, for strictly limited powers of government, for a separation of economy and state, for the right not be at the mercy of the vote of the masses (right of political separation). I'm standing up for a very specific philosophy, it's just a libertarian philosophy. And it creates a wide open society without a lot controls. Just how I want it.

Anenome

12-16-2011, 12:52 AM

I knew the horse thing would be brought out and sure my car is totally dependent on an infrastructure, but im talking more about where do we draw the line.
There is no line. There is only continual progress. There is no theoretical end-point of technology. There is likely an asymptotic future technological progress curve. Your distaste for tech has an analogous zeitgeist throughout society in general, but won't come to a head until the technological singularity.

I dont care that a machine will be able to drive better than a man, they do most things more efficient than man already, its to be expected
And? What's not to like. You have some macho connection between cars and driving, or some pleasure in the activity of driving that a younger generation will willingly trade for greater pleasures, like gaming while "driving," or reading.

In the past couple years ive just come to realize that imo all this tech is making us miserable.
Lol. If anything it's given people a lot more time to think and by that made them more miserable. But you can't deny that tech has made life better. You wanna return to the woods, no one's stopping you. When you're too busy to be miserable, spending every waking moment just trying to survive, maybe you'll think twice about the actual impact of tech on your life.

Tech doesn't make you miserable, or you wouldn't drive a car, much less use a computer to post on a website. You're just feeling your age, feeling alienated by tech as it progresses and passes you by. Get with the time old man :P

Constant media,
Not in my life. I don't watch anything. Why are you.

constant surveillance, no one even thinks anymore. Year after year how do people get excited about a movie or video game thats been made 10 times before? SKYRIM!!Dumbfuck, its been done already and then before that. Its like how pathetic is your life. It feels like the twilight zone and freaks me out sometimes.

Its coming to an end i say. We are losing our spirituality and the dependance on technology is a big factor. And once we completely hand over our lives to our machines thats when we will get bit and wake up. Hell, if a huge solar flare hit us now and knocked out the electricity we would be screwed. Not me though, i welcome it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5z343ee50xc
Haha, well you're a lost cause I guess :) I'll leave you to it.

inscribed

12-16-2011, 02:31 AM

Anenome

12-16-2011, 03:00 AM

So you said you an option would be to start off as a research institute, or a work center, or some sort. But your idea for this society is based around private property. How do you plan to transition from a private single-entity owned research center to a multitude of privately owned platforms? Do you plan to build additional "land" and sell it to potential citizens? Let potential citizens build their own platforms to connect to your research center? Costs involved here would obviously limit your initial citizens to only the very rich.
Mmm, not necessarily. The cost of entry is balanced against cost of living, which would clearly be substantially lower in this sort of libertarian tax-free society.

If you figure you're paying nearly 60% of your income when all taxes at all levels and all sales taxes are added in, fees, etc., then I will pay you an additional 60% of your income to come live here :P And it doesn't cost me a dime.

My goal is to hit a target where a middle class family could move here rather than buying a house in a coastal city, and boat in rather than commute, or telecommute. So, knowledge workers are a primary source of potential emigres.

I mentioned research and all sorts of other things, true, but probably all I'd need to do is start selling platforms that can withstand decades of use with structures on top and people walking around and it's done deal.

That's pretty expensive right now, but when you factor in things like 3D printing, it gets a bit more practical. What if you could 3D print an entire four-leg pylon for just the cost of materials essentially.

Plus, a pylon doesn't need to be as monolithic as an oil rigs, especially if they're chained together and by that self-supporting. Get one large enough to build an average single-family residence, maybe a quarter acre, built on a spherical design, or oblong. The more chained together horizontally from each other the more stable they are. That alone solves the major problem of the oil rigs, of stability in a storm. All you need then is my wave-redirecting walls to provide a breakwater in mid-ocean.

So, to answer your question, I think the most feasible thing would be to sell the pylons as artificial land either with or without existing homes on them. It could be chained together as land or made into a home.

inscribed

12-16-2011, 03:49 AM

I'd like to see this project of yours take off, but I think your overestimating the effect 3d printing will have on being able to bring down the costs of building your pylons. That's assuming that 3d printing technology will even develop far enough in our lifetime to be able to cheaply make the massive steel infrastructure you'd need. Right now its pretty much limited to relatively small plastics and soft metals, most of which are used for prototyping or casting.

blackzc

12-16-2011, 03:52 AM

There is no line. There is only continual progress. There is no theoretical end-point of technology. There is likely an asymptotic future technological progress curve. Your distaste for tech has an analogous zeitgeist throughout society in general, but won't come to a head until the technological singularity.

And? What's not to like. You have some macho connection between cars and driving, or some pleasure in the activity of driving that a younger generation will willingly trade for greater pleasures, like gaming while "driving," or reading.

Lol. If anything it's given people a lot more time to think and by that made them more miserable. But you can't deny that tech has made life better. You wanna return to the woods, no one's stopping you. When you're too busy to be miserable, spending every waking moment just trying to survive, maybe you'll think twice about the actual impact of tech on your life.

Tech doesn't make you miserable, or you wouldn't drive a car, much less use a computer to post on a website. You're just feeling your age, feeling alienated by tech as it progresses and passes you by. Get with the time old man :P

Not in my life. I don't watch anything. Why are you.

Haha, well you're a lost cause I guess :) I'll leave you to it.

Im not old, im not outdated, im not alienated i know how this stuff works more than most. And all it is, is consolidated tech we have had for 60 + years sped up. Ive been a tech nerd for 25 years and this stuff used to amaze me, i know how you feel. But your technological singularity talk is just fantasy. Humans will reject to much control via machines, we wont even get close before we tear society down and start over. And thats a good thing.

If everyone knew how a computer and the internet worked like they do a wagon or simple hand tools then i might be ok with it. But as it stands not even the best of the best know how the internet and computers work 100%, this mean there will be abuses, and people getting screwed over. We are all just along for the ride. So im not against progress except for when it takes away from out humanity, which i don't think many can argue is happening right now.

As for TV
I dont watch TV/movies but i live in a world that people do, so it effects me, therefore i bitch. And its effected me negatively as a kid and young adult when i did watch it

As for driving, im into auto racing so i consider it a sport and an art form. Why would i want a computer doing what i consider art and competition. And a younger generation has nothing to do with anything. Kids are racing as we speak. You cant apply your feelings to your generation. And yes driving is way better than gaming...oh god gaming is so fun..push win button! Reading i love.

So, ill leave you to your lost cause. May your tech progress far enough one day as to totally block out reality and replace it with a completely awesome phony one. :) until the lights go out.

inscribed

12-16-2011, 04:20 AM

I have no idea what you just said in that post, dude. :)

Anenome

12-16-2011, 04:34 AM

Im not old, im not outdated, im not alienated i know how this stuff works more than most. And all it is, is consolidated tech we have had for 60 + years sped up. Ive been a tech nerd for 25 years and this stuff used to amaze me, i know how you feel. But your technological singularity talk is just fantasy. Humans will reject to much control via machines, we wont even get close before we tear society down and start over. And thats a good thing.
A: It's not a good thing.
B: What will actually happen is people like you will get left behind by people like me.

If everyone knew how a computer and the internet worked like they do a wagon or simple hand tools then i might be ok with it. But as it stands not even the best of the best know how the internet and computers work 100%, this mean there will be abuses, and people getting screwed over. We are all just along for the ride. So im not against progress except for when it takes away from out humanity, which i don't think many can argue is happening right now.
Most people don't know how a microwave works. Does that dehumanize them somehow. I don't think so. What does it even mean for tech to dehumanize people--it's a vague phrase. Bureaucracies treat people like numbers, that's true dehumanization. Especially since the social revolution in tech, you could argue tech is a primary method of bringing humanity together. It was never a thing fated to dehumanize, we just hadn't figured out how to do it yet. The internet is the greatest social revolution the world has ever seen.

As for driving, im into auto racing so i consider it a sport and an art form.
Exactly. But that won't disappear, rather it becomes an enthusiast thing. You would have a car drive you on the way to the track where you'd drive for fun.

Why would i want a computer doing what i consider art and competition.
Because some 40k people die every year in car accidents and a computer controlled system would change that to about 4 per year.

And a younger generation has nothing to do with anything.
Course it does. Kids adapt to new tech faster than old people. That was my point. And old people reach a certain level of sophistication and they stop, generally. Old people don't text, don't tweet, barely email.

So, ill leave you to your lost cause. May your tech progress far enough one day as to totally block out reality and replace it with a completely awesome phony one. :) until the lights go out.
There's naught but pure pessimism in there. For me, life is full of optimistic signs and ways forward into a wondrous future, and they are all through increased tech and knowledge. I see the technological singularity as a good thing, a necessary human evolution, to merge with out machines. You'd be horrified by that.

Anenome

12-16-2011, 04:46 AM

I'd like to see this project of yours take off, but I think your overestimating the effect 3d printing will have on being able to bring down the costs of building your pylons.
Well, I know that we all tend to overestimate technological progress in the short term and underestimate it in the long-term. That's because humans are not innately familiar with logarithmic progression, which many tech trends display, such as the uptake of computers, cellphones, the cheapening of transistors ala Moore's law and how that impacts society increasingly over time, etc.

With 3D printing, you can have true geometric progression the minute someone invents a self-replicating 3D printer. At that point, printing a new 3D printer would be quite cheap, little more than the cost of base materials.

All future 3D printers then would be capable of producing still more 3D printers. The 3D printing revolution is something I think will happen and happen fairly soon. It does mean a radical cost reduction if it does take off.

What now costs a hundred plus dollars, say a table, can be 3D printed for perhaps a few dollars. And they're already working on prototypes that can print all the walls of a house on the large scale.

That's assuming that 3d printing technology will even develop far enough in our lifetime to be able to cheaply make the massive steel infrastructure you'd need. Right now its pretty much limited to relatively small plastics and soft metals, most of which are used for prototyping or casting.
Well, you think so, but things can take interesting turns. For instance, fiberglass. Do you really need steel? Maybe, maybe not. Let's say you do tho. A 3D printer could put down layers using CVD (chemical vapor deposition), such a process would produce perfect crystals of iron, rendering it equal to or far stronger than current alloys, and if it were pure iron it would also be rust proof. That's a method specifically suited to a 3D printer, it's just very slow, so you'd need multiple heads working at a time.

It's not insurmountable, but it also doesn't need to exist for this society to exist. It was basically a tossaway comment. You're right that we can't accurately predict a timetable for such things to go mainstream.

It's also quite likely tho that to do a single-family residence you wouldn't need a whole lot of steel. An oil rig is huge and weighs a lot, but the size of a SFR's lot to place a house isn't very much at all. We might be talking just a few thousand dollars worth of infrastructure.

It would feature a square plot, let's say, with a centered hanging weight of a few tons to keep it stable, and floating vertical pylons around the edges going straight down, maybe a few feet in diameter. Could create such a structure for less than $20k I'd say.

That's a fairly good idea, thanks for inspiring it ;) I'll look into it a bit. That's an innately stable design with the floats on the edge and a weighted center. It would be modular and lockable to other floating land as well, being square and whatnot.

It would require a harbor atmosphere and probably not be rated for open-water travel, but what you could do it hire a boat that could latch onto the front columns and provide support for long distance sea-travel. Otherwise, it's just there to float.

Probably would float just a few feet above the water. Yeah, I like it :)

Major Dan

12-16-2011, 06:23 AM

With 3D printing, you can have true geometric progression the minute someone invents a self-replicating 3D printer. At that point, printing a new 3D printer would be quite cheap, little more than the cost of base materials.

All future 3D printers then would be capable of producing still more 3D printers. The 3D printing revolution is something I think will happen and happen fairly soon. It does mean a radical cost reduction if it does take off.
Hell yes, then I go the other direction of you and make my space elevator to the MOON, yes the MOON. And then I can build my moon base. :)

BeardedSonOfNel

12-16-2011, 07:09 AM

http://oi56.tinypic.com/xcw4qs.jpg

TDiddy

12-16-2011, 11:03 AM

Yes, it can leave the fed's charter and start a new one, but part of what makes this society disruptive is that people can sue for entry into an existing jurisdiction or apply for jurisdictional protection while within the confines of another jurisdiction. Beyond that, if they begin violating others' rights, anyone has the right to invade them and ethically prevent others' rights from being violated.

So you are saying you would let somebody move onto your magic island nation, take a city-sized chunk of it and claim they are leaving your charter? You can't do that in the United States, and for good reason. On a fundemental level, that would be like an occupational invasion, and no government will willingly allow their land to be taken. And as far as the invasion mentality, who determines what is ethical? What if the branching off city was due to being of a differnt religion, but the people making the choice of invasion are of a different religion, believing the choice religion of branch city is unethical? This is one reason there are wars in the real world.

The same could be said of those who sold you an erector set. What fun is it to build something yourself, they said. Kids want things already built. How wrong they were.

Because what percentage of toys are designed to be built after purchase these days? That number keeps getting lower and lower. Hell, G.I. Joe vehicles I put together as a kid are being re-released now pre-built. And I recognize that LEGO is the key exception to this. But outside that, walk into a local toy store and see how much stuff actually needs built. Not much.

It's the difference between buying a Linux machine versus an Apple machine. Living in any modern country today is like using Windows or a Mac, varying degrees to control taken away from the end user.

And those are the most successful countries.

Anything on top of that is gravy. And if anyone wants to start a charter to add in that gravy, feel free, but you will only have the people you can agree to stay in there with you.

I don't think you understand how people's minds work. If people don't agree with the rules set upon them, they usually don't leave. They stay and sometimes fight the system, whether it is right or wrong. For example, look at all the people complaining about the U.S. government. Are they leaving? No, they stay and complain. The occupy protesters, with their garbled message they can't even comprehend? They don't leave, they fight (in their way) to make change.

Government is just a group of people. There's nothing a governmental group can do that a private group can do. You want to setup welfare, set it up on a voluntary basis. You want medicare, set it up privately.

I think you're completely underestimating the negative members of society. You mention voluntary welfare? You will have tons of people showing up just to get a piece of that. Even if the welfare is for people that are already there, most likely rich people. They will jump on the free welfare, too. Free money? Why not?

The separation of economy and state is key here, and likely the lesson that will be learned from the spending excesses of the world's countries during the 20th, once the world's currencies come crashing down.

And that separation is what kills checks and balances with welfare. If the state does not have any info on a persons economic income, how can they determine if they make too much to be on welfare?

The cost of entry is balanced against cost of living, which would clearly be substantially lower in this sort of libertarian tax-free society.

Without taxes, how would welfare and health care be paid for? And maintaining public infrastructure? And city workers, like police, fire fighters, courts, etc? Voluntary taxation has never worked, and never will, because the voluntary money would be spent on what the rich want it spent on, pissing of the those with less money, causing those people to no longer contribute, as their wants are not being addressed. And if you address them instead, the rich contributors will stop, as they will feel slighted at paying more just to have their money spent on others wishes.

Johan

12-16-2011, 11:46 AM

blackzc

12-16-2011, 12:41 PM

I have no idea what you just said in that post, dude. :)

Its cool i got ADD and was on 3hrs sleep sometimes im more coherent than others. I just throw it out there lol.

But thanks for deciphering my ramblings anemone, its a challenge at times im sure. You make good points and im not totally against everything your saying of course. But imo the pace of advancement is to fast for us to keep up and with. Kids can adjust better than adults just as we have adjusted to video games, VCR's and remote controls im still questioning our mental health with all these distractions even if the kids are more (used to it) just as i now question how bad MTV was for us in the 80s, the (old) folks were right i think.

Good conversations though, its made me look at a few things but its also reaffirmed my beliefs.

stalazon

12-16-2011, 12:53 PM

^^ All of your questions and points, plus more, are factors for why a floating libertarian dreamland will forever be a pipe dream. Wherever people are gathered, force or anarchy reign. You will have one, or the other.

Dude, haven't you said this like 5 times before? I think you've gotten your point across, even if it's having no impact..

DarkDaY

12-16-2011, 01:37 PM

Great Thread..for the most part.. First:

1. It is clear to me that Anenome is smarter than me.
2. Johan's at it again and this Morphius..whatever. but I have to agree with Johan on a couple things.
3. Amazing Ideas in here Anenmoe, very cool read, but if this thread is any indicator, its bound to fail;)
4. One word. Greed.
5. theres a Southpark about this in a way, the one with the wii and cartman in the future, humans will argue about anything. even the same thing.

6. Again, great read, if it was a book, id buy it and read it.
cheers

Anenome

12-16-2011, 04:35 PM

Hell yes, then I go the other direction of you and make my space elevator to the MOON, yes the MOON. And then I can build my moon base. :)
Yes! I would love that :D

I see living on the water as a necessary prelude to space exploration and colonization. You have a lot of the same challenges in water as in space, waste disposal, water, energy, and of course dealing with leaks :P And you can move around in three dimensions. After surface-water living takes off you can have underwater living. Satellites are useless against underwater bases...

Anenome

12-16-2011, 04:36 PM

http://oi56.tinypic.com/xcw4qs.jpg
Classic, love it :D

Anenome

12-16-2011, 05:20 PM

So you are saying you would let somebody move onto your magic island nation, take a city-sized chunk of it and claim they are leaving your charter? You can't do that in the United States, and for good reason. On a fundemental level, that would be like an occupational invasion, and no government will willingly allow their land to be taken.
That's a very good point and an interesting challenge to the concept. However, land in this context isn't an unmoveable thing. We're not talking about territorial water but floating pylons. So, if a land-based nation purchased territory on the water, they'd really be buying just a property. Hmm. I'm gonna have to think about this a bit, because you do raise an interesting edge case that could leave things open for abuse. Thanks ;)

It may come out that I would end up accepting non-contiguous national boundaries to exist, nations interwoven within nations, according to who owns what property. My wager is that people in other nations will sue for an Atlantean charter long before people of Atlantis would want to live in an oppressive landed regime. If that's true then there's no problem. But, I shall think about it.

And as far as the invasion mentality, who determines what is ethical?
It's not much different from how the police operate now. You use the principles of probable cause and appearance of aggression and investigation.

For instance, one of the things I find horrific in the world are sex slave operations in South East Asia. I want to build a society that offers freedom to captives. Let's say one of these slaves gets online and applies for Atlantean citizenship and asylum, saying she's a sex slave, etc. She's exercising her right of political separationfrom her current society and the analogous right of free association from her slavemaster, to get away from him. Then, organizations within Atlantis would investigate and have legal cover to go in and extricate her from that situation, as would anyone who found someone being held against their will. She then join an entry program into Atlantis being operated on a charitable basis designed to introduce refugees to living in an Atlantean city. Etc.

So, a similar thing is true of a city-state that's violating rights. For one thing, the Fed would maintain something like a CIA/FBI designed to make sure cities are upholding civil rights (what else does the Fed have to do, it cannot pass economic laws as it is barred from that, it can only enforce law). And if people within that society are complaining, an internal investigation at the federal level can be conducted and that city's charter revoked, thus dissolving the jurisdiction allowing a new one to form or the people inside to join others, potentially even barring the former heads of the city from running a new charter.

What if the branching off city was due to being of a differnt religion, but the people making the choice of invasion are of a different religion, believing the choice religion of branch city is unethical? This is one reason there are wars in the real world.
Ethics is an interesting topic, but Randian Objectivism maintains that there is such a thing as an objective ethic. And that ethic is contained within the non-aggression principle. It must be remembered that all political systems are ethical systems that have been codified into law, so this is a rather important point.

Rand maintains something like a property-based ethic, that all rights are property rights and derive from self-ownership. When you look at ethical questions from that perspective it melts away all challenges in the topic of ethics.

So, in to answer you directly, any invasions of cities by other cities would need to have the Fed involved, because it is the Fed's ultimate duty to ensure that cities are following their charter and upholding civil rights. They are the last guarantor of rights. Beyond that, they would be the ones engaged in investigations of what really went on in that city, they would bring the court case against the rulers of that city, etc.

So that would tend to temper mere religious differences, because you can't simply invade on whim, you must make reference to the agnostic ethical laws encoded within the constitution to prove another city is violating basic civil rights.

And what that ultimately comes down to is whether initiation of coercion is being used on people within the city. That's actually fairly easy to prove. We've wiped out victimless crimes, so you can't do anything on that basis.

Does that answer your challenge? I would allow different religious groups to start their own cities and rule them fairly as they like as long as they respect basic rights.

Because what percentage of toys are designed to be built after purchase these days? That number keeps getting lower and lower. Hell, G.I. Joe vehicles I put together as a kid are being re-released now pre-built. And I recognize that LEGO is the key exception to this. But outside that, walk into a local toy store and see how much stuff actually needs built. Not much.
Nah, even Lego today is about building a single preset plan rather than the random construction kit it used to be. My point was more about when the Erector set was first proposed back in, i believe, the 50's, and everyone said it would never sell, but instead it went gangbusters. I suppose Minecraft is the best contemporary example.

And those are the most successful countries.

Well, I'm glad it's not directly analogous then :P In practice, a free market left relatively alone has proved the most successful and prosperous countries of all time, as the US has already shown, even with its limited free market that was nonetheless among the freest in the world (especially circa 1800's).

I don't think you understand how people's minds work. If people don't agree with the rules set upon them, they usually don't leave. They stay and sometimes fight the system, whether it is right or wrong. For example, look at all the people complaining about the U.S. government. Are they leaving? No, they stay and complain. The occupy protesters, with their garbled message they can't even comprehend? They don't leave, they fight (in their way) to make change.
Most of the time that's because they don't really have an option. There's not really any place better than the US right now, all factors considered, why leave. But there is plenty of precedent for starting your own city within a nation. Years ago, homosexuals decided to focus on San Francisco, many of them moved there, became a political force. Worked out. Right now there's a movement among libertarians to move to New Hampshire and take over there politically, though it's not much happening.

Beyond that, the expansion of the United states from east coast to west was largely a product of young families unable to find any land and moving west. Go west young man. We find ourselves in a world with no frontier anymore. But I aim to create a new frontier, an ocean frontier. And after that the final frontier, space, which will be frontier land inexhaustible.

I think you're completely underestimating the negative members of society. You mention voluntary welfare? You will have tons of people showing up just to get a piece of that.
Maybe you don't understand what I meant by 'voluntary' then.

In Atlantis, I recognize that people will still want to do things like create social safety nets and the like, like welfare. However, the state itself is barred from giving out any social services. So these things will instead be created as organizations that individual citizens can subscribe to, meaning you cannot force anyone to give you money to give away to the poor and needy. It's a return to true private charity over leftist "forced charity". The welfare would be privately managed and distributed. And if it were exhausted, it's not a drain on that society at all as it was all money people volunteered to give away.

Private charities are better able to steer money to the truly needy, and if the people funding the charity think their money is being misappropriated, they can pull their donation and give it to another organization, creating automatic accountability.

Even if the welfare is for people that are already there, most likely rich people. They will jump on the free welfare, too. Free money? Why not?
'Cause they're the ones giving it away? What sense would it make to take money that came out of your own pocket. This kind of welfare would not be able to cause the state to go into debt, could not cause taxes to be raised, etc. It has an end point.

And that separation is what kills checks and balances with welfare. If the state does not have any info on a persons economic income, how can they determine if they make too much to be on welfare?
Again, you misunderstood my original comment on welfare. The state is not involved with giving away welfare.

Without taxes, how would welfare and health care be paid for?
Le sigh :P Welfare and healthcare are private products in this adult society, an adult society that doesn't coddle its citizens and hold their hand. There is no cradle to grave anything in this place.

And maintaining public infrastructure?
There is no public infrastructure. The state is prohibited from owning real estate. Everything is privately owned. Libertarian society, remember?

And city workers, like police, fire fighters, courts, etc?
Police and fire are private companies. Courts can be private companies (such as arbitration, etc) but there are also government courts which take fee for service. In other words, you pay the court for impartial adjudication. All government would be fee for service, that's what pay for it.

Voluntary taxation has never worked, and never will,

You raised that, not me.

because the voluntary money would be spent on what the rich want it spent on, pissing of the those with less money,
Separation of economy and state, remember? The government won't be buying things. It at most has to pay rent on a building and pay a few employees, maybe save up for elections.

You're describing a state where some people can vote largesse to themselves, and you can't apply that political calculation to this society which has a totally different equation.

Anenome

12-16-2011, 05:22 PM

^^ All of your questions and points, plus more, are factors for why a floating libertarian dreamland will forever be a pipe dream. Wherever people are gathered, force or anarchy reign. You will have one, or the other.
Hey, Negative Nelly, quit being such a pessimist.
http://i.imgur.com/ToKey.jpg

Either raise some substantive challenges of your own that can actually be discussed or STFU!

Anenome

12-16-2011, 05:29 PM

Its cool i got ADD and was on 3hrs sleep sometimes im more coherent than others. I just throw it out there lol.

But thanks for deciphering my ramblings anemone, its a challenge at times im sure. You make good points and im not totally against everything your saying of course. But imo the pace of advancement is to fast for us to keep up and with. Kids can adjust better than adults just as we have adjusted to video games, VCR's and remote controls im still questioning our mental health with all these distractions even if the kids are more (used to it) just as i now question how bad MTV was for us in the 80s, the (old) folks were right i think.

Good conversations though, its made me look at a few things but its also reaffirmed my beliefs.
Thanks ;) I think any one of us would have just as much a challenge trying to readjust to a hunter/gatherer lifestyle.

In one article I read, researchers realized that it so called primitive societies didn't really have less knowledge than it took a modern human to live in a modern society, it was just very different kinds of knowledge. They had encyclopedic knowledge about plants and animals, tracking, food and animal preparation, etc.

Man has a certain capacity, and there's never been a more rapid pace of change than in my grandfather's generation, whom went from riding horses in the back-country, no telephone or electricity, to model T's, to witnessing the birth of flight, then space travel to the moon, and began growing old as the computer revolution took off, and many similar old people will have owned a cellphone by the time they died--not to mention two world wars during all that time. And they turned out alright in the most tumultuous period in the history of mankind.

I think we'll be fine ;)

What defines our generation is not that the pace of change is accelerating, but that we are adapted to expect change. For thousands of year, mankind lived in technological stasis. But we know that things will get better as science roots out truths about the universe.

I think we're very close to a few energy revolutions; I've been reading some very exciting stuff. And we may soon find ourselves living in a period of energy abundance rather than the current energy scarcity. And if that happens, there's nothing to stop this Atlantis from taking off, because energy abundance would make it dramatically more feasible.

Anenome

12-16-2011, 05:33 PM

Great Thread..for the most part.. First:

1. It is clear to me that Anenome is smarter than me.
Nah, nah, I've just read different things and had different interests. Don't sell yourself short :)

2. Johan's at it again and this Morphius..whatever. but I have to agree with Johan on a couple things.
3. Amazing Ideas in here Anenmoe, very cool read, but if this thread is any indicator, its bound to fail;)
Haha, well the great thing about it is I don't need anyone's permission to start this thing up. This thread exists to both share a cool idea and to look for cogent challenges to the concept which will help me both think about it and mature the idea :)

4. One word. Greed.
I think with the separation of economy and state, that the system is insulated from greed entirely.

5. theres a Southpark about this in a way, the one with the wii and cartman in the future, humans will argue about anything. even the same thing.
One of my favorite episodes ;) But that was more ribbing atheists for acting like religious partisans in their own right, wasn't it?

6. Again, great read, if it was a book, id buy it and read it.
cheers
Aha! It is going to be a book ;) As you may know, I'm an aspiring novelist / writer, and began research on this topic in order to create a new setting for a future novel :) But in the process I began to realize it might be actually doable.

So, look for one of my upcoming novels in a few years where this location will be featured. Actually I've got a short-story based on this location in planning right now so I'll letcha guys know when that hits.

Johan

12-16-2011, 09:31 PM

raise some substantive challenges of your own that can actually be discussed!

I have, repeatedly.

No society can exist that contains more than one person without force or anarchy present. That is historical reality. No society has ever existed with more than one person present within the society without either force or anarchy.

So, when you can prove the success of something that has never been successful in the entire history of humanity, then I'll be inclined to listen to your supposed logic. Until you actually prove the workability of your pipe dream, however, perhaps you should be careful what you put in it when you smoke it.

<lovely picture>

Great television show. They don't make them like that any more; Hollywood has been far too busy for several decades now sexually abusing child actors rather than putting them in quality family programming.

Anenome

12-16-2011, 10:19 PM

I have, repeatedly.

No society can exist that contains more than one person without force or anarchy present. That is historical reality.
Why? What history? this is mere bold assertion without any supporting points or details. What is it that causes this? Beyond those very basic questions, you seem to have ignored my original answers to this question, which is that force is present in the form of law enforcement and that this is not an anarch society. Does that not answer your challenge. Will you even read this or are you going to repeat this ad nauseum and ignore my answer yet again?

No society has ever existed with more than one person present within the society without either force or anarchy.
I've said repeatedly that responsive coercion to enforce civil rights will exist in the form of law enforcement. At no point did I say there would be no force at all. So I don't even know why you said this in the first place.

So, when you can prove the success of something that has never been successful in the entire history of humanity,
Strawman, since you've characterized the society as coercionless, which it is not.

then I'll be inclined to listen to your supposed logic.
Methinks you're going to ignore my answer yet again. It's your pattern.

Until you actually prove the workability of your pipe dream, however, perhaps you should be careful what you put in it when you smoke it.
There have been many analogous and quite successful societies of this sort in the past--yet another point I've repeatedly raised, including early America itself which was a minimalist society without much government intervention at all. But, like my society, it had law enforcement.

The only real question about a society like this, NN, is whether it's feasible to live full time on the water in the way I propose.

TDiddy

12-16-2011, 11:52 PM

For instance, one of the things I find horrific in the world are sex slave operations in South East Asia. I want to build a society that offers freedom to captives. Let's say one of these slaves gets online and applies for Atlantean citizenship and asylum, saying she's a sex slave, etc. She's exercising her right of political separationfrom her current society and the analogous right of free association from her slavemaster, to get away from him. Then, organizations within Atlantis would investigate and have legal cover to go in and extricate her from that situation, as would anyone who found someone being held against their will. She then join an entry program into Atlantis being operated on a charitable basis designed to introduce refugees to living in an Atlantean city. Etc.

And what gives your society the right to enter another country and release this person from their plight, especially if it is allowed in that country?

Rand maintains something like a property-based ethic, that all rights are property rights and derive from self-ownership. When you look at ethical questions from that perspective it melts away all challenges in the topic of ethics.

So, in to answer you directly, any invasions of cities by other cities would need to have the Fed involved, because it is the Fed's ultimate duty to ensure that cities are following their charter and upholding civil rights. They are the last guarantor of rights. Beyond that, they would be the ones engaged in investigations of what really went on in that city, they would bring the court case against the rulers of that city, etc.

So that would tend to temper mere religious differences, because you can't simply invade on whim, you must make reference to the agnostic ethical laws encoded within the constitution to prove another city is violating basic civil rights.

And what that ultimately comes down to is whether initiation of coercion is being used on people within the city. That's actually fairly easy to prove. We've wiped out victimless crimes, so you can't do anything on that basis.

Does that answer your challenge? I would allow different religious groups to start their own cities and rule them fairly as they like as long as they respect basic rights.

With the average person, this makes sense. But some current countries have it so that religion is law. If you try to make an agnostic judgment, basically ignoring their religion, hostilities will only rise. There idea of basic rights are different from yours.

Nah, even Lego today is about building a single preset plan rather than the random construction kit it used to be. My point was more about when the Erector set was first proposed back in, i believe, the 50's, and everyone said it would never sell, but instead it went gangbusters. I suppose Minecraft is the best contemporary example.

So a very niche market now.

There is no public infrastructure. The state is prohibited from owning real estate. Everything is privately owned. Libertarian society, remember?

So no roads, walkways, or any common grounds? Is it just going to be buildings next to each other? So no zoning laws, as the state cannot get involved in the economy, somebody could open up a sex shop alcohol store next to a private school? Or a whore house? And what about health inspectors?

Police and fire are private companies. Courts can be private companies (such as arbitration, etc) but there are also government courts which take fee for service. In other words, you pay the court for impartial adjudication. All government would be fee for service, that's what pay for it.

So police and fire do their job then bill you, or how do they get paid? Do you call the police and they charge your credit card? If police are private companies, say goodbye to warnings for minor infractions. If health inspectors are fee for service, nobody will hire them. If it is mandatory, then you no longer have seperation of economy and state.

Separation of economy and state, remember? The government won't be buying things. It at most has to pay rent on a building and pay a few employees, maybe save up for elections.

And where will this rent money and pay for employees come from? Are people going to be given a bill when they take somebody to court? And when the heads of state need to meet with other heads of state, say in the situation of possible world war where nations can state their reasoning, where will the travel expenses come from?

Your plan is too full of holes that are easy to patch, but not to fix. It's easy to explain a more perfect society, but it's all the headaches that are already there that are crushing yours, and countless unknowns that will pop up.

Agnostic Pope

12-17-2011, 12:26 AM

BIOSHOCK
Seriously. It's not even funny.

Anenome

12-17-2011, 12:30 AM

And what gives your society the right to enter another country and release this person from their plight, especially if it is allowed in that country?
Intervention to prevent an ethical violation is always justified. It's the one commonly recognized exemption to private property and territorial monopoly. It's also the same basis upon which the US invaded Iraq, and it wasn't mere pretext.

Just as it's always ethical to responsibly invade a family where child-abuse is reasonably suspected.

Naturally there would have to be legal proceedings when such an action is being considered, at the federal level, or after the fact as in a standard investigation when such things happen in our own world currently.

With the average person, this makes sense. But some current countries have it so that religion is law. If you try to make an agnostic judgment, basically ignoring their religion, hostilities will only rise. There idea of basic rights are different from yours.
True, and I don't have any problem with conflict as long as that conflict is to secure another's freedom.

Ideally, let's say 30 years from now a watery society such as the one I propose has come into existence, and a citizen of another country applies for asylum, and furthermore is granted citizenship. And this citizen claims to be held against their will. If a sex slave, they can be interviewed in an undercover manner easily enough--there're organizations down there already doing this.

But those organizations are essentially hamstrung, because they're forced to work within the system, with the existing police, which are corrupt and get bought out. So there could end up being undercover operations. Which would be illegal within the confines of that country, but ultimately ethical given the situation. And if it's ethical, that's what gives you the right to do it.

Certainly things get very risky when you talk about invading countries to free people, but hey, that's what heroes are for.

So no roads, walkways, or any common grounds?
There's un-owned sea outside the city walls and in the breakwater inside them. Everything inside is owned. There aren't any roads unless you mean venice-style waterways, and these can actually be owned. If it's a road made out of floating land, it would have to be owned.

Is it just going to be buildings next to each other? So no zoning laws, as the state cannot get involved in the economy, somebody could open up a sex shop alcohol store next to a private school? Or a whore house? And what about health inspectors?
Well, it's an artificial harbor, so buildings can be as spread out or not as they like.

Correct, zoning laws will be illegal. Whore house, feel free, but I'm sure the neighbors will move away (luckily that's easy on the sea). Alcohol and private school, of course. There's not even a legal drinking age. This is adult society. Parents will decide for you when they want to let you drink, within reason of course. If there's a drunk 5-year old then clearly the parents are being irresponsible and intervention required.

So police and fire do their job then bill you, or how do they get paid?
Most likely you'd subscribe to a firefighter insurance service which would get you a greatly reduced (or even free) fee if you actually have a fire they have to put out (although this is the ocean, really easy to suck seawater and put out your own fire). Same with police.

But ultimately how you want to handle it can be determined by the jurisdiction you select. Say you want to join a jurisdiction that does things the way we do here, you could start a charter that says that everyone will pay property taxes determined by the city officials, etc. But it will be voluntary to join that charter and that city.

If police are private companies, say goodbye to warnings for minor infractions.
On the contrary. Say goodbye to bullshit tickets designed only to create revenue for the city. $250 to run a red light? In fact, no speeding laws whatsoever.

If health inspectors are fee for service, nobody will hire them. If it is mandatory, then you no longer have seperation of economy and state.
Independent ratings companies take the place of city health inspectors.

And where will this rent money and pay for employees come from?
From fees out of contract enforcement generated by the courts. It may also be that a jurisdiction could charge you a fee to support the few employees the jurisdiction maintains to keep a government going, also something like a subscription service because you can easily escape it.

Are people going to be given a bill when they take somebody to court?
You get a bill when you take someone to arbitration.

And when the heads of state need to meet with other heads of state, say in the situation of possible world war where nations can state their reasoning, where will the travel expenses come from?
Hmm, not sure. My first instinct would be to say a hard-coded tariff, but I support free trade... I'll have to think about that one. It's possible the fed could charge a nominal per-person fee yearly for each charter.

Your plan is too full of holes that are easy to patch, but not to fix. It's easy to explain a more perfect society, but it's all the headaches that are already there that are crushing yours, and countless unknowns that will pop up.
Such is progress. Keeps it interesting ;)

Johan

12-17-2011, 09:54 AM

Why? What history?

All of human history. For someone who claims to have biblical faith, you display an alarming ignorance of the human condition. Humanity inevitably descends into anarchy and violence absent entities within society endowed with the power of force. THAT is the human condition, it is displayed throughout ALL of human history, and you show yourself for a progressive hiding behind the false mantle of conservatism if you believe human society can be perfected and harmonized by humanity itself, absent force. The greatest proof of this is the culmination of humanity's progress over the previous millenia in the 20th century, the bloodiest century in human history. It's not getting 'better,' we're not progressing out of the human condition, and we'll never be able to build a society without force.

Your idea fails, because it is built upon an incorrect progressive supposition. This does, however, explain a helluva lot about you. You're a very confused person.

Dag-Sabot

12-17-2011, 10:23 AM

I say we encourage everyone; give a man enough rope and he'll hang himself.

Anenome

12-17-2011, 03:32 PM

All of human history. For someone who claims to have biblical faith, you display an alarming ignorance of the human condition. Humanity inevitably descends into anarchy and violence absent entities within society endowed with the power of force.
Did you even read my comment? Once again you're going to ignore that I have a police force and the rule of law. I totally called it. Conversation over if you can't even bother to read responses and address them cogently.

THAT is the human condition, it is displayed throughout ALL of human history, and you show yourself for a progressive hiding behind the false mantle of conservatism if you believe human society can be perfected and harmonized by humanity itself, absent force.
Lol, never said anything like that.

The greatest proof of this is the culmination of humanity's progress over the previous millenia in the 20th century, the bloodiest century in human history. It's not getting 'better,' we're not progressing out of the human condition, and we'll never be able to build a society without force.
Great. Go rant at someone who actually said you could build a society without the rule of law, because I never did.

Your idea fails, because it is built upon an incorrect progressive supposition. This does, however, explain a helluva lot about you. You're a very confused person.
You simply don't understand my idea. Drawing conclusions on a false premise is idiotic. But I didn't really expect much from you.

I'm done. This tool can't carry a conversation, he just keeps parroting the same line and won't even read my responses.

Johan

12-19-2011, 09:10 PM

You simply don't understand my idea.

You simply don't understand human nature, nor does your rhetoric match your ability to dream up idiotic and failed fantasies to mentally masturbate to.

Wherever you have people, even with laws in place, you have disagreements and violence, both against the law AND in enforcing it. Where you don't have law, you have violent anarchy. The only place on earth where your idea will work is in your own bathtub, with the door closed, alone. Break out your rubber ducky.

Floating fail.

Anenome

12-19-2011, 11:37 PM

You simply don't understand human nature, nor does your rhetoric match your ability to dream up idiotic and failed fantasies to mentally masturbate to.

Wherever you have people, even with laws in place, you have disagreements and violence, both against the law AND in enforcing it. Where you don't have law, you have violent anarchy. The only place on earth where your idea will work is in your own bathtub, with the door closed, alone. Break out your rubber ducky.

Floating fail.
Hey, Negative Nelly, you're crossing the line into vile and vicious.

Since your argument reduces to "civilization is not possible under any circumstances" and is refuted by the fact that we all live in workable societies, then I don't see much point in discussing the point further with you.

Agnostic Pope

12-19-2011, 11:52 PM

Huh, I was waiting on a rebuttal of some kind in which he can relate masturbation with coming of age or that joy you get when you submit to a regime. EVEN MORE PLEASURABLE UNDER STRESS AND DESPERATION ! His statement was a bit harsh though but I guess he REALLY takes politics to HEART.

failtroll:)

Anenome

12-20-2011, 03:08 AM

It begins:

http://i.imgur.com/7nD69.jpg

There's a huge draw for hi-tech jobs in silicon valley, yet the US (foolishly) turns away thousands of people we've educated in American universities in an attempt to be fair, people who want to stay, are productive and working.

So, to get around the restrictions, a company called Blueseed is planning offshore living dorms for $1200 - $3000 a month, less than what it would cost to rent an apartment in SanFran.

The H1-B Visa restrictions don't allow them to stay overnight in the US, but do allow them to work here. So, they'd ferry or fly by helicopter in each day and back, about 90 minutes by boat--12 miles off shore.

They plan to setup about 600 of these vessels mostly around SanFran.

http://singularityhub.com/2011/12/08/blueseed-project-to-overcome-immigration-bureaucracy-by-building-startup-incubator-in-the-ocean/

Bureaucracy? Ha. Work Visas? Ha. A seasteader craves not these things. The Blueseed Project (http://www.blueseed.co/) is one of the more exciting, and by some estimates outrageous, solutions to the bureaucratic hurdles that face many new startups in Silicon Valley. Securing work visas (http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/types/types_1262.html) for the thousands of foreign born engineers and innovators that the Valley desperately needs is hard and tedious work. Many fledgling companies simply can’t afford the effort. So what if all that red tape could be avoided? What if there was a startup incubator outside US jurisdiction…on the ocean?

Blueseed aims to develop an offshore site 12 miles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contiguous_zone#Contiguous_zone) from the coast of San Francisco where 1000 startup employees could live and work without having to immigrate to the United States.

The idea already has the approval and funding (http://www.blueseed.co/peter-thiel-to-lead-blueseed-financing-round.html) of PayPal founder Peter Thiel, and a seemingly endless supply of public interest. Much of it hyperbolic. Yet this $10 – 30 million project hoping to begin work in Q3 of 2013 isn’t going to be a “slave ship” or a “libertarian utopia”. It’s just another innovative business solution to an existing problem. One that could help maintain Silicon Valley’s global dominance in entrepreneurship, and maybe even set a new tone for how businesses deal with government regulations that hamper their growth...
Maybe I'll go work for this company ;)

inscribed

12-20-2011, 03:36 AM

Anenome, someone beat you to the punch. Visa-free work centers in international waters off the coast of California:

http://www.blueseed.co/

Page 2 dude...

Anenome

12-20-2011, 03:38 AM

Page 2 dude...
Yeah, I saw news of them again and thought I'd give a full writeup. I'm sure there're people new to the thread who didn't go back in and read that far since this topic became active again. Plus it's obliquely telling Johan to shut his fucking face :P

They plan to have the first platform operating in 2013.

Johan

12-20-2011, 06:11 AM

Since your argument reduces to "civilization is not possible under any circumstances"

No, my argument reduces to "Your idea for a libertarian paradise is refuted by all of human history, and is only workable in your bathtub, but keep mentally masturbating to it if it gets you off."

Anenome

12-20-2011, 10:54 AM

No, my argument reduces to "Your idea for a libertarian paradise is refuted by all of human history, and is only workable in your bathtub, but keep mentally masturbating to it if it gets you off."(Citation needed)
FTFY. Go troll somewhere else.

Com_Gaunt

12-20-2011, 11:23 AM

Anenome

12-20-2011, 12:05 PM

I think that Johan's comments are little defeatist, I understand that he is stating that some things cannot be done because throughout human history it was shown that human mess things up/are violent/do not improve.... That has never stopped great minds before though from trying things regardless of what history shown us, maybe using history as a guide to making the utopean society work this time around. I'd be the last person to call Anenome a "great mind" but stating an idea would fail just because "it never worked in the past" is what people have said to pioneers in every field throughout history and we would still be in caves if everyone listened to that sentiment. I hope that made sense.
Exactly. My idea is not one that relies on human beings somehow improving themselves or be angels to work. It accepts that there will be a need for law and law enforcement and dispute resolution.

He should direct his argument at the anarchists, because it's they whose ideas he's actually opposing.

And telling me it "can't be done" isn't going to convince me of anything. What's he saying can't be done, a new society based on legal principles known to work can't work? Self-refuting based on history. Or that a floating permanent structure can't work? Uh, oil platforms anyone? Refuted.

He's just pissing vinegar in yet another thread.

As for this being a utopian society--it's not. It was never intended to be. It's merely a society built on specific political ideals. Ideals that don't exist in any existing system/country because nearly all the modern societies we have today came into existence before these libertarian political ideals spread broadly enough to be influential. Many times in the past, people have lived in a de facto libertarian societies (which is how we know they work fine, unlike anarchism), again refuting Johan, but it didn't last because those people didn't have principle behind it for people to latch on and hold on to, to maintain that style of life. They lived that way almost accidentally, and lost it just as easily. The best example is the American colonies, with the King living so far away, the Americans essentially had no control exerted over them.

For them it really did become a way of life, and when the King bucked that culture, we fought back. We created the articles of confederation which would've kept that limited government system going indefinitely, but instead the Constitution was railroaded through years later.

Of course, now there's no land left to go try out a new idea, no place for Neo-pilgrims to go. And libertarians, with our commitment to the non-aggression principle (NAP), cannot and will not foment or carry out revolution the way communists do who believe in power over ethics (and they will murder for power).

So, the solution, a floating nation. It's very simple really. And from there, space itself.

inscribed

12-20-2011, 12:48 PM

Anenome

12-20-2011, 12:57 PM

Kowloon Walled City inhabitants lived peacefully for nearly a century without any government or law enforcement, up until the Chinese came in and demolished the place. The residents kept crime rate low, provided education for children, and created several thriving businesses and factories.
Venice survived for centuries in this manner, thrived and prospered. Historically the way we live now is much less usual. The ancient world was about one powerful city, not a country.

My challenge is to provide for national defense while restoring the historical focus on a city ruling itself rather than our current system of cities being ruled from the top down.

It's a redistribution of power back to how things have historically been, and indeed back to the individual themselves--in line with Libertarian thinking.

Rather than having one Venice, have a thousand Venices and let competition in the market and competition for citizens rule the roost. Such will create a government responsive to the citizens, because it removes the territorial monopoly that governments on land have.

If a government knew you could reject it and choose another government, there would be something like competition in government.

That's the overall theme: to provide competition for a thing that by nature has a territorial monopoly (namely government).

And we'll do this by allowing people to choose their jurisdiction in a free-form fashion, creating a scenario where jurisdictions can vanish if they don't please their members. Right now it's inconceivable to imagine even a city as failed as Detroit vanishing. The people have had to leave because the jurisdiction, though a complete failure, the jurisdiction is permanent.

I think a failing government should have that failure come down on its own head rather than the heads of those living in that system. People shouldn't be forced to leave, the bad government should leave.

It's a new way of looking at government. The actual system of government is the same as what we have now, cities with a ruling order, laws and law enforcement. What changes are a few key things that make all the difference. It's not really radical, compared to anarchism or communism. It is just our current system reduced to the minimum level to give maximum power to the citizens, to redistribute power to citizens.

Johan

12-20-2011, 01:38 PM

Anenome in his libertarian kingdom:

http://i.imgur.com/b2ihu.jpg

I'd be the last person to call Anenome a "great mind" but stating an idea would fail just because "it never worked in the past" is what people have said to pioneers in every field throughout history and we would still be in caves if everyone listened to that sentiment. I hope that made sense.

The point isn't that 'it's never been done before' dooms something to never being possible. That's ridiculous. The point is that anyone who claims to approach life from a biblical perspective (see Anenome's signature linking to a book) who views society, composed of people after all, as somehow perfectable or possible absent the presence of force and compulsion (i.e. a libertarian state), has a failed understanding of human nature, which has at its center, to varying degrees naturally, selfishness and violence. Such a person also has a failed view of biblical ethics and morality, because a truly libertarian society would allow unbiblical, immoral practices.

No truly libertarian society will ever be possible, because everyone's inclinations of what is permissible and what is not, of what infringes on the rights of others and what does not, varies. You either have anarchy, or the presence of force, to varying degrees, imposing boundaries upon the populace.

Human nature, encapsulated in a comic:

http://i.imgur.com/1UP9q.gif

Cygnus

12-20-2011, 02:17 PM

Heh..johan in another argument :)

BTW I think this is anenome's vision:

iwaEydIpS0E

lockwoodx

12-20-2011, 02:20 PM

http://tinypineapple.com/a/gallery/spongebobs-house.jpg

Atlantis early concept art

Com_Gaunt

12-20-2011, 02:20 PM

The point isn't that 'it's never been done before' dooms something to never being possible. That's ridiculous. The point is that anyone who claims to approach life from a biblical perspective (see Anenome's signature linking to a book) who views society, composed of people after all, as somehow perfectable or possible absent the presence of force and compulsion (i.e. a libertarian state), has a failed understanding of human nature, which has at its center, to varying degrees naturally, selfishness and violence. Such a person also has a failed view of biblical ethics and morality, because a truly libertarian society would allow unbiblical, immoral practices.

No truly libertarian society will ever be possible, because everyone's inclinations of what is permissible and what is not, of what infringes on the rights of others and what does not, varies. You either have anarchy, or the presence of force, to varying degrees, imposing boundaries upon the populace.

Not sure who is more arrogant, you or Anenome.
All listed above is your opinion and just because Anenomes plan does not fit your confined definitions of what things are supposed to be does not mean it's doomed to fail. Seriously, I am not a fan of Anenome and his blah blah blah but you are a self righteous git. Y'all deserve eachother, have fun.

Johan

12-20-2011, 02:28 PM

Not sure who is more arrogant

Hahahaha! Nothing like watching someone miss the point so badly they get offended. The truth isn't arrogance. However, you're free to ignore it. That doesn't make it less true, a point I'm sure you hold to in your deeply held beliefs, my hypocritical forum-fellow! The point isn't that YOU believe it, the point is that HE professes to believing biblical concepts, and the most fundamental of those is the intrinsic sinfulness of people, and that there is actually right and wrong in the universe, that there are actually boundaries around behavior delineating right from wrong.

True libertarianism ignores the fundamental nature of man. It also violates the precepts of biblical ethics, declaring each man/woman an ethicist on the order of God, unto themselves.

Feel free to disagree with the validity of biblical truths, ethics, or the like. However, for anyone with any whit of an understanding of it who also claims any kind of adherence to it, they would know right off that a libertarian island is fatally flawed and impossible.

So, have a great day. Ta ta!

Anenome

12-20-2011, 06:05 PM

The point is that anyone who claims to approach life from a biblical perspective (see Anenome's signature linking to a book) who views society, composed of people after all, as somehow perfectable
Justify the tail end of this. Where do I say that society or people are perfectable like that. I don't believe that and have never claimed in this thread it was a goal, aim, or end.

or possible absent the presence of force and compulsion (i.e. a libertarian state)
Here you show your hand. You're equating libertarian principles with anarchy, and that is not what libertarianism is. This proves you don't understand my idea, and probably also proves that you aren't even reading my responses to you, since I've countered it with plans for the rule of law several times now. A libertarian state is not absent coercion of any kind, at all, it simply restricts coercion to set categories, the minimum necessary to protect human rights and no more.

Such a person also has a failed view of biblical ethics and morality, because a truly libertarian society would allow unbiblical, immoral practices.
Yes, it would, but that is between them and God, and a pluralistic society must be open to all comers. Nothing in Christianity prohibits a secular state from being formed, and we've long since enjoyed the benefits of such, and that's not going to change. I can't believe that any modern christian is actually in favor of theocracy. Perhaps Bean was more correct than I thought. But that also brands you as a deep irrationalist.

