[Home]History of Sealand/Talk

HomePage | Recent Changes | Preferences

Revision 15 . . November 18, 2001 9:59 am by Ryan Lackey
Revision 14 . . November 18, 2001 9:34 am by SJK
Revision 13 . . November 18, 2001 4:45 am by Ryan Lackey
Revision 12 . . November 18, 2001 4:27 am by SJK
Revision 11 . . November 18, 2001 3:59 am by Ryan Lackey
Revision 10 . . November 18, 2001 3:47 am by SJK
Revision 9 . . November 18, 2001 3:12 am by Ryan Lackey
Revision 8 . . November 18, 2001 3:04 am by SJK [where is this legal site?]
Revision 7 . . November 18, 2001 3:02 am by Ryan Lackey [comments]
Revision 6 . . November 18, 2001 2:38 am by SJK
Revision 5 . . November 18, 2001 1:00 am by SJK
Revision 4 . . November 18, 2001 12:48 am by Ryan Lackey
Revision 3 . . November 17, 2001 2:00 pm by SJK
Revision 2 . . (edit) October 27, 2001 8:43 am by Justfred
Revision 1 . . October 27, 2001 8:37 am by Joao [not an oil platform]
  

Difference (from prior major revision) (no other diffs)

Changed: 82c82,90
Frankly, you are a whacko. Anyone foolish enough to think a small group of private individuals can just start their own state without an army or without any serious international support is a whacko. Your legal arguments are irrelevant: people can find psuedo-legal arguments for just about anything. Even if a very small minority of legal experts (at least some of whom are long dead) supports you, that doesn't show that you aren't a whacko: it just shows that even distinguished legal experts can be whackos at times as well. The law is ultimately a creature of politics, and no amount of abstract legal argumentation can prove something which is an absolute politicial impossibility to be legally binding. -- SJK
Frankly, you are a whacko. Anyone foolish enough to think a small group of private individuals can just start their own state without an army or without any serious international support is a whacko. Your legal arguments are irrelevant: people can find psuedo-legal arguments for just about anything. Even if a very small minority of legal experts (at least some of whom are long dead) supports you, that doesn't show that you aren't a whacko: it just shows that even distinguished legal experts can be whackos at times as well. The law is ultimately a creature of politics, and no amount of abstract legal argumentation can prove something which is an absolute politicial impossibility to be legally binding. -- SJK



The legal case is only important in as much as it helps in practical realization of sovereignty. One route is having a massive military, enough to intimidate the US and UK. Another way is by winning the PR battle, either by getting a powerful ethnic/religious group on our side (e.g. Israel/US), or by solving a political problem (FRY), or by being relatively inconsequential (most caribbean nations). The legal argument is interesting in the abstract, but is only one factor in the reality of the situation.

I think that we are continuing to exist shows that we've made it more painful to attack us than to ignore/tolerate. And we persist in making money, and have sufficient technical means to accomplish our goals, using crypto and tamper-resistance. And we have other states who are entirely willing to set up additional datahaven zones for HavenCo. We have sufficient recognition to do what we want, and then trend over time is certainly in our favor.

There *are* people who have tried this kind of thing -- using jurisdiction to avoid or evade various regulations in the past. They have -- made poor countries with not a single sailor into registrars of a good percentage of the world's shipping -- made islands in the caribbean with initially nothing into the *biggest* reinsurance centers in the world -- created headquarters for some of the world's biggest companies on small islands in the middle of nowhere -- etc. And as you mentioned, the various African states of the 1800s, plus various caribbean states of ~20-30 years ago.


HomePage | Recent Changes | Preferences
Search: