For moving around a watery city, compressed air engines would be ideal for water-taxis and the like.
One thing I haven’t talked about is a wave-wall around the city, which it needs to tame swells. This wave-wall can also be a compressed-air harvestor. It’s hard to describe in print, but I found a design for a wave lense capable of guiding waves around any structure, via a series of square pylons, and it’s this design I want to use to tame the swells. Behind the wave-wall would be relatively calm water, such as that inside a harbor. A byproduct of it could be putting solar cells on the tops of these, and the wave the wave-wall works, it collides waves together in process of lensing them around the city, thus it can harvest compressed air out of these unnaturally large swells created in it. Still investigating this, but it would be fantastic to have wave energy providing relativley cheap energy for us.
Why don’t we extend the concept of a grand-jury to civil cases? Right now, in the US, the grand jury system doesn’t exist for civil cases. They would quickly determine while speaking to the complaining party if there’s anything to the suit, reviewing the complainant’s evidence and okay a trial if there’s something to it, thus avoiding frivolous lawsuits before involving the defendant.
Secession is the heart of it. You’re not free if you can’t walk away. And if you can walk away from a sick system, it will crash on its own. Our current US system is completely ill, but it only continues to work because of what I call ‘citizen capture’–which is to say that the people who would love to leave and join a free society ultimately have nowhere else to go, so they’re forced to bear the burdens others decide to place upon them. It’s simply wrong.
Certainly, and it’s just as important to leave certain things open as it is to lock down other things, and wherever I find myself fuzzy my tendency is to leave it open to individual jurisdictions to decide until I find a principled reason why things should be done one way or the other.
Let me lay before you the derivation of the right of secession. It derives from the right of free association. It is a new political right that I intend to promot as a solution to our current ills. Everyone has the right to freely associate with whom they will, and one corollary to that right is the right to not associate with whom you would not like to.
The US system of taking from peter to pay paul and all the sick redistributionist policies rely on citizen capture and the inability to escape the aggression of those whom lay laws upon us against our will.
To institute this new right is to forever relegate redistributionist Bismarckian politics to the dustbin of history and thrust the primacy of individual decisionin political matters to the forefront.
I actually have a good answer for this, I believe.
First, we view children as free-decision making human beings whom are not yet mature enough to make decisions for themselves, so we would say that their parents hold them in trust, in essence a living-fiduciary responsibility. Parents can make decisions for them as long as they don’t aggress against them (naturally).
Now, the parents, ostensibly a married couple, would likely be of the same jurisdiction (in most cases by far), and would raise their children in that same value structure and thus the same jurisdiction.
The question then arises at what point do the kids become self-responsible and how do we handle that?
The answer is that there will not be some arbitrary age, such as in the US which uses 18. Rather we need to use an obejctive measure of when a child becomes an adult. And that measure will be when the child is able to support-themselves fully, financially and otherwise. They’ve moved out on their own and are self-supportive. At that point, we can reasonably say they’ve taken on adult-responsibility for themselves, they’ve taken the keys to their own life. They now are removed from their parents jurisdiction actively and have no jurisdiction and must actively choose which jurisdiction they would like to live in.
This point of actively removing them and allowing, in fact demanding, a free positive choice is to prevent jurisdictions from simply assuming citizens will continue within it. Since this is a voluntaryist nation, every citizen must actively choose to join the jurisdiction they live in. We cannot assume any child will choose to live where they’ve grown up, that they just inherit a jurisdiction, such as US cities do. Such would be an aggression and removes the idea of voluntaryism and human choice.
Some kids that point might be ager 13, some it might be in their 20’s, who knows, but for everyone that point comes.
Ah, I like that 
I’ve thought about votes done with hashing algorithms, and rather than register a vote you’d log a hash and then everyone would reveal their private key at the same point at which point you’d find out who voted for what en masse, and this would be particularly difficult to fake 
Regardless, there’s so many ways to game the voting system–no one really can check to make sure all the votes are legit, and so the greatest protection against vote stealing we could ever have is to place the locus of control with the individual and make sure a right to micro-secession remains in place. Stealing an election won’t do anyone any good if all the citizens can simply walk away from a bad politicians by cloning the jurisdiction and building a new one next door
I haven’t talked about it much, but a lot of these concepts virtually require the internet as an enabling techology. Like, the idea of cloning the laws structure–that’s a term taken right from Git-hub, where one can clone a set of programming code, fork it, and make your own changes. This idea of algorithmic law and treating law as code is very interesting to me
True It’s just an idea I’d had and liked, but ultimately it may not even be necessary given the other more reliable ways of escaping bad law-making such as the threat of secession It could be something that the US could adopt later as a step towards a system of this type, a personal veto and removing unpopular politicians not through yearly elections but through instant recalls to kick them out of office.