No truly libertarian society will ever be possible,
False, several true ones have already existed, such as the several examples previously listed.

because everyone's inclinations of what is permissible and what is not, of what infringes on the rights of others and what does not, varies.
False. An objective ethics can be determined via treating all rights as property rights. All evil involves either direct or indirect coercion, which is why a commitment to the non-aggression principle is an ethical stance and the heart of libertarian ethics.

You either have anarchy, or the presence of force, to varying degrees, imposing boundaries upon the populace.

So when I say that I plan the rule of law and courts of law, that doesn't sound to you like the presence of force?

Johan

12-20-2011, 07:23 PM

I don't believe that and have never claimed in this thread it was a goal, aim, or end.

Good. So you admit your plan is a failure. That's a start.

A libertarian state is not absent coercion of any kind, at all, it simply restricts coercion to set categories, the minimum necessary to protect human rights and no more.

And those minimums are beyond agreement, unless you're in a bathtub, alone.

Yes, it would, but that is between them and God, and a pluralistic society must be open to all comers.

Your view of society is unbiblical, because there are boundaries that

Nothing in Christianity prohibits a secular state from being formed,

True enough.

and we've long since enjoyed the benefits of such,

True enough, but only based upon Judeo-Christian philosophical underpinnings.

and that's not going to change.

Blind optimism. America is already well on its way to collapse, with laws allowing the indefinite detention of citizens without judicial oversight and the like on the books. Different topic.

I can't believe that any modern christian is actually in favor of theocracy.

Theocracies have long since been left on the ash heap of history in Judeo-Christian societies, but they are alive and well in other religions, particularly Islam.

Perhaps Bean was more correct than I thought.

I'm sure he's been right once or twice somewhere here or there.

False, several true ones have already existed, such as the several examples previously listed.

Disagree.

False. An objective ethics can be determined via treating all rights as property rights

Bull. Tell that to NAMBLA. Libertarian ethics would allow those monsters their way.

All evil involves either direct or indirect coercion,

Not completely. Evil can be the absence of action as well, such as knowing someone is doing something unethical, immoral or evil and doing nothing because, after all, as a libertarian it's their right!

which is why a commitment to the non-aggression principle is an ethical stance and the heart of libertarian ethics.

Non-aggression is an stance for intellectuals and cowards. There is evil in the world. You can ignore it, or do something. That involves some kind of force as a backstop.

So when I say that I plan the rule of law and courts of law, that doesn't sound to you like the presence of force?

No, it doesn't. Also, didn't you say:

I'm done. This tool can't carry a conversation, he just keeps parroting the same line and won't even read my responses.

You just can't resist a quote war. :D

Anenome

12-20-2011, 07:34 PM

Bull. Tell that to NAMBLA. Libertarian ethics would allow those monsters their way.
Not true. Libertarians recognize both that children cannot consent and that parents can exercise control over their children legally until such time as the kids are providing for themselves. Once again you assume something to be true that isn't.

Not completely. Evil can be the absence of action as well, such as knowing someone is doing something unethical, immoral or evil and doing nothing because, after all, as a libertarian it's their right!
That's silly. If you wanted to prevent anyone from doing evil your only choice is to lock everyone up in chains from this day forth.

Give an example and I'll rip it to shreds.

Where someone's rights are being violated, knowing about it and not reporting it may make you accessory to it. Where rights aren't being violated, there's no crime. There may be, in your eyes immorality, but it's not crime, it is victimless. Governments should only concern themselves with victim-crimes. And that always means aggression is involved.

Non-aggression is an stance for intellectuals and cowards. There is evil in the world. You can ignore it, or do something. That involves some kind of force as a backstop.
Lmao--why don't you go read the wiki on the NAP rather than saying dumbshit ignorant things like this :P The NAP does not prohibit the use of force to stop aggression but rather recognizes that force to stop aggression is the only way to counter aggression. That's why we make a distinction between the initiation of coercion (ie: aggression) and responsive coercion used to stop aggression. The former is always unethical and the latter is always ethical.

You're thinking of pacifism, which I'll agree is a stupid philosophy. But the NAP is -NOT- pacifism.

No, it doesn't.
Define what you meant by force then.

Johan

12-21-2011, 02:48 PM

That's silly.

The whole idea of a libertarian utopian island is silly, and deserves no further discussion until you can actually prove it is feasible by accomplishing it; not you personally, of course, but someone must create a free-floating, autonomous libertarian state.

Don't place it anywhere piracy is rampant. Like...much of the world. :D

Anenome

12-21-2011, 09:02 PM

Basically you're saying you have no argument at all, no rational reasons, you just don't think it can be done :P

That's fine, I can live with your 'it-can't-be-done'-ism. You can join a long list of history's fools who said things couldn't be done and were laughed at for their skepticism when said thing was accomplished. Airplanes couldn't be done, flying to the moon couldn't be done, moving faster than the speed of sound couldn't be done, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

Johan

12-21-2011, 09:18 PM

I've already said what I need to say. A libertarian floating paradise will never happen. Where two or more people gather together, there are disagreements and, eventually, violence, which requires the imposition of a base set of values that nobody within the society agress with completely, and many within the society actually circumvent through illegal behavior, requiring further force.

Floating fail and analogy fail on your part. This is not a technical exercise. You ignore the inevitable root cause of your failure: human nature. Make it work (you can't). Until then, it's a failure, as the idea has been for as long as humanity has existed.

Anenome

12-21-2011, 10:01 PM

I've already said what I need to say. A libertarian floating paradise will never happen. Where two or more people gather together, there are disagreements and, eventually, violence, which requires the imposition of a base set of values that nobody within the society agress with completely, and many within the society actually circumvent through illegal behavior, requiring further force.
How's that any different from our own society? Do you really assume a libertarian society is valueless? Again, your ignorance is just massive here.

You ignore the inevitable root cause of your failure: human nature. Make it work (you can't). Until then, it's a failure, as the idea has been for as long as humanity has existed.
Really? Democracy can't work? Law and order can't work? That's news to every working society currently. Again you're assuming how this society would work before asking me how it actually would.

Johan

12-21-2011, 10:05 PM

Do you really assume a libertarian society is valueless?

Nope. A truly libertarian society isn't possible because everyone, even libertarians, have limits and values, and ultimately even they would be willing to impose them upon others. Human nature.

Really? Democracy can't work? Law and order can't work?

Sure they can, but not in a truly libertarian context. If you define libertarian as "everything that you [Anenome] agree with" then naturally you're going to think it will succeed.

The solution to this isn't verbal masturbation and philosophical meanderings, it's accomplishing it. The onus is upon you. Prove it can work!

It can't.

Anenome

12-21-2011, 10:29 PM

Nope. A truly libertarian society isn't possible because everyone, even libertarians, have limits and values, and ultimately even they would be willing to impose them upon others. Human nature.
Sure, and in this case the values being "imposed", via the prospective constitution, are libertarian values, values which include the separation of economy and state, etc. Values like political, economic, and religious freedom.

However, 'imposed' is too strong, since this is a voluntary society which no one need come to should they disagree with the political ideals involved.

Sure they can, but not in a truly libertarian context. If you define libertarian as "everything that you [Anenome] agree with" then naturally you're going to think it will succeed.

Still, you've given zero rationale for why something won't work. Your point of "do it or it won't work" is taken, but it's not an argument.

inscribed

12-21-2011, 11:03 PM

You have to realize you won't accomplish anything by arguing with Johan. :)

Dag-Sabot

12-23-2011, 01:22 AM

Oh man a floating librarian society would rock.

Anenome

12-23-2011, 01:56 AM

Lol, now Johan is tagging me with the douche tag. What a hypocrite. Here's me anyway, proof I've been attacking no one in this thread via tags. What a passive-aggressive little brat tho.
http://i.imgur.com/YKkEv.png

Johan

12-23-2011, 03:09 PM

Lol, now Johan is tagging me with the douche tag. What a hypocrite.

Who is doing what now? Aren't you a free speech libertarian? Seems you are being a douche about someone else calling you a douche. :D

Anenome

12-23-2011, 04:01 PM

Ridiculous :P Anyway.

Oh man a floating librarian society would rock.
Was that on purpose? :P

Anenome

12-24-2011, 02:46 AM

Free fresh water, on the sea:

Here's how you produce virtually free fresh water floating on a salten sea: water condensation out of the air.

Anyone who lives near the sea knows how lovely the moist air can be. The ocean is always giving off large amounts of water vapor, in fact such is what is responsible for literally all the clouds, snow, and rainfall we experience.

Anyone who's drank a cold glass of beer or coke is familiar with the principle of condensation, by which water accumulates out of air on a cold surface. I remember a kid who used to think water could leak right through the glass somehow. He didn't know about condensation.

So here's how it works. You take my floating air-pressure buoy concept. It generates decent amounts of intermittent air pressure. That's all you need. You pump the warm surface air down into copper tubes well below the surface of the water where it's much, much cooler. In fact, there's a thermocline right at about 30 feet in most places, where if you get below that it's literally like dipping into ice water. I recall shivering uncontrollably in a wetsuit at that depth, during my final scuba certification dive.

In practice you probably wouldn't need to go down that far. In the article I'm about to show you, they claim they need only a 5 degree difference in temperature to produce condensation (I assume that's Celsius however).

As the air cools on its path down the copper tubes surrounded by the cold sea, fresh water condenses out of the air and begins dripping downward into a catch. The now dry air is expelled on the other side, leaving a reservoir of clean water behind.

That water is in principle as clean as rainwater, but in practice would still need some filtering. Might be possible to put UV lights into the tank to clean it as it lay, then simply filter through chlorine and some activated charcoal and you're ready to go.

Here's how this idea is being done already, but on land (http://www.gizmag.com/airdrop-wins-james-dyson-award/20471/):

http://i.imgur.com/KWBgK.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/Pv3oT.jpg

The Airdrop irrigation concept is a low-tech design that uses the simple process of condensation to harvest water from the air. Utilizing a turbine intake system, air is channeled underground through a network of piping that quickly cools the air to soil temperature. This process creates an environment of 100-percent humidity, from which water is then harvested. The collected water is stored in an underground tank, ready to be pumped out via sub-surface drip irrigation hosing.

My adaptation is better than this land version, because the thermal conductivity of water is much higher than dirt, and because my buoy is entirely power-self-sufficient, since waves don't quit moving at night, and can also harvest wind energy all the same. It can also produce air pressure along-side clean water.

In principle, anyone with access to the ocean should be able to produce fresh water via this method. Heck, you could hook a pump up to a hand crank or a motor if you really needed a lot of water right away. At the very least, it can be used to water crops indefinitely, without further treatment.

Any floating society will need water independence, and this is a possible method to achieve that. The only other viable method is multi-stage osmosis, which is perfectly viable but much more high tech. This idea, in principle, can be scaled up virtually indefinitely, to serve the demands of a city. You just need larger volumes of air and many more coils of copper, and colder temperatures of seawater, meaning you'd have to reach down below that thermocline to hit the 40ish degree water.

More likely, water will become something which each family can produce for itself. One of these units, as you can see, is fairly small and compact and composed of a mere tens of dollars of materials, a tank, a hose, and some copper tubing. That's basically. You could easily produce a lot of water and store it in a cistern on your floating property.

Anenome

12-24-2011, 03:00 AM

After clean water, the final thing a floating society needs in order to be considered independent from the main-land is fuel independence. Well, luckily there's something called algae-based biodiesel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel#Algal_biodiesel).

http://i.imgur.com/Ry4N1.jpg

The only problem with biodiesel, from a landlubber's point of view :P is that you need lots of sunlight, some raw sewage, and a lot of water for it to work. Land is expensive, water too.

But on the ocean, hey, we've got that on the cheap :P

The tech for it has reached a point to where there's several pilot plants in operation right now. In fact, it's near price parity with gasoline at ~$4 a gallon.

Which means that gasoline/diesel will likely never go over $4 a gallon, because we can just produce it sustainably from now on, and in a carbon neutral fashion!

All those worries about $25/gallon gasoline--mere economic-monsters of the imagination.

From 1978 to 1996, the U.S. NREL experimented with using algae as a biodiesel source in the "Aquatic Species Program".[74] A self-published article by Michael Briggs, at the UNH Biodiesel Group, offers estimates for the realistic replacement of all vehicular fuel with biodiesel by utilizing algae that have a natural oil content greater than 50%, which Briggs suggests can be grown on algae ponds at wastewater treatment plants.[61] This oil-rich algae can then be extracted from the system and processed into biodiesel, with the dried remainder further reprocessed to create ethanol.

The production of algae to harvest oil for biodiesel has not yet been undertaken on a commercial scale, but feasibility studies have been conducted to arrive at the above yield estimate. In addition to its projected high yield, algaculture — unlike crop-based biofuels — does not entail a decrease in food production, since it requires neither farmland nor fresh water. Many companies are pursuing algae bio-reactors for various purposes, including scaling up biodiesel production to commercial levels.

This is an algae-bioreactor:

http://i.imgur.com/Lh4Ln.jpg

It takes sunlight and carbon dioxide, and produces trillions of living, floating algae. They've even begun bioengineering certain strains of algae to overproduce oils inside them, in order to increase the yield of each crop. These algae are then killed to release the oils inside them, then purified into pure oil, leaving the chaff to be burned into feeder carbon for the next batch (or turned into ethanol), and lastly the oil is shipped as pure biodiesel.

The ocean is the world's largest algae bioreactor. Algae is the bottom of the food chain. It's what plankton and krill live on, and the giant plumes of fish we find throughout the world exist because they feed on the plankton, and so forth unto even the sharks and whales.

With fresh water independence and fuel independence, you can create a long-term floating structure that's economically viable. That's all there is to it.

Anenome

12-24-2011, 09:07 PM

...
http://i.imgur.com/ZC46g.jpg

Agnostic Pope

12-27-2011, 12:06 AM

Fucking Republicans and Democrats up in this bitch! :P

BeardedSonOfNel

12-28-2011, 12:25 PM

Going Stag

The best thing about being a libertarian is that you can do it all by yourself.

Liberals need someone else to pay for all the things they promise to other people. And naturally, they need those other-people to be dependent on the government, which is just more other-people who spend most of the someone-else’s money on themselves and then let what’s left trickle down to the first group of other-people that they made dependent on them in the first place. Follow?

Conservatives come in lots of flavors, but nearly all of them need a crowd of some sort. The NeoCons need people to invade. The TheoCons need slackers and degenerates to convince the nation that they could make government be our moral compass. The FauxCons need a whole bunch of regular conservatives to dupe – preferably good-hearted folk long on principle and short on memory. All of them will need lots and lots of cops, judges, and prison guards to throw everybody in jail if they ever get their way; making the objectionable criminal is labor intensive.

Tim Nerenz, Ph.D. (http://www.timnerenz.com/2011/12/going-stag.html)

Anenome

12-28-2011, 07:25 PM

That was a great read, BSON, thanks :)

lockwoodx

12-28-2011, 08:41 PM

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQWybEeMPYRKts2hwnWmlU_XXRxaEBw-Qo50BQ1-TBNquMbCC_mBrRjqY4E

I'm a Khanservative myself. Brain eating antlions so everyone does what I say!!!

Anenome

01-14-2012, 04:30 PM

I watched this today, damn, awesome:

AKWZBqSMU8U

I hadn't considered a hexagonal modular floating platform, but it makes good sense. Although I wouldn't create ones as large as the ones depicted here.

A lot of the show was about creating these as a "New New Orleans" concept, dealing with hurricanes and the like :P No hurricanes off the California coast luckily.

Another fascinating part was that the Dutch have progressed considerably in the floating-city concept. They've begun constructing house boats designed for permanent living in floating wards, but unlike current houseboats. These have a deep hull design making them far more stable.

On-water living is becoming a mainstream option in the Netherlands, as its actually cheaper than living on land and they fear that global warming will overcome their dikes and make current living style impossible eventually.

There's a 300 unit floating neighborhood being planned there.

Agnostic Pope

01-16-2012, 12:34 PM

...The ocean would wipe any city that was made in the middle of the ocean though. Because the ocean is basically telling us fuck you.

Anenome

01-16-2012, 04:48 PM

...The ocean would wipe any city that was made in the middle of the ocean though. Because the ocean is basically telling us fuck you.
Exactly. That's why you build it in flexible interconnecting tiles of hexagons. Each is self-floating, self-supporting, and capable of being moved.

This is exactly why I've long felt that such a floating city requires a new political structure, because for the first time in history you can have a city where land-relationships are not fixed but entirely floating. Meaning, if you don't like your neighbor, you can just up and leave, literally.

To address your idea directly, if you have a city of interconnecting but flexible tiles, it will move with the waves rather than be destroyed by them.

The next question becomes what size tile is ideal, or might there be multiple sizes.

I'm thinking of starting with a tile that would contain a single-family-dwelling. The size should be forward looking because later tiles are likely to be multiples of that original tile size in order to accomodate larger commercial and factory buildings and the like (7 smaller hexagons joined together can approximate a single larger sized hexagon, with some spaces left over that can be filled elsewise).

The edge of the hexagon will contain floats that project straight down into the water and can be added or subtracted depending on how much weight you're putting on this "sealand". Larger buildings need more floatation and also more weight to balance them. The center bottom of the hexagon has a weight structure designed to bring the center of gravity well below the water line so that it is inherently stable.

This design fixes what makes an oil rig so uncomfortable, because the oil rigs use a central float and a central weight, which makes the structure particularly susceptible to tipping and rocking motions.

By contrast, with the floating hexagon 'sealand', because the floats are placed at the skirt edge of the structure tipping and rocking motions are automatically counterbalance by floats on the other side. And you're always going to have at least six floats, one on each tip of the hex shape.

