Rebooting the constitution and starting a micronation

[wingnexius]

I was wondering what the possibility of making a new country would be and who would support the creation of a new country, especially their potentially wild politics. I have decided to embark on a project to organize all the documentation needed for creating a new country, including transcripts any international law regarding the insemination of a new country and colonization of areas including space.


One potential benefit to this project is getting an overreaching grasp of what constitutional law and politics really mean. It brings out the true character of a person to be in such a position of power as to be the author of laws and rights. I have noticed that the risk of corruption is high if left unchecked and one must always remember essence at the core of the ideal.


I have drafted a constitution and some aspects of a federal code for the preliminary overview of my peers. The constitution is based on the original united states constitution and includes Abraham Lincoln's emancipation proclamation, the bill of rights, and select amendments to the united states constitution, there are also expansions of passages and entire new sections. All modifications were done in the spirit of constitutional righteousness and to maximize benefits to the common people.


I know people would consider posting the entire constitution of this hypothetical country a wall of text, so please have a look at https://archive.org/details/irislund and read over the documents there to read the current documents regarding the country. The project is what I like to call a "national portfolio" which has many elements of the actual country pre-conceived on paper and ready to be enacted.


Please take a moment to think of any changes, amendments, or clarifications you think are necessary to the constitution, federal code, or state/local laws. Please attempt to make any suggestions for code relevant to constitutional law (E.G. No laws banning annoying kids while shopping, etc...) and also make an attempt to work out issues and future proof ideas you present. I have gone through lots of different peoples ideas to help improve the constitution and make a better country, and I think I have gotten my draft developed enough that it is ready to unleash to the public.


Anybody who can cite me some law regarding the legality of creating a new country, for example; Setting up some permanent platforms in international waters and drudging up the ocean floor to pile it up into an artificial island. Accumulate a population of permanent residents in the territory. Declare your independence and file for recognition in the UN. Use the micronation as a launchpad into space and asteroid mining to create the first space dwelling colony!


Not only the chances of being recognized, but would the sovereignty of the citizens be ensured, for example, to repel an invasion of pirates? What process must be adhered to to create a new nation? What are the laws of colonizing space? Any help in understanding the particulars increases the possibility of actually achieving this someday!


I would like to note that this work is a legitimate attempt to perpetuate freedom for future generations and should not be considered simply a manifest.

[Ronin Truth]

I predict a lonely job.

Good luck.

[TheTexan]

This works great, but be sure to get permission first

[helmuth_hubener]

Just so you know, newcomer: Ronin Truth is just being snarky and bxm is being sarcastic. Obviously "getting permission" is docile, in-the-box thinking and not something we libertarians would encourage, in general, though sometimes it may be useful.

I would recommend getting the books Starting Your Own Country and Lonely Planet's Guide to Micronations. You can also read a "book" of sorts on Seasteading at the Seateading Institute website. Buying a boat and living on it and declaring it an independent nation may be one of the most practical ways of starting a micronation, and I would suggest you look into it. On another hand, Vit is having tremendous success, almost unbelievable success, with his new nation Liberland in a small unclaimed territory along the Danube. You could try to duplicate those results by finding some other patch of land with an unclaimed, disputed, or otherwise quirky status.

There are many possibilities you could pursue and many of us are highly interested in the possibility of such projects succeeding. If you are serious, keep posting, and you may get more help than you expected.

[Dianne]

Are you kidding? The United States and The New World Order would mow it down within seconds, unless you agree to be part of the World Bank and hand over all your citizens' money.

[TheTexan]

Remember to also keep in your Constitution a catch-all provision that enables the government to do whatever it wants, otherwise you end up with the problem we have today, where when the government does what it wants, there's an irritating minority making annoying claims about it being "unconstitutional" and what-not.

[Occam's Banana]

Remember to also keep in your Constitution a catch-all provision that enables the government to do whatever it wants, otherwise you end up with the problem we have today, where when the government does what it wants, there's an irritating minority making annoying claims about it being "unconstitutional" and what-not. And don't forget to use mealy-mouthed waffle-words like "general welfare" - those can be a great help against extremists who want to pin you down to clear and specific meanings ...

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

I for one welcome our new one post overlords.

[RonPaulIsGreat]

Best chance of libertopia would be to wait 10 years for reusable rockets to get perfected and thus getting into orbit will be cheaper, and then do a kickstarter to start a moonbase, or a space colony.

[wingnexius]

Best chance of libertopia would be to wait 10 years for reusable rockets to get perfected and thus getting into orbit will be cheaper, and then do a kickstarter to start a moonbase, or a space colony.