Since the confed’s main role is to keep the city-states honest, they would leave prosecution of a company to the city-states. Though, if a city-state were blatantly allowing a company to violate basic rights, then it would itself be prosecuted by the confed and then the company’s protection is gone too.
One area where anarchist libertarians have completely failed to provide any legitimate solutions is the situation where an aggressor has captured some victims and holds them in a state of slavery or the like. The overpowered have no power to seek outside help or notify anyone. We need in this instance a legal entity capable of investigating things that it is not personally involved in, such as a general police power. Someone whose job it is to enforce basic rights on a societal basis. The confed and the FBI would take care of this and ensure that we don’t have some aggressor cities with a weird charter holding women and children as slaves or w/e.
To return to your question, since this is a contractual voluntaryist society, simply existing within the confines of the Confed’s territory means that everyone inside has agreed to abide by those basic rights constitutionally protected. So, a business would be expected to abide by at least those basic rights if they want to remain within society and not make a charter violating them. We would not put up with anyone who thinks they could rape anyone who comes on their territory just because it is their own private property. There is a line there. Yes you can do what you want with your property, but other people are not your property and you must abide by basic rights.
It will be important to make sure those basic rights are particularly well defined, but I don’t foresee that being a big issue. We’ve got a pretty good handle on basic rights already, except that I’m adding the one basic rights of political-secession.
I think it prudent to leave it open like that. This should be a flexible society with as much freedom as possible Back in the day, the Venetians had their own military, as did several other city-states. And why should we ask a safe city in the depths of a nation to pay for the military needs of those choosing to risk their lives to do business on a frontier?
But ultimately, if a city-state is unable to handle a local problem with another nation-state or large-scale threats on another nature, I think everyone would rally to them and agree that the confed should come to their rescue, and that the nation would choose to finance a military venture to defend those being aggressed against.
Yes, it was exactly the idea of Jubilee that inspired that concept It might be extremely healthy for a society to go back to some concept of Jubilee, a 50 year reset on all contracts and laws. I’ll have to think about that, but my sense is that it would be better written into the charters of city-states than forced constitutionally, since it strikes me as more of a good thing to have than an essential feature, and this is an essentialist state
Probably would be good put into a local charter
I’m looking at a couple seamounts off the California coast–which happens to be particularly suited to this concept, having very small eddy-currents that travel past the shore.
Initially I’ll start just into international waters, some 14 miles off the coast. But eventually we’ll be forced into “true” international waters somewhere about 140 miles out. There’s also a couple seamounts near Hawaii that may make good candidates to anchor to.
After that, after showing it a viable way to live, after putting in place a functioning society and proving it works, sky’s the limits
I’m taking your words to heart, thinking and looking into ways to get this concept some more exposure when the timing is right. Probably early next year I can get a dedicated website up, start promoting it further, and work on a business plan to take it full time
I estimate that building a factory or a house on a floating structure wouldn’t cost more than creating a regular house, especially with the cost of housing and land in California! Especially waterfront property!
Important for me is to continue working on the engineering aspects of interlocking floating structures so I can be on top of that when time comes to make the first large-scale prototype, and to start producing the documents needed to get that dedicated website ready to unveil
These exchanges are really great too because you can help me find and consider aspects and challenges I may have missed and need to think about and find solutions for. But I’ve now found enough solutions during the past year or so that I think the system is nearly mature enough for me to write up the first Individualist Constitution, which will enshrine the principles necessary to underlie the first Confed, including the basic rights and protections the confed will enforce.
Immediately when this nation gets going, I want to found at least two more Confeds alongside it, so that people don’t get stuck on the idea of there being only one and that it’s somehow a sin to leave one confed and make another. Ultimately I can see several confeds based in various oceans, and one day some in space or on other planets.
The ideas we’re talking about are revolutionary, and they’re the only revolutionary ideas in the world right now, because the true revolution is not to take power from one group and give it to another–history is full of that, that changes nothing, and that is all the left, the socialists and the like, are trying to do. That is a mere return to barbarism. The true revolution is to demolish the concept that anyone controls you but yourself, to give power to the individual and demolish the socialist ethic that underpins all modern nation-states, including the US, enshrined within the idea of majority rule.
No majority rule. Individual rule. And the individual that you rule is yourself and no one else. The result is true freedom. That is the truth about human nature. You control yourself, you can never control another, no one can control you, and it would be immoral to try.
Atlantis will be the first nation-state to institute the ethic of the non-aggression principle within a political system, for the majority vote is indeed an aggression on those who vote against a law that ends up forced on them anyway.
Majority rule was a huge improvement over the rule of princes and kings whom ruled by whim with absolute power. But we will offer the world an even greater improvement: true freedom.