The floats themselves are nothing more than steel cylinders projecting downward into the water. While six is a minimum, how deep they go is optional, and there's the ability to add many more floats if need be, for heavier or more stable structures. These would be bolted to the frame on the underside of the hexagon, which would be steel I-beams coated in fiberglass for weatherproofing (that's what I'm thinking rn anyway).

Anenome

01-16-2012, 04:56 PM

What would you think of this idea:

I'm thinking that, in a sense, it's unfair to sell land to someone and let them own it free and clear for forever. For one thing, the government that sold or gave the land didn't really own it, and there comes a point where all the land is owned and everyone else is SOL.

So what if rather than pay property tax, you paid an average usage tax. That's to say that we start with the idea that every owns the land, almost a communistic idea, but treat what we do with that concept in an entirely different way. The idea would be that everyone's entitled to a certain amount of space and if you use more than that amount, then you pay everyone else for the excess you're using. And if you're using less than average, then you get paid by everyone else for using less land.

The gov then could be financed by taking a percentage of this usage tax.

What I want to avoid is people paying for some stretch of ocean once and then owning it for a hundred years, even if they do nothing with it. Yet avoiding taxation at the same time.

There's all sorts of problems with this idea so far, just wanna see if you can find any I haven't thought of already. I'm not even saying this is necessarily viable but I'm looking at new concepts.

BeardedSonOfNel

01-18-2012, 11:11 AM

Anenome

01-18-2012, 12:28 PM

No, I don't like this. You've just gotten rid of private property, and created an entitlement program. Why would you want to keep someone from owning something for a hundred years? You could still have a usage tax/fee, and allow ownership.
It would still be private property as you have total control over it. One of the problems is how do you reclaim property that's going unused or unclaimed. In our society now that's done via non-payment of property taxes. However I don't want to tax things at all. I suppose a better solution to that is simply to keep track of who owns what and resell off ownerless land without a claimed title.

I also specifically want to avoid any kind of entitlement, such as what this would create. I saw already that creating a transfer like this would actually cause people to become insular and try to keep out newcomers, as it would dilute their property payments :\ Not a good dynamic at all. Ideally you want incentives that beg for people to come and join the society.

You seem to want to keep government out of peoples' way, but then allow the government to own the land.
Nah, I specifically don't want government to own any land. But there remains the problem of how to apportion property/land up front for people moving into the society. Let's say twenty people want the same stretch of territory for (underwater) mining, how do you determine who gets it.

Normally you'd say, you just auction it off. And perhaps that will be the answer. My problem with that is that it assumes the government owns the land up front.

So you could say, why not allow people to homestead the land, okay, but again what if someone claims the entire south pacific ocean, how do you deal with that?

The way the US gov dealt with it was to simply give away tracts of a reasonable size to whoever agreed to move there and live there for a couple years. But back then that meant you had to become a productive farmer or rancher. That would mean different things entirely today.

I guess the problem is this, you want to allow people to make a claim large enough to do what they plan. Like if someone plans an open water fishery, with netted aquaculture pens, they're going to need a lot of water. So let's say we grant them a thousand acres of water down to a 100 foot depth. Then the fishery goes bankrupt within two years. Or suppose they never invest a dime into the fishery and keep the land purely on the promise of a fishery.

Probably the answer is to use contracts. But damn, that still involves the government acting as the grantor of land, and I don't like that. It needs to be a market process, uninfluencible. Maybe we should just grant people land automatically as they enter the society, and randomly, and allow chance to determine what they get, they can then buy or sell their land as desired, and if someone wants a huge tract of land they'll have to purchase it from the various people who own the desired tract. That seems to me would be a lot better than allowing a bureaucrat to secretly make deals behind everyone's back because they have control of the process.

Plus, that would be pretty cool to be able to just sign up for Atlantean citizenship online and instantly be granted a random plot of land. Course that opens us up for identity abuse and multiple accounts :P Problem problems.

Probably have to tie your citizenship to your DNA to get a singular identity.

I'll always give you props for thinking outside the box, but not allowing true ownership of land strikes at the heart of personal freedom and liberty.
I agree. It seems I may have to drastically alter or abandon this concept. I'm not willing to abandon principle for something like this when it leads to black allies with ugly and untenable corollaries, only trying to develop new concepts, and you mirror my concerns with it.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Agnostic Pope

01-18-2012, 12:30 PM

...What are you gonna do about Tsunamis?

Anenome

01-18-2012, 12:40 PM

I've begun construction of a model hexagon platform.

It has six floats descending vertically into the water, at each point of the hexagon. Each float displaces a liter of water.

The hexagon will be a waterproofed (oil painted) section of plywood cut to a regular shape via geometric calculations--it will be a perfect hexagon, six inches on a side with a width of about 14.5 inches.

The weight will be mounted at the center of the hexagon, descending some two feet into the water. I'm thinking about a 2.5 lb weight would do the trick. I've got an aluminum tube to mount it on. The weight is an iron disc with a hole in the center, a standard barbel weight.

The floats will provide about 13 lbs of buoyancy. I expect the model to weigh about six lbs, meaning the structure built on top (the house) can equal the weight of the floating foundation. Bottom-loading the weight of a rigid structure puts the center of gravity well below the water-line, even if you were to build (to scale) a three story house.

Once I get the thing built I'll take some picts and then we'll wade out into the ocean and see how it deals with turf and turbulent waves :) Vids to follow. Probably put a brick on top and see how it deals with weight.

As stable as I expect this platform to be, it should be orders of magnitude more stable when tied together with similar models, joined at the seams.

Anenome

01-18-2012, 12:47 PM

...What are you gonna do about Tsunamis?
I'll begin constructing a model of my wave-breaker once I have three of the hexagon models so I can tie them together and look at their characteristics and wave handling as a group, just as if they were part of an actual floating city.

The wave-breaker, which I've described here before, looks like several rows of square pillars jutting out of the water. I know it's counterintuitive, but it was discovered recently that a structure like this acts as a wave lens, capable of redirecting the energy or a wave around the structure encased in the wave-guide wall and the wave then reforms on the far side of the structure as if nothing had ever happened.

What I'll probably do it layer some plywood together with space between each layer, and cut square notches into them, creating a regular square arrangement of teeth, layers of teeth, each probably eight inches or so, then float and weight this so it's positively buoyant, and then requisition a pool and toss waves at it. Probably a model this side couldn't deal with beach turf, but I'll try that as well.

So, you say, what about a tsunami. Well, what about them? When's the last time a tsunami wave sunk a ship at sea. Without the buildup of the ocean floor, you don't get flooding. Any floating city simply rides the storm surge and has very little problem with them. If anything, high speed winds would be a larger problem for a floating city, but would weather them at about the same efficiency as land base structures. Although, hurricanes can build much greater wind speed over flat water, but perhaps the wave guide walls could help cut wind too.

The wave breaker model will be a series of rows of square pylons, to watch what happens when wave action hits them. A wave is not actually water moving, but energy transmitting through the water. So it's a bit more like AC electricity, water moving back and forth. Thus that energy of the wave can be redirected. We tend to think of a wave as water crashing on the beach, but that's not really the right way to think of a wave, certainly not in open ocean.

The most complex model I'm planning will be the air-pressure producing buoy--of which each square wave-guide wall will be made, giving them the dual use of power production while protecting the city from waves.

Compressed air has a surprisingly high energy density, upwards of electrical energy, and is far more conducive to production and transmission in the wet and salty conditions of an ocean than using power lines!

Anenome

01-18-2012, 01:11 PM

My biggest concern is actually rogue waves in deep ocean. 100 foot wave coming at a city, that's the equivalent of being on land and getting hit by a tsunami wave. Well, probably not as bad.

Rogue waves are especially bad for a ship because ships are long and thin, meaning one giant wave can cause enough center-stress by raising one end much higher than the back and causing it crash back down, or possible roll the boat if hit from the side.

Ideally, in Atlantis city, the wave-guide wall would serve to knee-cap any incoming rogue wave. The rogue wave would make it over the wall, but be absolutely destroyed by doing so. Since there's a whole harbor of calm water behind the wave-guide walls, the city on the other side would experience something like rough seas. That would be the ideal situation.

With the kind of stable floating structure I'm proposing, a large swell hitting one of these structures wouldn't be able to easily cause it to topple at all. Rather it would lift the structure, tilt it somewhat, and then flow over its flat top and into the structure on top.

Currently I'm thinking of a house building technique that relies on compressed air bladders to raise an igloo-shaped concrete curtain, which then hardens as a half-dome. A half dome would be particularly suited to survive a wave like that. This has the side benefit of being exactly like a Hobbit hole :P Curves, curves, everywhere, even circular doors. Curves would be part of the culture of the people that grew up in such a city, and part of the differentiator of living here. Angles, lines, these are harsh, curves are human, feminine, beautiful, and reflect the ocean's ideology. Water is nothing but curves and scallops.

(This concrete-house building tech is already in use and proven, and can raise a structure in a day. Can be made large enough to provide two stories or more, and can be augmented with doors and windows, even a basement, as desired).

So, you have a whole city of floating hexagons and a rogue wave swell crashing over it. But the city can move and flex with the swell, meaning most of the wave can go right under the city without problem. If the swell came on slowly enough, even a 100 foot swell wouldn't mean much to a floating city, it could ride it out completely. Floating structures like this can probably take a couple feet of swell per second before it gets the top wet :P

Water on top can easily flow down into the holes between hexagons where they're tied together, meaning you wouldn't have systemic flooding, ever, and mostly the exterior hexagons would take the brunt of the damage.

All that means is that the more expensive and safest real estate would be nearer the center of the city, with the exterior "frontier" being the more risky place. But you could always build wave-tolerant edge property designed to take anything the water can throw at you out there, so perhaps the edge wouldn't be the cheap real-estate after all.

But one thing is for certain, unlike on land, there's always room to expand on the water. And if a hurricane is coming, you can always move the entire city! Even break up into smaller hexes and swim off to calmer water before it hits.

Anenome

01-18-2012, 01:34 PM

(Imgur may be on strike, but the firefox plugin still uploads and give you the identifier code, just add .jpg on the end and, voila: )

Here's an example of the concrete igloo house:
http://i.imgur.com/XDbAr.jpg

Perhaps a bathroom in Atlantis:
http://imgur.com/NNTGf.jpg

http://imgur.com/t1h5H.jpg

Agnostic Pope

01-18-2012, 01:42 PM

I hate white. It is just so...cliche' futuristic craptastic mactastic for me. Better than the Tron bs futuristic approach.

Major Dan

01-18-2012, 03:46 PM

Probably have to tie your citizenship to your DNA to get a singular identity.

This will not work. Your DNA is personal (it is the essence of you) and the government should not have it "on file". I think this is a terrible idea. Maybe if you need my DNA, temporarily, you can have it for an investigation, but I feel strongly that it should not be on file. Too many abuses can happen, at least that is the way I see it. I would think any libertarian would be against this?

Anenome

01-18-2012, 06:28 PM

This will not work. Your DNA is personal (it is the essence of you) and the government should not have it "on file". I think this is a terrible idea. Maybe if you need my DNA, temporarily, you can have it for an investigation, but I feel strongly that it should not be on file. Too many abuses can happen, at least that is the way I see it. I would think any libertarian would be against this?
Well, I find it hard to talk about one issue and mention another (without fully explaining the other), because then things like this happen :P Talking about DNA would bring me into another topic entirely. It's worth talking about though, so let's. I'll explain what I meant by that and perhaps you'll see that there's more to that idea than simply sampling DNA.

I agree that the gov should not have your DNA on file. That wasn't exactly what I was proposing. Rather I think databases should be properly hashed so that abuses like this can't (easily) happen. And they need not be gov databases either.

There's room for innovation here. I don't think we currently have the hashing technology to do what I propose. We need more advanced hashing algorithms that can avoid the collision problem. We need more advanced encryption tech as well. Hashes can be far too easily broken under most current schemes today.

And we need to separate the key and the data in such a way that incidental database-access abuses are impossible, perhaps requiring a court-order to pierce, etc.

What exactly do you reason should be a person's rights about their DNA? DNA is going to be a pretty open secret in the future, where sequencing can be done on someone's cellphone, quite literally, in a minute. Ever seen Gattaca? DNA isn't the only identifier, not even necessarily unique (twins?+), but certainly will be an important part of the biopunk future we're lumbering towards.

I think in a future society that one's DNA will be sequenced by the hospital at birth (possibly before conception, in the case of engineered children), and made part of their medical record, used for checking them for various health problem, possibly even engaging in corrective genetic replacement before and soon after birth.

At that point, the DNA is a matter of patient-doctor confidentiality.

As for your citizenship, you receive something like a social security number that itself is a hash of some section of your DNA. So you can see that while I said you DNA is tied to your citizenship, I didn't mean that it would literally be your DNA code itself, naked, and there for the world to see. At the same time, what we think of as a social security number might actually become an internet address--the digital address of you.

I assume that hashed numbers and databases are going to be a GIGANTIC part of the future, because I see a likely scenario where more and more databases are public but obfuscated, they are hashed, and we will do this because it's useful and necessary.

Look at Bitcoin--every transaction is public by necessity for the system to work, but the identity of who buys and sells is entirely obfuscated.

You might, for instance, want to broadcast your GPS location so that friends, family, robots know where you are.

And you might think that's a terrible idea if I left it at that, but when I say that that data should be encrypted and your particular identity hashed under that, and a permission model used to determine who can or can't track you, then perhaps it is less objectionable from a libertarian point of view. And none of that means that the government is tracking you even, or that it's the gov owning GPS nor even the databases. I want private companies to do all that competitively.

And to pierce that, I would like a court to see evidence and if sufficient grant what I called a "pierce warrant" which is a digital permission token allowing you to pierce the hash and encryption of a database, be it public or private (companies need to assent to this and have in place automatic permissions for it) which allow an investigative agent to run queries on a database, and produce a list of suspects--still hashed with names and details hidden--and then the agent would provide the name of the warranted individual, and if a match pops up within the search query that is so finely tuned it produces say less than 5 individuals (would be one of the conditions of the warrant), then the pierce is activated and they get all the details and can follow live updates. There may also be a stipulation that the suspect must show up in multiple blind queries on separate databases before they're granted pierce access to receive his identity and can track live. (Blind query meaning you can run queries on the database, but cannot see the outcome. However you can see how many individuals satisfy the query, and if you get it down to one individual and matches the circumstances, then you can pierce the database, pierce the hash protection, one time, and receive a name. That satisfies privacy for everyone else, and strictly limits the investigator to only a suspect for whom they have probable cause.

It also means that programming and being able to craft a laser-like search query based on known facts becomes an investigative tool in future police-work :P

(But now we're getting deep into some details of the short story I'm writing currently :P)

This tech is already in place. They've demonstrated the ability to run queries on hashed data, giving limited database access--I expect that to grow considerably in some fashion.

As an example, suppose you had a bank robbery. You review video of the crime scene parking lot, etc. You want to query the GPS database for this perp. You establish some criteria. You say he was within a 5 foot radius of X spot at exactly 3am (a time when no one was near him, marking him as the sole individual). You say he sped off in a car at exactly 11:15 , heading north at approximately 30-40 mph (derived from the video).

That query can only match one individual, the suspected robber (assuming he had any GPS devices on him, let's say he's a dumb crack addict). You run a blind query on the GPS database, the system returns a single positive match but at this point gives you no names or details of any kind. You had previously gotten a warrant to pierce the database by showing a judge the video, by producing a single match to the details shown on the video you satisfy your warrant and you exercise your pierce token, it's eaten by the system irrevocably and you receive the full details of the perpetrator, who gets flagged as a suspect, granting you further access to other databases, since you have probable cause now to investigate him.

You access his GPS ID, see his current location, and call in the arrest, downloading his GPS location to nearby officers who pick him out with reality augmented helmet displays, marking exactly where he is, seen even through walls. Further, if he's driving, his car can be shut down automatically, gun's stop working (digital guns!), etc., etc. (Kinda scary that all that will be possible.)

GPS will be a gigantic part of the future as well, both global, local, and micro, and we're going to need ways to access that specifically.

Maybe your DNA could generate both a known hash and a secret hash, one secret from you, perhaps a hash of a hash (with a diff algorithm), making it so that not only could no one impersonate you, but you couldn't fake your identity either? I dunno, need to think about implications.

Lots of room here. We need the cryptos to make some breakthroughs ;)

What do you think?

It's becoming a scarier world where more and more control over the individual is possible, which is one reason why we need much more strength in individuals freedoms and protections against abuse of technologies that didn't exist when the US was founded. I think a libertarian society is exactly what we need today and will need more and more as things progress negatively in the USA.

Anenome

01-18-2012, 06:42 PM

I hate white. It is just so...cliche' futuristic craptastic mactastic for me. Better than the Tron bs futuristic approach.
I've always like the lit floor look in the end of 2001 a Space Odyssey...

Major Dan

01-18-2012, 10:14 PM

GPS will be a gigantic part of the future as well, both global, local, and micro, and we're going to need ways to access that specifically.

GPS is truly a modern marvel. And it is something very hard to duplicate at this time. GLONASS was the Soviet equivalent, and that is probably a bit generous. Europe is trying to implement Galileo but I am not even sure they have put up a satellite yet. Also, GPS is strictly a one way thing (not including the satellite uplinks to maintain the health of the constellation) or something like your Cellphone transmitting your location.