The moon treaty and the outerspace treaty would shut that down unless the colony was activated by an already existing nation and for example was not exerting an extension of the territories of said nation.

[Spikender]

Just move to Liberland and help them get started.

[osan]

I was wondering what the possibility of making a new country would be

Nearly zero under conditions of the general status quo. When national stability degrades to a point, then perhaps one has their greatest chance, but peaceable secession is not terribly likely these days. Which of the raft of power-mad little corporals you see parked behind me here do you think will simply say "OK, diminish me and make your own nation"? Right.


I have decided to embark on a project to organize all the documentation needed for creating a new country, including transcripts any international law regarding the insemination of a new country and colonization of areas including space.

Non-starter endeavor. Your mind is stuck in the slave mentality, what with your appeals to "international law" and other "documentation". All this for whose benefit? So you can get permission to make your own country? You might benefit greatly by thinking on that bit for a good long while until the salient truth sinks in.


One potential benefit to this project is getting an overreaching grasp of what constitutional law and politics really mean.

You must be VERY young. :) I already know what it means. It is force and violence; death, poverty, misery, and endless injustice by the few against the rest. It is nothing better than this, and this is the rosiest picture of the truth.


I have drafted a constitution

It fails. I can do nothing but fail because that is what these things ultimately do. Why? Because people fail so long as they choose corruption over virtue, and they do that 99.999% of the time.

The human race was OK so long as they maintained a relatively primitive lifestyle and/or low population numbers. But once technologies reached a threshold of capability, everything changed very much for the worse, on the average.

Work it until you realize it is a waste of time. Then be satisfied that you have learned something actually worth learning. It will make you a wiser individual.

Good luck.

[luctor-et-emergo]

Get your finances together and hire some Dutch people. Find a shallow part of sea outside of territorial waters of another country and make an island. Done.

[Jan2017]

"Rebooting" the Constitution . . .
(jpg edit pending)

do we have a winner for the Rand 2016 Campaign slogan yet . . . ?

Well done 'mate !

[Christopher A. Brown]

I have drafted a constitution



It fails. I can do nothing but fail because that is what these things ultimately do. Why? Because people fail so long as they choose corruption over virtue, and they do that 99.999% of the time.

wingnexius, osan is a member that has failed or refused to agree and accept that the authors of the framing documents intended for Americans to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights and that the ultimate PURPOSE of free speech is to enable the unity required to effectively alter or abolish.

This post is going to be an education for the sincere American lurker, or you if you are a sincere American.

The idealism and naïveté your idea presents indicates the strong possibility that you are a schill for the covert cognitive infiltrators of the forum to beat down.

The concept you present is one the elite oppose. Accordingly they want to demonstrate it failing over and over so they've coordinated various schills to present concepts they oppose to try and get the sincere public to give up on the idea before it becomes something Americans might consider and there are numbers enough to make it happen.

Our existing constitution of 1787 is a great place to start and thing to perfect if your intentions are sincere. Consider, there are millions that already believe in it and support it and it really does define valid absolutes of principle.

Accordingly, IF you are sincere about what constitutions can provide, THEN you will post that you agree and accept these two principles.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

Agreeing with and accepting these prime principles does not mean you should give up on your ideas. In fact, agreeing with them works towards assuring you will have an environment in which to share them that has PERFECT context.

Lurkers, pay attention here!

[wizardwatson]

wingnexius, osan is a member that has failed or refused to agree and accept that the authors of the framing documents intended for Americans to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights and that the ultimate PURPOSE of free speech is to enable the unity required to effectively alter or abolish.

This post is going to be an education for the sincere American lurker, or you if you are a sincere American.

The idealism and naïveté your idea presents indicates the strong possibility that you are a schill for the covert cognitive infiltrators of the forum to beat down.

The concept you present is one the elite oppose. Accordingly they want to demonstrate it failing over and over so they've coordinated various schills to present concepts they oppose to try and get the sincere public to give up on the idea before it becomes something Americans might consider and there are numbers enough to make it happen.

Our existing constitution of 1787 is a great place to start and thing to perfect if your intentions are sincere. Consider, there are millions that already believe in it and support it and it really does define valid absolutes of principle.

Accordingly, IF you are sincere about what constitutions can provide, THEN you will post that you agree and accept these two principles.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

Agreeing with and accepting these prime principles does not mean you should give up on your ideas. In fact, agreeing with them works towards assuring you will have an environment in which to share them that has PERFECT context.

Lurkers, pay attention here!

He's Back!

EDIT: Ok, looking at post history, looks like I just wasn't noticing him. Spooky.

[Christopher A. Brown]

He's Back!

EDIT: Ok, looking at post history, looks like I just wasn't noticing him. Spooky.

How about you? I know I've asked before, but its good the lurkers see your group in action.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

[wizardwatson]

How about you? I know I've asked before, but its good the lurkers see your group in action.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

You, know. I actually do agree with those two statements.

What's your point?

I prefer 'inalienable' by the way, but tomato tomato.

My agreement with Chris that began in this thread was not honored to my standards and was canceled by me under less than amicable circumstances.

I admit the statements are true. But HIS intent is anti-Christian by my account.

[Christopher A. Brown]

You, know. I actually do agree with those two statements.

What's your point?

I prefer 'inalienable' by the way, but tomato tomato.

That makes you educated and capable of critical thinking relating to your education about the framing documents and their basic intents. Unlike most members here.

You've gained more credibility than you may realize in my opinion, if that matters.

"Unalienable" is more accurate according to legal terms. Your rights cannot be "Liened". I do believe they mean the same basic things but the legal origins of "unalienable" probably apply more directly because that is exactly the termed used in the Declaration of Independence.

My point is that covert cognitive infiltrators cannot make that agreement and accept those principles because it goes directly against their agenda of preventing unity. Now I know you are a sincere American. There is no other way to tell in this medium.

[wizardwatson]

That makes you educated and capable of critical thinking relating to your education about the framing documents and their basic intents. Unlike most members here.

You've gained more credibility than you may realize in my opinion, if that matters.

"Unalienable" is more accurate according to legal terms. Your rights cannot be "Liened". I do believe they mean the same basic things but the legal origins of "unalienable" probably apply more directly because that is exactly the termed used in the Declaration of Independence.

My point is that covert cognitive infiltrators cannot make that agreement and accept those principles because it goes directly against their agenda of preventing unity. Now I know you are a sincere American. There is no other way to tell in this medium.

My agreement with Chris that began in this thread was not honored to my standards and was canceled by me under less than amicable circumstances.

[Anti Federalist]

I'm not sure how you know that I'm a sincere American.

You may notice I've put my own ugly mug as my actual avatar.

SiNcErE!

[wizardwatson]

SiNcErE!

Woof, woof.

[Christopher A. Brown]

I'm not sure how you know that I'm a sincere American.

The statement I said I agree with is about the framers, not me.

I'll tell you the story about how I developed this Internet forum test for sincerity.

First a little history into how and why I know it is needed.

I argued 9/11 from 2003 to 2009 because I actually know exactly how the the Twins were designed and constructed. I've got a structural engineering background and I saw a disappeared 1990 video doc about the design and construction of WTC1. I understood every word of it.

I also was nearly a BATF licensed blaster. All things considered I figured out how they were brought down. A PhD in physics found my site, called me up after scrutinizing it for weeks, I answered everyone of his questions to his satisfaction and we partnered with his web radio show, "Liberty Calling", Dr. Ron Larsen.

Anyway, as I was arguing demolition, I noticed that the just about the entire opposition would end up trying to tell me the towers weren't built as Zi know they were. Well I had good, independently verified proof. So basically anyone sincere that knew a little about structural engineering would see the facts and agree. About 5% did, then left. It spooked them that there was this huge group that refused to use facts, was completely unaccountable and backed each other up.

That was my intro to cognitive infiltration.

After 2009 I realized the entire 9/11 truth movement was a fraud for the most part. Even 90% of the sincere could not believe that the movement was comprised of agents with an agenda to NEVER acknowledge to true structure.

The reason for this is that the true structure, if known, would raise so many questions that it would undo the lie. The event is possible to understand with the false structure as the only structure. I backed away from that battle and focused on some other issues. Jumping around to various forums to see what happened.

I literally found every single vital
Issue staked out with a bunch of covert agents posting like the cared, but them when action to create change was proposed, they, as a group uniformly opposed it. When I got to the issue of the constitution and defense of it, I got really pissed and serious.

I knew I could at least devise a strategy to get past the covert groups derailing any unity upon functional activism, eventually. It took quite a bit of experimentation and experience, but finally I got the hang if their strategy.

Your capacity for critical thinking will be needed here.

They do not care what we talk about as long as it will not create change. Whatever will create change they must oppose it and if it has the potential to be shared and create unity upon its use, it is VERY important to oppose. These are rules if engagement for them.