And GPS is a military constellation, driven, launched and maintained by the AF. Currently by presidential decree, GPS is free to use and will not be "intentionally degraded" like it was when it first went on line. You will have no access to it in Atlantis, other then what the rest of the world has access to. You could put a Wide Area Augmentation system up for Atlantis though. Not sure what you meant by access to it though.

GPS is used for the precise time probably more then the precise location service btw.

I know a thing or two about GPS.

Major Dan

01-18-2012, 10:44 PM

Lots of room here. We need the cryptos to make some breakthroughs

What do you think?

I haven't thought it out fully. I see what you are saying, but they didn't need DNA, credit scores or fingerprints to take care of business for a long time. Unfortunately in todays world, people can assume your identity, virtually, very easy and something probably needs to be done about that, what I am not entirely sure. Tired now and will think about it some more.

Anenome

01-18-2012, 10:50 PM

GPS is truly a modern marvel. And it is something very hard to duplicate at this time.
True, but it will have to be duplicated eventually. It gives the US a gigantic advantage in controlling it. Who knows, could the US suddenly encrypt it, say if the enemy were using it to guide their missiles or w/e? If so, I know it wouldn't happen except in the case of outright thermonuclear war, because it would throw civilian life into absolute chaos.

Furthermore, we're going to want increasing levels of accuracy out of it. I picture GPS being layered in levels in a city of the future. You have satellite based GPS, as now, and city level GPS controlling local routing and self-driven cars and the like, and eventually something I call 'micro-gps' which could operate within a house only and give sub-millimeter accuracy. With micro-gps you could implement a Sony style Move-motion control system without the goofy clown noses. I don't know how fast GPS like pings or w/e, but to do micro-gps I assume you'd need extremely rapid poll rates to find the differences between such small fractions of a second so as to triangulate the distance between transponders that might only be inches apart >_> Pic-polling? >_> Polling's not the right word, I know, because GPS is one way, but maybe micro-gps would be easier if it wasn't one-way...

I suppose all you'd need for micro-gps is a radiation frequency that penetrates the human body, clothes, and walls. Then just regular flashes every w/e pico-seconds I guess, and then compare which come in a fraction sooner to give you triangulation material.

Meh, I'm just a gps novice theorizing, I'm sure you're gonna shoot holes in that thought :P

GLONASS was the Soviet equivalent, and that is probably a bit generous. Europe is trying to implement Galileo but I am not even sure they have put up a satellite yet.
Ah, cool, I didn't even know Soviets had an equiv. Is it still operating? I suppose not, and doesn't sound like it was very robust from the aspersions you're casting.

Also, GPS is strictly a one way thing (not including the satellite uplinks to maintain the health of the constellation) or something like your Cellphone transmitting your location.
Well, yes, I know. What I mean is the ability to tap into a cell network in cooperation with GPS to triangulate someone's active phone signal or w/e anywhere in the world. It's mainly the cell signal, I know. The cell company can basically triangulate your position based on the cell towers you're around, etc. I picture that being more robust in the future. So, the investigator would be able automatically tap into the cell company's ability to find your phone's location, if he had a warrant and probable cause. That's what I mean.

And GPS is a military constellation, driven, launched and maintained by the AF. Currently by presidential decree, GPS is free to use and will not be "intentionally degraded" like it was when it first went on line.
Right. Except in dire emergency I'm sure.

You could put a Wide Area Augmentation system up for Atlantis though. Not sure what you meant by access to it though.
I think I've fully explained what I meant above, what is a wide area augmentation?
...
Ah, I see. Yeah, we'd totally do that.

There's also the unique need of an underwater GPS system for routing underwater traffic >_> Twist your brain trying to figure out that one.

I know a thing or two about GPS.
Awesome :) thanks for letting me pick your brain. How often does a GPS satellite report the time?

Anenome

01-18-2012, 10:56 PM

I haven't thought it out fully. I see what you are saying, but they didn't need DNA, credit scores or fingerprints to take care of business for a long time.
Yeah, well possession is 9/10's of the law, or so the saying goes :P

That's why in the middle ages, stealing a property deed made you the new owner :P Errant knights went all around europe stealing deeds in the dead of night. Then we invented title companies and that ended. Title checking was a market innovation that made holding and buying property far more secure. We need abstractions like that, solutions, and a social structure conducive to experimentation.

Unfortunately in todays world, people can assume your identity, virtually, very easy and something probably needs to be done about that, what I am not entirely sure. Tired now and will think about it some more.
How about a unique chip implanted under the skin :P What's more, make it a broadcasting chip so it can be GPS tracked. Then, you're you because you have an unbroken GPS trail. If you suddenly popped up a thousand miles away trying to buy something, or even one block away, it would be obvious that you've been hacked :P

That's one thing I mean by innovations enabled by gps tracking people in society and why you might want to let people and companies GPS track you. Credit card security is one facet.

Anenome

01-19-2012, 02:21 AM

Finished the model just now. Well, might add a coat of oil paint tomorrow, but this wood is waterproof so, kinda uneeded.

It's 14.5 inches across, two feet tall. Weighs 4.8 lbs, displaces 13.2 lbs giving a buoyancy of 8.4 lbs! Almost 2:1 buoyancy ratio.

You start scaling things up though and that will level out a bit.

The top is a perfect hexagon. For floats I used Smart Water bottles :P They're the perfect shape, each displaces a liter of water and they had an excellent base for attaching to the hex-platform (hexform?).

The center weight is attached to the end of an aluminum tube, two feet long.

The model's center of gravity is right in the middle of the two foot tube. This thing should be righteously stable.

I plan to test it at the beach, let some waves roll over it, see how it handles 'em. I'm gonna bring a brick to put on top, simulate having a house, see how it handles with some load :P

If my camera wasn't on skitz, I'd have pictures for you already :\ and I don't want to take crappy cell picts. Soon, soon.

Major Dan

01-19-2012, 06:43 AM

There's also the unique need of an underwater GPS system for routing underwater traffic >_> Twist your brain trying to figure out that one.

Not unique at all actually, to the best of my knowledge it is all ready being done.

How often does a GPS satellite report the time?

Constantly, time is essential to how GPS works. They use it all over the US; electrical generation, cell phones, bank transactions etc.

Actually GPS is a constant signal, the satellites are always broadcasting. The way GPS works is to compare the time of at least 4 satellites at the receiver, to get a 3D location, the receiver actually calculates the time difference of when the signal left the satellite to when it actually arrives. In the beginning a receiver could only use 4-5 satellites, now they can use, all in view, up to maybe 12 satellites. There are actually a few different kind of signals GPS transmits. One, only the military can use, it is called the P-code, P for Precision. The CA-code is what all civilian receivers use.

Who knows, could the US suddenly encrypt it, say if the enemy were using it to guide their missiles or w/e? If so, I know it wouldn't happen except in the case of outright thermonuclear war, because it would throw civilian life into absolute chaos.

Hence the Presidential decree. Actually the US would be crippled if they turned it off. They can't encrypt it, what they can do is introduce "error" into the signal, it is call dithering, and that is how it was when they first turned it on, but turned it off permanently under Clinton. Todays receivers are so good that the dithering would not effect them at all, most likely. The AF realizes what you have pointed out and is working diligently to try to correct that very situation, but to the best of my knowledge is not able to do it yet.

It occurs to me that with Cell towers placed all over Atlantis, you could use the Cell phone method of triangulating peoples position using the cell towers. This would augment any GPS positional data and then you would have two sources if one were to fail. Although to use in automated cars/boats/planes/subs you made need a back up to those even. Then there is the matter of building receivers that can handle multiple types of input signals. Although that should be much easier to do then it was ten years ago.

Major Dan

01-19-2012, 06:55 AM

How about a unique chip implanted under the skin :P What's more, make it a broadcasting chip so it can be GPS tracked. Then, you're you because you have an unbroken GPS trail. If you suddenly popped up a thousand miles away trying to buy something, or even one block away, it would be obvious that you've been hacked :P

That's one thing I mean by innovations enabled by gps tracking people in society and why you might want to let people and companies GPS track you. Credit card security is one facet.

See again, the US doesn't even do that. Or, at least, they only do it to criminals or people under investigation. Seems that if the government knew where everybody was/is that it could be too easily abused. I certainly do not want my insurance company to know exactly what speed I am traveling at every moment of the day, let alone the police. But if I let my credit card company know where I am, would the insurance company feel left out and maybe try to acquire it on the sly. Man you are getting into some slippery slopes really fast. Let alone the unique chip idea, would scare the hell of an most christians as many feel that would be the mark of the beast and if you were to be the one pushing it, surely you are the anti-christ. :eek:

Agnostic Pope

01-19-2012, 11:32 AM

What is the age of consent?
Can I kill parasites?
How many little sisters can I harvest?
Can I still practice my anarchist beliefs?

Anenome

01-19-2012, 01:54 PM

What is the age of consent?
You're considered an adult and take control of all decisions over yourself when you are fully financially self-supportive, living on your own, paying your own bills, etc. So there's no one age of consent. Some people may leave home at 18 and be self-sufficient, some 16, some 20, etc. This also controls voting ability. Only those self-sufficient can vote.

This method is the only objective means of determining when a person can be held responsible for their own actions. In practice there'd likely be a minimum age, like 16 say. But that would not be determined at the federal level, but rather in the charter cities, so it's really up to you.

Can I kill parasites?
Define parasite.

If you mean lice, then yes. PETA has no sway here :P Although I really want to stop whaling, and see Atlantis as a natural home for anti-whaling activity >:) 'Nuff said.

If you mean people mooching off the system--there won't be any. It's not possible for anyone to mooch off of you unless you specifically allow it. The political right of separation in Atlantis means that if you find yourself in a city that has decided to tax everyone and give money to the poor, you can escape that tax by simply deciding to separate yourself, and continue on with all the laws you had before sans that tax. The effect would be to split that city into two new charter cities--daughter cities you might say--along voting lines on that divisive issue.

I think people are going to absolutely love that ability. Hate a law? Fine, group up with everyone else who hated it too and start your own city, taking your collective territory and people away from the idiots trying to pass the idiotic law :P

How many little sisters can I harvest?
Private law enforcement is allowed, long as you respect the law yourself, so you'll be able to arrest girls with giant semi-robotic bodyguards :P

Can I still practice my anarchist beliefs?
Yes. This is another massive feature of the system I'm creating. It's based on the idea that no one political or social structure is best or right for all time or for everyone.

I don't intend to force a social or political system on everyone or anyone. The only thing that is forced upon people in Atlantis is the only thing that legitimately should be forced: the rule of law via the protection of individual rights.

So, at the federal level, it is as if we had a bill of rights and almost nothing else. The federal government in my scheme has the responsibility of individual rights protection, national defense (a corollary of the former), and of ensuring rights protection among the charter cities.

Thus, you can appeal to the feds if you felt your city were violating your rights and they'd charge in, white knight you, and investigate. And that's -all- they can do.

The only other component to the Atlantean constitution, besides the statement of basic and corollary rights is a framework for how charter cities can apply to become a member-city, and some rules for charter cities, like budget transparency, voting rules, etc.

So, sometimes in this thread you'll hear me talking about Atlantis in general, or on the federal level, and sometimes you'll hear me talking about what kind of charter city I myself would setup under this framework.

So, if you wanted to setup an anarchist charter city, you could do so, and the charter would be, I suppose, that no political structure will exist within the territory of member citizens, and there you'd go. Probably the simplest form of charter anyone could have. But personally I don't think it'd last :P

Anenome

01-19-2012, 02:14 PM

See again, the US doesn't even do that.
The gov isn't doing it under my scenario either--it's a free market service, much like the pseudo-gps through cell-phones that people use to track their friend's and family's location today.

Or, at least, they only do it to criminals or people under investigation.
Right, so in the scenario I painted, the gov went to the corporation that is providing the cell-based tracking service and serves a warrant to pierce their database protection so he can track the individual.

If the gov tried to do this today it would take days to setup, I imagine at least. In my scenario it could be achieved in minutes.

Seems that if the government knew where everybody was/is that it could be too easily abused.
I agree. In my scenario, the only people that can track you are those you've specifically consented to.

There may be another option though, an anonymous location database without names attached. It would be a bit like how the gov does deep mining on cell calls around the world, in that they don't listen in on the conversation but they do create webs of who calls who, and by that can discover who's associated. Osama Bin Laden as discovered that way in fact, his main courier made calls almost daily.

I certainly do not want my insurance company to know exactly what speed I am traveling at every moment of the day, let alone the police.
I agree. I'm trying to craft a scenario where the benefits of gps are pronounced while cutting away the negative scenarios. First of all, there aren't any speeding laws in Atlantis :P So I wouldn't worry about a ticket. Rather than tickets, you pay for w/e you damage.

As for the insurance company, we know already today that some people will willingly let their ins co. track them in order to prove their driving habits and get potentially a better rate. But again, the key is voluntary permission, always.

But if I let my credit card company know where I am, would the insurance company feel left out and maybe try to acquire it on the sly.
Well again, there's ways to deal with that. You can obfuscate what the credit card company gets to now, or cut it back such that it can only know an extremely limited subset of what your location can provide.

For instance, the credit card company doesn't really need to know your exact location, at all. Rather, it could be fed an extract from your location, and I hinted about this before, saying that what a credit card company really needs to know is whether you've moved so fast that it wouldn't be physical possible or probably. So, rather than location, it could have relative speed reported to it. Anything below 100 mph would be considered perfectly normal.

But if suddenly your gps were hacked and popped up a thousand miles away in preparation to make a sale, your speed to them would suddenly be reported as an instantaneous teleport, millions of miles per hour, and they shut down your credit card stopping the sale. Let's call that "cut data", data that's been derived from the raw source yet extracted into a limited form.

Maybe they could poll your actual location once a day, with a very low granularity, say to a particular city, and then they track speed throughout the day. This would give them a possible range. Say you went in a straight line all day, that would be an expanding sphere of possible locations. Any sale outside that sphere would be stopped.

That's just one method of security as well, since credit card purchases are going digital, are moving onto the cell phone, and you can do things like text the person top agree to a sale, or have them take a photo of themselves at point of sale (for large purchases) and email it back to the CC company, where a computer will ID them and make sure it's actually them. CC companies are trying to put that in place today.

Man you are getting into some slippery slopes really fast. Let alone the unique chip idea, would scare the hell of an most christians as many feel that would be the mark of the beast and if you were to be the one pushing it, surely you are the anti-christ. :eek:
Right, but you know--I'm a christian :P If revelation is gonna happen, it's gonna happen :P The antichrist has to bring peace to the middle east, has to be a political leader of some sort... Doubt I'll ever be involved over there at all :P And has to rule the entire world. Atlantis is setup to decentralize power... but what if it was so successful that the nations of the world fell under my federal rubric of rights protection only... I don't think that could happen within my lifetime, and if it was that successful I'd be quite happy to have contributed something to humanity, antichrist notwithstanding :P I'll leave revelation to the last days.

Major Dan

01-20-2012, 06:39 AM

Right, but you know--I'm a christian :P If revelation is gonna happen, it's gonna happen :P The antichrist has to bring peace to the middle east, has to be a political leader of some sort... Doubt I'll ever be involved over there at all :P And has to rule the entire world. Atlantis is setup to decentralize power... but what if it was so successful that the nations of the world fell under my federal rubric of rights protection only... I don't think that could happen within my lifetime, and if it was that successful I'd be quite happy to have contributed something to humanity, antichrist notwithstanding :P I'll leave revelation to the last days.

You don't know many Fundies then, they fear things like that.

Anenome

01-20-2012, 10:31 AM

Not as much as you might think. I'm sure some would lose their mind over something like that, as you say, but just people being chipped wouldn't automatically be the mark of the beast, you still need an antichrist to appear. And if that actually happened, that would be an interesting time to be alive :P

Agnostic Pope

01-20-2012, 10:34 AM

Right, but you know--I'm a christian :P If revelation is gonna happen, it's gonna happen :P The antichrist has to bring peace to the middle east, has to be a political leader of some sort...

You are a bad Christian. The ORIGINAL Antichrist had 9 fucking heads and was a munch of animails or something. How can that even unite leaders? Oh I see new testament? lulz

Anenome

01-20-2012, 10:48 AM

You are a bad Christian. The ORIGINAL Antichrist had 9 fucking heads and was a munch of animails or something. How can that even unite leaders? Oh I see new testament? lulz
Nah, that's the beast. The beast has w/e heads and horns of power. The antichrist is the 'little horn'. And that's just allegory, bro. Horns of power likely means the beast has various political power, and the antichrist won't have a literal horn :P The beast is taken as allegory for a nation state.

Kinda interesting because revelation talks about the return of the roman empire, and some think that the formation of the EU is a fulfillment of that. But until there's peace in the middle east, no one need worry about whether we're in the last days of revelation :P as that's a requirement. You get peace in the middle east and the man responsible for that peace is supposed to be the antichrist. And to lead an eventual one world government.

So, if that happens, prepare for some Christians to lose their shit :P But maybe that helps explain why Christians generally don't believe in centralization of power :P

Way I look at it, Atlantis should make it much harder to create a one world government--unless Atlantis were so successful that it became the mechanism behind a one-world government >_>

Agnostic Pope

01-20-2012, 10:52 AM

Anenome

01-20-2012, 10:54 AM

God would sink it. Remember the Tower of Babylon? Humanity was united but got too "arrogant" that he split us up and gave us different languages to so that we might never unite. The Christian God is my favorite god. He is just awesome and a master troll.
Haha, I'll tempt fate then :P God did promise never to flood the world again :P

I think the Hindu gods were much better trolls :P Although the Olympian gods were pretty good trolls too.

Agnostic Pope

01-20-2012, 10:57 AM

Naw the Olympian gods were just dicks.

Anenome

01-20-2012, 11:54 AM

There's a fine line between dicks and trolls :P

Agnostic Pope

01-20-2012, 11:56 AM

Telling a guy to kill his son only as a test/brought back to life = troll
Turning into an eagle and impregnating women = dick

BeardedSonOfNel

01-20-2012, 12:06 PM

Telling a guy to kill his son only as a test/brought back to life = troll
Turning into an eagle and impregnating women = dick

Hey, wait eagles don't have dicks :p

Agnostic Pope

01-20-2012, 12:14 PM

Zeus did. He turned into all sorts of animals and impregnated women/his mom/sister ect ect.

Anenome

01-20-2012, 01:46 PM

Alright, alright. Now watch some 3D printing of a house / wall:

-yv-IWdSdns

This stuff is now being called "additive manufacturing" and is used on a lot of commercial products already.

Anenome

01-21-2012, 12:06 AM

Decided to make the model look a bit better. Took it apart from the final design and spread some plaster to smooth it out so it looks great when painted. Likely paint it tomorrow, after sanding a bit more.

And I'll use it as a pattern to cut two more hexagons for the eventual three. The plan is to eventually have three so I can tie them together and see what they look like tied together, floating, see wave characteristics, and communicate the concept.

Maybe I'll build even more later, who knows :P Though I'd rather start working on the wave-guide and compressed-air buoy.

Likely that the wave-guide requires rather specific size and distance tuning, so that could be a wash at this point. And the buoy is a difficult build, but probably more important.

I'm also working on a concept for creating a heat exchanger based fresh water generator that would use the temperature difference between surface air and cold deep water (~30 feet to the thermocline) to generate fresh water. It would be heat-loop based, possibly in series, pulling cold up from the depths in insulated tubes, creating a cool surface on which water will readily condense.

The ocean-surface has no shortage of moist air, so the system will be a huge net water generator. Altho, never know until you test it out. Far as I know, no one has ever tried to build a heat-loop based water condenser based on oceanic-thermo-clines. No reason why it shouldn't work tho.

I'd considered simply sending compressed air down into cooling tubes below the thermocline and then piping it all back up, but you run into problems with cleaning the tubes--it's impossible. And pumping water up to heights takes a good deal of power as well.

Using heat-pipes solves both issues: heat pipes (like the ones cooling your CPU) are entirely enclosed, so no cooling issue, and require no power whatsoever.

Did a bit of research and found that either water or ethanol would be an appropriate medium for inside the heat-pipe.

I was at a trade show years ago and a company demoed a heat-pipe for me. Thing was pretty awesome, worked vertically as well and was about a foot long. I'm thinking a series of these, if stacked vertically and thermally well connected at the ends could solve the gravity problem, potentially better than a heat-loop.

Anyway, there's the update on the model. Waiting for the fast set 40 to dry so I can sand the top flat and get a coat of waterproof primer on there, which should be enough. Then it's into the drink :P

Anenome

01-21-2012, 08:11 PM

Model update: The hexagon platform Mark-1 is now sanded and painted and just about ready for final assembly, given a couple more hours for a thorough drying. The oil paint--primer really--is white and surface dries fast but takes hours to cure through completely. And once it's done I'll still need to coat the interior holding the central weight-spar to waterproof that completely as well. But that won't take any time at all.

I decided to upgrade the washers I was using on the entire model, trading steel washers for stainless steel washers, keep 'em from rusting and looking like rubbish later on.

I also bought some nylon rope in order to tie the floats together so they have some support along the bottom. And I bought a much larger gauge rope to serve as a leash of sorts so that I can let it hang out in the surf without risking losing it and having it crash in the shallows catastrophically. I'll attach it with a metal eye-loop on the edge, much like the leash on a surfboard.

Now, my final remaining problem is how to attach more than one of these together. Assuming I had more than one, how would their edges be tied together.

I assume I'll need two attach points per edge, twelve total for each model, though perhaps one per edge on a mere model would be sufficient. Full size they'd likely need multiples on each edge.

The only thing I can think of that's existent already and facing analogous constraints are the joints between train cars, which are seriously heavy-duty yet also able to flex and move as the cars do.

http://i.imgur.com/aHx8m.jpg

Only thing is, these can be detached if one arm is lifted too high, vertically. Being that things on the ocean would likely face more vertical motion than train cars, I'd need to modify the design somehow, yet use the proven principles of this design as well as its proven toughness.

This detail strikes me as fairly key to the design of the hex-platforms, because if the arms start failing you've really got nothing. They have to withstand both pulling and pushing motions, both lifting, sliding, turning and twisting.

It's quite likely that in a full size platform we'd edge each platform with significant amounts of rubber.

But would it really be okay to allow them to bash into each other, or would tying them closer together, touching even, be a better scenario...?

Much to ponder :)

Anyway, picts soon.

lockwoodx

01-21-2012, 10:16 PM

Fuck the ocean.

Anenome

01-22-2012, 12:34 AM

Fuck the ocean.
http://i.imgur.com/xISFV.png

R7yfISlGLNU

Agnostic Pope

01-23-2012, 06:08 AM

Anenome

01-23-2012, 11:57 AM

Some of the most scary shit/abominations on the history of this planet live on the ocean. I expect the government of Atlantis to kill every single one of these "marine life animals" that may pose a threat to us.
I love calamari :P

Floating platforms aren't susceptible to creature attacks in the same way boats are, so I don't think this is an issue.

Ocean living also has a lot of cool new animals, like seals, sea-lions, and otters--all of which are domesticate-able! Sea lions and otters are probably more fun than seals tho, 'cause seals can't walk on land at all.

http://i.imgur.com/9EWLM.jpg

Those huge ones above are males; the males are quite a bit larger than the females.

http://i.imgur.com/mJgWN.jpg

ADORABLE
http://i.imgur.com/Ir69k.jpg

Sea otters are cute as hell too
http://i.imgur.com/hNyym.jpg

Problem with otters is they eat so goddamn much :P They don't each fish either. So you need a massive kelp forest for them to survive, and I don't think an open ocean settlement is likely to create a shallow-water kelp forest around it. Maybe tho.

So what are you worried about, giant squid? Meh, we haven't see one of those capable of taking out a ship. Giant octopus neither.

I'd be more worried about the box jellyfish.

Anenome

01-23-2012, 04:39 PM

What will the firearms laws be in this Atlantis?
The firearms law is: you're responsible for the damage of anything you shoot or people killed, accidentally or not.

Apart from that, there is no direct regulation of sales or types or anything like that.

It's adult society. If you think you're responsible enough to handle a gun, by all means do so, knowing you'll be held accountable if anything goes wrong. Same reason there's no anti-speeding laws or anti-drug laws.

lockwoodx

01-23-2012, 04:44 PM

Anenome

01-23-2012, 04:46 PM

I went to one of these in Pigeon Forge, TN back when I was 16. Pretty neat, but they don't let you do anything cool until after many, many sessions.
I don't care, I will be Peter Pan for a bit ;P Heh, I bought four sessions. I think it'd be fun to be an instructor for awhile, get reeeeaaally good.

But, beyond that, I need a new sport for Atlantis, and I was thinking of adapting this wind-tunnel for that. So here's the idea:

Rather than having a single air-blowing fan below in a small room, you have say fifty fans (still with a net down there), in a gigantic wind tunnel about as large as a pro basketball court only larger, and circular. People line the clear walls to view the game, vertically, giving everyone a pretty damn good view. And the play is in three dimensions.

So, you fly in there, opposing teams and you...? I don't know yet :P I thought about having a ball at a specific weight and surface area such that it is always at its terminal velocity, meaning if you dropped it in the arena it would simply float in the place you left it. Or perhaps the ball is now a small frisbee-like hoop that can be thrown.

It'd be cool to have a ball that has some significant buoyancy, such that if dropped it would fly upwards. That way, you have to throw down to pass, because the ball would tend to arc upwards, opposite what we're used to, and also means you can fly up to grab it if you miss ^_^ Eventually it would go so high as to be out of bounds and the ball would be given to the other team, much like in basketball. Maybe you throw it into a vertically oriented loop, ala Mayan-Ball.

Maybe this flying sport wouldn't even use a ball. And maybe the arena could be used for multiple things, like flying ballet? :P

So, there's my new 21st century sport for Atlantis :) Something along those lines. Maybe call it "Fly ball" or something >_>

Anenome

01-23-2012, 04:48 PM

Brink in 5...4....3...
Would be little different than what happened in the so-called "Wild West". Which is, very little of anything really.

But now you've made me install Brink to find out the full flavor of what you're insinuating :P

VenomUSMC

01-23-2012, 04:48 PM

The firearms law is: you're responsible for the damage of anything you shoot or people killed, accidentally or not.

Apart from that, there is no direct regulation of sales or types or anything like that.

It's adult society. If you think you're responsible enough to handle a gun, by all means do so, knowing you'll be held accountable if anything goes wrong. Same reason there's no anti-speeding laws or anti-drug laws.

So I can legally own any firearm to include SBRs, suppressed weapons, belt fed machine guns just by going into a store or ordering one online?

What about weapons that use explosive ammuntion such as grenade launchers, etc?

Agnostic Pope

01-23-2012, 04:58 PM

He already said I can be a anarchist. So yes? :P

VenomUSMC

01-23-2012, 05:01 PM

He already said I can be a anarchist. So yes? :P
Haha well even in the United States today you can legally own in many states SBRs, suppressors, even what appears to be grenade launchers (although they aren't 40 MM). You can also own full auto weapons. I really don't have a problem with any of that. Now I would question the reason anyone would need to an say a SMAW for shooting 83MM rockets..

Anenome

01-23-2012, 05:22 PM

So I can legally own any firearm to include SBRs, suppressed weapons, belt fed machine guns just by going into a store or ordering one online?

What about weapons that use explosive ammuntion such as grenade launchers, etc?
Yes. The society also largely relies on citizens for defense, unless a city puts together a professional police force. It's very much a militia concept. Think "permanent frontier."

A class A license...
Requiring licenses for anything will be illegal. You won't need a license for anything, not driving, not being in a profession. The government will not prohibit you from doing anything unless you've already proved you're not responsible and gone through a resulting legal process and had your day in court.

It's kind of like the difference between assumption of guilt and assumption of innocence. In America we have the assumption of incompetence and irresponsibility and they license to prove competence :P In Atlantis there will be an assumption of competence and responsibility and the state will have to prove incompetence via your actions.

It's a combination of buyer beware and the courts barring those who harm others in trying to perform a profession from performing that. In practice, if you want to know whether a particular doctor, or w/e professional, is competent, you'll research it yourself or rely on free market solutions that help you do the same, such as ratings companies and performance tracking organizations such as consumer reports.

VenomUSMC

01-23-2012, 06:07 PM

Yes. The society also largely relies on citizens for defense, unless a city puts together a professional police force. It's very much a militia concept. Think "permanent frontier." So you will not have a military? That seems like your rolling the dice with that.

Anenome

01-23-2012, 06:19 PM

So you will not have a military? That seems like your rolling the dice with that.
The way I envision it right now, the military is city-based. Cities can come together, pool their military, for larger campaigns if something like world-war were to result. And the Fed would have a small military designed for protection of trade routes and new cities that aren't on their feet yet perhaps.

But you wouldn't have the monolithic military of the US. You wouldn't have the taxation to support a monster like that in a state without income-taxation.

Rather you rely a bit more on privateers--civvies with a military commission in a time of crisis (otherwise known as pirates! hah--by the other side that is. Even the US used privateers in our revolutionary war against England.).

Way I see it, the military is something like an option. It will be illegal for there to be conscription into an armed service of any kind. No drafting, ever. And it will be illegal to force you to give money in the form of taxation or anything else to support a military.

However, if you voluntarily want to join a military force and voluntarily want to put money into it out of your own pocket because you believe your region needs it desperately, then feel free. It's almost like having a military run by charity.

One of the more difficult concepts to nail down in this new political structure I'm building is the creation of a mechanism for political action that doesn't involve force at the same time.

Like, in Atlantis, you could create a charter city that had taxation up the wazoo, like we do now, and had even socialized health-care. The difference is, such policies would be opt-in and could never, never be forced on anyone. So if you disagreed, you start a neighbor city next door without those policies with like-minded people and carry on as if nothing ever happened. It's part of the political right of separation.

So to, if a politician wanted to fund a military campaign, he'd have to convince the people to both willingly pay for it and willingly join up to staff the military for it.

The political mechanism to do this is not passing a law, or if it is it's passing a law that anyone can opt out of.

Think of it as something like voluntary law.

For the sake of explanation, here's an example: if we applied the concept to the US today, it would go down something like this--if you didn't want your tax money to go for funding people on welfare, you could opt out of that. You could max all your tax money go to only the programs you believed in. You could even designate tax money to pay down the debt purely. See what I mean? Or you could just not pay taxes :P

And if a war broke out, you could choose not to associate with that in any way, including keeping all of your money out of funding that effort.

It's still a fluid concept, but I have the edges of it pinned down. Ask me some questions or poke a hole in it somewhere, feel free, as that will help me pin down the concept further :)

Anenome

01-23-2012, 07:00 PM

http://i.imgur.com/cEkSJ.jpg

Anenome

01-23-2012, 07:21 PM

http://i.imgur.com/qQxNI.jpg

VenomUSMC

01-23-2012, 08:54 PM

However, if you voluntarily want to join a military force and voluntarily want to put money into it out of your own pocket because you believe your region needs it desperately, then feel free. It's almost like having a military run by charity.

Your military will not function versus a true organized military. Largely depending on people to simply outfit themselves with military gear and training will make your country an extremely easy target for anyone with any sort of military to destroy.

Anenome

01-23-2012, 09:47 PM

Your military will not function versus a true organized military. Largely depending on people to simply outfit themselves with military gear and training will make your country an extremely easy target for anyone with any sort of military to destroy.
Atlantis can have as large and professional a military as its people think is warranted. The point is it's voluntary. It would inevitably be smaller than the US's, proportionally. At the same time, the people are armed and probably impossible to invade.

VenomUSMC

01-24-2012, 09:14 AM

Major Dan

01-24-2012, 10:12 AM

It's kind of like the difference between assumption of guilt and assumption of innocence. In America we have the assumption of incompetence and irresponsibility and they license to prove competence :P In Atlantis there will be an assumption of competence and responsibility and the state will have to prove incompetence via your actions.

I think it goes a bit beyond just an "assumption of incompetence." First it creates an atmosphere of orderly driving, which if you see in places like India, Brazil or even China, there is just chaos it seems. Secondly, it was a revenue source for road, bridge and tunnel building. Somebody needed to put the road infrastructure in place. As it turns out driving is the most dangerous thing we do on a daily basis, so it makes some sense that you know people can drive before letting them behind the wheel. Just my two cents on the matter. Also, young adults, teenagers, really are bullet proof, or feel that way.

Anenome

01-24-2012, 10:16 AM

I understand it being voluntary, that is what the US' is. Which amounts to less than 1% of the population I believe.

How do you suppose the people would be impossible to invade? If your living on from what I gather basically an island it would be extremely easy to invade given you wouldn't have huge #s on your side or a strong navy/air force apparently. While island hopping is no easy military action (look at Iwo) it was taken out through superior firepower and a static enemy. Having simply a militia that would not have near the organization, gear, training, etc versus even a weak naval attack would not end well for your supposed nation.

You've already isolated yourself by being an island, then you have a weak military and then I believe I've seen a few posts where you country would have this place based around technology enabling them to live in the ocean deflecting waves or channeling them or whatever. Which is a huge target in and of itself and puts your entire population at risk.
The US's military isn't exactly purely voluntary, since the threat of the draft remains. The draft would be actively illegal in Atlantis, because if a society's people don't consider it worth defending I can't condone pressing them into service against their will. I assume that any freedom-loving democracy, such as Atlanteans would be, would have those ready and willing to defend their way of life against aggressors.

Now, because I talk about the absolute minimum of what the military has to be, you're thinking I'm saying the place would have a tiny military. But what I'm actually saying is that the place can have as large a military as its citizens feel they need. And political mechanisms exist to facilitate growing or subtracting the military in response to the people's perceived need for one.

Let's do a thought experiment then rather than talking in generalities, and look at what we might end up with in an actual scenario:

Let's take the case of two cities, Atlantis itself as a capitol city, and a newly formed city thousands of miles away called New Venice, which is an Atlantean charter city.

Atlantis, as the geographical home of the Fed administration, maintains a significant military force. Primarily a Navy capable of militarily protecting the waters of all of its major trade routes and far off charter cities against piracy and criminals mainly. It's not designed to repulse an attack by a nation state however. But it would be enough to take on a charter city, if that city was found to be in violation of its charter and needed to be dissolved or something (say a city became corrupt and was selling people into slavery or something).

Probably the main defense of Atlantis from nation states is that it would quickly have nuclear weapons. Why? Because its legitimacy as a nation is openly questioned world wide. Until you have significant military power in that form, or a jurisdictional land-based monopoly, which Atlantis will never have. So their only option really is to develop nuclear weapons soon for self-defense.

Luckily this is particularly easy on the water. Want to hide something from satellites, simply submerse it in water. Entire enrichment plants would go undetected almost entirely. And uranium can actually be mined directly out of seawater.

Now, let's look at New Venice, which borders a South East Asian country of some sort and faces regular attacks of piracy from elements on the mainland on shipping and human transports. New Venice's citizens start an initiative to boost military capacity, and rather than raise taxes, its citizens can subscribe to a fund monthly on a voluntary basis to drop cash into the military effort, and can withdraw that payment authorization at any time. In extreme times, say world war, they could in theory buy bonds, such as the US sold during WWII.

They begin rapidly building up their navy and air-force, probably building lots of military support robots rather than training a ton of troops.

Remember that future war will be more automated and require fewer and fewer actual people. Boat drones are already in testing phases right now--saw video of that about two weeks ago. And drone aircraft would be in place as a matter of course. Atlanteans would be likely to fund geostationary satellites for real-time views from overhead as well.

So, what would prevent New Venice from having the same military force as any city? Well, a city is much smaller than a nation. True, but it's also true that anyone within Atlantis can subscribe to that same military fund, or even multiple funds, to support the cause of New Venice, and other cities can send their forces, and the Fed itself can send its forces, coordinating them electronically.

Now you have to collected forces of a nation in place.

What I'm looking at is a region that certainly doesn't require a standing military of the size of the US, but probably more like a European country. What's to gain in invading a place like Atlantis anyway? All of its people are armed, much like the US, and invading is not realistic for that reason unless you just want to destroy and not occupy.

Let's say Atlantis faced continual threats of a military nature from a particular nation state. Nothing prevents the people from starting a much larger fed-based military to protect them all and face that threat specifically.

The key is voluntary rather than forced contributions, and a political mechanism that bypasses political coercion. You will never be forced to pay for the military in this place.

Major Dan

01-24-2012, 10:27 AM

The key is voluntary rather than forced contributions, and a political mechanism that bypasses political coercion. You will never be forced to pay for the military in this place.
Then you'll never have a military. You will not get donations from people that feel,
"not threatened."

Anenome

01-24-2012, 10:35 AM

I think it goes a bit beyond just an "assumption of incompetence."
Driving isn't hard to figure out, and the test is largely a joke. It's become literally nothing more than a revenue source for the gov. Why does california relicense you every year, your car, every four years for your driver's license, tags -on- your license plate. It's all because of this assumption that driving is a privilege the gov grants you rather than property you own and bought yourself and are responsible for.

First it creates an atmosphere of orderly driving, which if you see in places like India, Brazil or even China, there is just chaos it seems.
I honestly think that's more cultural than anything. The west has a long tradition and etiquette around driving based on both horse-riding and later horse-drawn carriages and over 100 years now of actually driving cars.

Which do you think makes a place safer, more road signs or fewer (more or less regulation)? In the US, they found drivers are actually safer drivers when there are no lines in the road and no stoplights or anything.

Secondly, it was a revenue source for road, bridge and tunnel building.
Which will be unnecessary in a place where roads are automatically built by the sea.

Somebody needed to put the road infrastructure in place.
It could've been done privately even back then, we just didn't have any tradition of libertarian thought back then.

As it turns out driving is the most dangerous thing we do on a daily basis, so it makes some sense that you know people can drive before letting them behind the wheel.
This is the typical line, but have you ever applied a critical eye to this reasoning? Who cares more whether you die, the government or you yourself? You do. You're not likely to try anything you think is dangerous, and you've more than likely grown up watching people drive and being driven around in traffic for a decade and a half (say 16+).

Beyond that, we're entering a future where driving will become an automated activity that we don't do but have machines do for us. This is another reason why high-resolution GPS is becoming more important, as it's an important component in a city-wide automated driving system.

Just my two cents on the matter. Also, young adults, teenagers, really are bullet proof, or feel that way.
Sure. But I'll bet even after automated driving systems are more than possible, that societal ossification will mean that gov still keeps treating people as a money sink in the driving arena and probably prevent automatic driving from being used at all.

Anenome

01-24-2012, 10:40 AM

Then you'll never have a military. You will not get donations from people that feel,
"not threatened."
If the people are that short-sighted then they deserve what happens to them.

Right now we live in a state where we are mollycoddled, but there would be a cultural change in people who live in the state I envision where there's no government social safety net and no safety of land. Here, people would actually have to save money rather than expect others to pay their bills if they lost their job, and people would provide for their own protection rather than rely so much on police and military.

In such a place, people should naturally begin to be responsible for themselves and be forward thinking about things like national defense. And if no one sees a need for national defense, so be it.

They can join a charter city that has, as part of its charter, a tax on income to pay for an actual military. But joining such a place will be voluntary. I'm only trying to give you how I would create a charter city, not how other's would, and mine would be libertarian, and that's my version of how a libertarian city would pay for its defense needs. If it proves untenable, a simple charter change can fix it.

VenomUSMC

01-24-2012, 10:46 AM

The US's military isn't exactly purely voluntary, since the threat of the draft remains. The US military at this point in time is purely voluntary. The last person drafted retired last year.

The draft would be actively illegal in Atlantis, because if a society's people don't consider it worth defending I can't condone pressing them into service against their will. I assume that any freedom-loving democracy, such as Atlanteans would be, would have those ready and willing to defend their way of life against aggressors. Well that's an assumption that in this day and age I wouldn't agree with no matter how good a country was going. Also a draft wouldn't do a lot to help your country if attacked regardless.

Now, because I talk about the absolute minimum of what the military has to be, you're thinking I'm saying the place would have a tiny military. But what I'm actually saying is that the place can have as large a military as its citizens feel they need. And political mechanisms exist to facilitate growing or subtracting the military in response to the people's perceived need for one. Well the larger the military the larger the cost. Especially when you start buying expensive military hardware and maintaining it (jets, naval ships, etc). Also simply leaving it up to the people, which sounds like mob rule, to grow/shrink the military freely seems like a huge gamble to me. In addition to the time and resources required to grow a military what happens to those when you shrink it? For example since you brought up the draft. If the United States decided we needed 10 million military personnel overnight that would take months to simple train new personnel. At a minimum to be the most basic Marine (not even having an occupational specialty) is 3 months of training.

The US military has a long history of shrinking during peace time (and getting rid of entire MOS') only to need to quickly grow during a time of conflict and retrain and re arm people.

In addition to the personnel aspect there is the gear aspect. Are you just going to stockpile weapons, ammunition, cammies and other gear for when you need to expand your military? Or are you going to have a rag tag group with a random assortment of weapons and a horrid supply chain?

Probably the main defense of Atlantis from nation states is that it would quickly have nuclear weapons. Why? Because its legitimacy as a nation is openly questioned world wide. Until you have significant military power in that form, or a jurisdictional land-based monopoly, which Atlantis will never have. So their only option really is to develop nuclear weapons soon for self-defense. Reason enough for another country to attack you prior to developing a nuclear weapon which doesn't happen overnight. People may very well see a country that is based around mob rule as a possible threat.

Luckily this is particularly easy on the water. Want to hide something from satellites, simply submerse it in water. Entire enrichment plants would go undetected almost entirely. And uranium can actually be mined directly out of seawater. The development of these underwater labs would not only be extremely vulnerable but also getting the resources to just build the underwater labs would probably be noticed. Hiding underwater does not make one invisible. So now we have a new island nation, with percieved mob rule, attempting to hide their nuclear weapon development. Also wouldn't this have to get the blessing of the citizens?

Now, let's look at New Venice, which borders a South East Asian country of some sort and faces regular attacks of piracy from elements on the mainland on shipping and human transports. New Venice's citizens start an initiative to boost military capacity, and rather than raise taxes, its citizens can subscribe to a fund monthly on a voluntary basis to drop cash into the military effort, and can withdraw that payment authorization at any time. In extreme times, say world war, they could in theory buy bonds, such as the US sold during WWII. So now you have a military with an undefined, inconsistant flow of income. Not good. Are they allowed to go into debt buying required gear and paying for whatever else is needed?

They begin rapidly building up their navy and air-force, probably building lots of military support robots rather than training a ton of troops. Well while not only not realistic at this point it's clearly a very risky strategy. Building ships can take years. Training personnel, working out kinks. Then your "support robots", the US military just had their most advanded drone hijacked. This is not looking good for your strategy.

Remember that future war will be more automated and require fewer and fewer actual people. This is a theory and certainly unproven. Even with the most advanced drones we have today nothing has yet to come close to replacing well trained people.
Boat drones are already in testing phases right now--saw video of that about two weeks ago. And drone aircraft would be in place as a matter of course. Atlanteans would be likely to fund geostationary satellites for real-time views from overhead as well. What happens when your drone army is crushed by simply destroying your satellites? There have been missiles around for awhile designed just to do that. Boom your robot army is useless. Of course you can send a signal from a group based system (ignoring LOS issues or anything else that can soak up your signal).. but then you run into jamming devices.. which we have today and can block signals that way as well.

So, what would prevent New Venice from having the same military force as any city? Well, a city is much smaller than a nation. True, but it's also true that anyone within Atlantis can subscribe to that same military fund, or even multiple funds, to support the cause of New Venice, and other cities can send their forces, and the Fed itself can send its forces, coordinating them electronically. So you have essentially a bunch of allies that may or may not step up to the plate when one city is attacked?

Now you have to collected forces of a nation in place. Maybe... it sounds like it's optional to me from what you've said and also the fact that the time required to react coordinate puts you at another disadvantage.

What I'm looking at is a region that certainly doesn't require a standing military of the size of the US, but probably more like a European country. What's to gain in invading a place like Atlantis anyway? All of its people are armed, much like the US, and invading is not realistic for that reason unless you just want to destroy and not occupy. Assuming everyone is armed is a mistake (just like saying everyone in the US is). You may have an insurgency but someone that may invade you for whatever reason (they just want you dead, want your resources, etc). Of course a lot would see an underwater, secret nuclear weapon development program as a reason to invade. Also history has many cases of countries being invade for little to no real reason.

Let's say Atlantis faced continual threats of a military nature from a particular nation state. Nothing prevents the people from starting a much larger fed-based military to protect them all and face that threat specifically. Sure. However again time and resources are against you. Anyone would notice a military build up and could strike well before you had the means to properly mount a defense.

The key is voluntary rather than forced contributions, and a political mechanism that bypasses political coercion. You will never be forced to pay for the military in this place. Then it is my believe that military would be a skeleton crew most likely and impotent.

Major Dan

01-24-2012, 10:48 AM

If the people are that short-sighted then they deserve what happens to them.

Right now we live in a state where we are mollycoddled, but there would be a cultural change in people who live in the state I envision where there's no government social safety net and no safety of land. Here, people would actually have to save money rather than expect others to pay their bills if they lost their job, and people would provide for their own protection rather than rely so much on police and military.

In such a place, people should naturally begin to be responsible for themselves and be forward thinking about things like national defense. And if no one sees a need for national defense, so be it.

They can join a charter city that has, as part of its charter, a tax on income to pay for an actual military. But joining such a place will be voluntary. I'm only trying to give you how I would create a charter city, not how other's would, and mine would be libertarian, and that's my version of how a libertarian city would pay for its defense needs. If it proves untenable, a simple charter change can fix it.

How old are you? You would think that is how it works, it don't. Maybe, 30% of the people are that responsible. The rest, no they are not, they only think for themselves and today.

Maybe your nation could change that, though, it would take a generation or two, but time again and again, most people just don't or can't or will not look past themselves and today. It is sad really.

Spend some time in the military, oddly enough, of the people in uniform the number jumps maybe up to 50-60% in the officer core and 40-50% in the enlisted core. Maybe because of what they do, they see the bigger picture most people can't /will not see. It may also have to do with the amount of education one receives by the military to make things equal.

Anenome

01-24-2012, 11:21 AM

The US military at this point in time is purely voluntary. The last person drafted retired last year.
But the threat of draft remains; the draft is not illegal in the US. It would be in Atlantis.

Well the larger the military the larger the cost. Especially when you start buying expensive military hardware and maintaining it (jets, naval ships, etc). Also simply leaving it up to the people, which sounds like mob rule, to grow/shrink the military freely seems like a huge gamble to me.
The subscription is gov sponsored by elected officials and administered by them, it's just up to the people whether or not they pay for it. So it's not mob rule, there's political accountability, the gov simply doesn't have the right to coerce payments out of you (unless you give it to them willingly by joining a charter that specifically features it).

In addition to the time and resources required to grow a military what happens to those when you shrink it?
Depends on the nature of the conflict and the demands of the servicemen and women. Since this is a contractual society, if they demand a long term contract, then that will be dealt with accordingly. I assume people would generally take more money for a shorter-term contract.

For example since you brought up the draft. If the United States decided we needed 10 million military personnel overnight that would take months to simple train new personnel. At a minimum to be the most basic Marine (not even having an occupational specialty) is 3 months of training.
Sure, but again, this is a future military more dependent on machines than shock troops. Lot easier to crank out military robots overnight than troops.

The US military has a long history of shrinking during peace time (and getting rid of entire MOS') only to need to quickly grow during a time of conflict and retrain and re arm people.
Sure. What if you kept the MOS and the regular troops were machines. Lot cheaper, easier to ramp too. Machine-based military would be scary to some perhaps, but increasingly necessary and viable.

In addition to the personnel aspect there is the gear aspect. Are you just going to stockpile weapons, ammunition, cammies and other gear for when you need to expand your military? Or are you going to have a rag tag group with a random assortment of weapons and a horrid supply chain?
It's really up to that eventual nation. I don't pretend to be a military planner of any sort. If their experts decide to stockpile military weaponry then they will. My role is to provide a political and legal framework, and nothing in my role would stop either decision.

Reason enough for another country to attack you prior to developing a nuclear weapon which doesn't happen overnight. People may very well see a country that is based around mob rule as a possible threat.
:\ It's not based on mob rule for god's sakes. There is the rule of law. Where does this assumption of mob rule come from? There are laws, there are police, there are courts both legal and civil. What am I missing here.

The development of these underwater labs would not only be extremely vulnerable but also getting the resources to just build the underwater labs would probably be noticed. Hiding underwater does not make one invisible. So now we have a new island nation, with percieved mob rule, attempting to hide their nuclear weapon development. Also wouldn't this have to get the blessing of the citizens?
I don't disagree, but there's really not much another nation could do about it even if they suspected it. Especially if Atlantis were a matured and populous nation state with some 10m+ citizens at that point. Land area and population would quickly rival Israel, a nation-state with nukes. And absent actual threats on other nations, and being a freedom loving democracy, I don't think any other nation would have incentive to attack ahead of time :P Probably the US would be concerned and negotiate behind the scenes to prevent it, but you just pull an Israel and do it secretly and never acknowledge it. Becomes an open secret.

Are they allowed to go into debt buying required gear and paying for whatever else is needed?
Long term debt is not allowed. In emergencies, okay I guess, but I'm planning political mechanisms that make the kind of debt the US has built impossible. One of these is a gov organization that is capable of taxing government expenditures and using them to pay down the debt. Imagine if the US had an office of debt repayment which had the power to tax government spending and use the proceeds to pay down the debt and possibly even a veto power on continued deficit borrowing. That's really what we need, but it won't happen in the US until after the debt brings crisis.

Then your "support robots", the US military just had their most advanded drone hijacked. This is not looking good for your strategy.
Drones are in their infancy. The US's drone got hijacked because it's a fairly dumb drone. They won't be dumb for long. You cut GPS on a drone in 2015 and you won't be able to trick it into not flying home via GPS spoofing, as it will be using its senses to determine location by other means.

This is a theory and certainly unproven. Even with the most advanced drones we have today nothing has yet to come close to replacing well trained people.
It's not a theory, it's already in place--let me explain. We've long since begun replacing people with equipment. We did this when we began putting more hardware on an individual soldier: bullet proof vests, and soon a computer on every soldier to multiply their capabilities. Drones are extending this even further, allowing smaller numbers of troops to do what would've taken a far larger force in the past.

Extend this trend out indefinitely and you end up with something like this:
A single guy in a mech-like full-body suit, basically iron-man-like power armor, capable of surviving everything from bombs to biological, chemical, and nuclear attack. And he's leading a squadron of ground and air drones which he commands and which are capable of lethal force. You can eventually replace an entire platoon with a couple highly-trained human beings and a lot of intelligent drones.

Admittedly, that's a far future concept, probably 50 years off, but not at all unrealistic.

What happens when your drone army is crushed by simply destroying your satellites?
No viable drone force has a single point of failure. Like I said already above, there's multiple ways to fly home, mostly based on increased intelligence.

There have been missiles around for awhile designed just to do that. Boom your robot army is useless.
Nope. People don't need GPS, neither will drones with enough intelligence.

Of course you can send a signal from a group based system (ignoring LOS issues or anything else that can soak up your signal).. but then you run into jamming devices.. which we have today and can block signals that way as well.
You can navigate by sun, by stars, by magnetic sense, by landmarks, by water currents, by unjammable-laser beacon from satellites, etc., etc. It's really not an issue long-term.

So you have essentially a bunch of allies that may or may not step up to the plate when one city is attacked?
Sure. If the Fed drove a defense drive, I doubt many would say no. Do we tend to ignore people being attacked now whom we consider fellow citizens? Nope. One person on death row in Iran, with dual-citizenship no less, makes international headlines.

Of course a lot would see an underwater, secret nuclear weapon development program as a reason to invade.
Must not be very secret then :P

Also history has many cases of countries being invade for little to no real reason.
Not in modern history.

Sure. However again time and resources are against you. Anyone would notice a military build up and could strike well before you had the means to properly mount a defense.
True of any nation.

Then it is my believe that military would be a skeleton crew most likely and impotent.
Cool, let's agree to disagree! ^_~