The reason I knew I could eventually get past the effect of the covert groups is because so many people actually know and have a decent understanding of the framing documents.

It was just a matter of me breaking down the philosophical essence and simplifying the prime, basic vital principles. And of course if I did that AND it happened to also be something that had a potential for unity, it would be a triple threat.

I took a of the preceding with the basis of what the framers put forth that you agreed with and began posting at the dailypaul.com testing for "sincere Americans". Covert agents came out of the wood work. I posted in the owners thread "guidelines" what I was doing. And proceeded to do it. Three members agreed and accepted it offhand just as you did. Then I was banned.

The next day I registered at two other forums to find I was automatically banned from them.

I had registered here about the same time as dailypaul, but didn't post much. You will
notice the dailypaul is gone now.

After being banned at those two forums automatically I went to the patriotaction.net forum, there was a decent amount of agreement there. About this time the PURPOSE of free speech evolved from its biological breakdown, which is that the "purpose is to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood"; to the "purpose is to enable the unity required to effectively alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights" as the legal version.


The statement says "do you agree the framers intended". I didn't say I was on their side.

Why not? I mean millions of people support that intent. Albeit, they are deceived and mislead about how to manifest that intent, but that is only a matter of making methods clear.


But you seem lonely. I'll be in your club. If you don't like this medium by the way I can communicate by video in these threads. I've been playing with that medium lately. Kind of fun. You may notice I've put my own ugly mug as my actual avatar.

Throwing down the gauntlet!

I respect all of that, and have used another medium myself recently. A podcast.

http://algoxy.com/poly/CAB-podcasts.html

And I'll match your ugly mug with mine when I get online next with my laptop where I have an avatar I can upload.

I can understand the hesitancy to side with the framers that were not able to safeguard their republic well enough to prevent to near complete hijacking of the government that has occurred. But there are reasons and those are still fairly dominant so no matter what side you take, that infiltration, covert and otherwise will be there to try and dismantle your plan.

Accordingly, Im sticking with the framers plan, but taking the bugs out of it an streamlining it. The reason? Whenever a covert agent directly opposes the framers basic intents, and I bust them on it, any sincere American reading will know something is not right. Sincere Americans have a unique sense of what is American. Accordingly, they know BS when they see it. Which doesn't mean they know what's real or right, but hey, knowing the BS is half the job.

Hey, you saw through it and answered sincerely, and so I saw it right away. Nothing in your post quoted shows otherwise. You are looking more real than any Ive seen here.

Oh look, AF is jealous.

[CPUd]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvF4ZQAb16k

[Anti Federalist]

Oh look, AF is jealous.

No, I'm fucking tired of your "one star" games with my, and other people's, perfectly good threads.

[Christopher A. Brown]

No, I'm fucking tired of your "one star" games with my, and other people's, perfectly good threads.

But you didn't get a star, and cpud is posting spam.

What's so good about an idea that won't work? And what's wrong with creating an environment where it might be well heard and given a chance?

The Declaration of Independence, the constitution and the bill of rights at least work some of the time, isn't it good to get agreement upon what they mean?

Or are you against that?

[Ronin Truth]

I'm still busy booting the original one.

[Christopher A. Brown]

I'm still busy booting the original one.

Me too, but, at this stage, mostly those that refuse or fail to agree upon its prime principals.

http://image.yaymicro.com/rz_1210x1210/0/72f/butt-kick-72f84d.jpg

[jllundqu]

I predict a lonely job.

Good luck.

lol Your rep bar looks like a penis. Just sayin

[Occam's Banana]

lol Your rep bar looks like a penis. Just sayin

Your rep bar looks like it's been castrated ... :eek::p;):D

[Ronin Truth]

Just so you know, newcomer: Ronin Truth is just being snarky and bxm is being sarcastic. Obviously "getting permission" is docile, in-the-box thinking and not something we libertarians would encourage, in general, though sometimes it may be useful.

I would recommend getting the books Starting Your Own Country and Lonely Planet's Guide to Micronations. You can also read a "book" of sorts on Seasteading at the Seateading Institute website. Buying a boat and living on it and declaring it an independent nation may be one of the most practical ways of starting a micronation, and I would suggest you look into it. On another hand, Vit is having tremendous success, almost unbelievable success, with his new nation Liberland in a small unclaimed territory along the Danube. You could try to duplicate those results by finding some other patch of land with an unclaimed, disputed, or otherwise quirky status.

There are many possibilities you could pursue and many of us are highly interested in the possibility of such projects succeeding. If you are serious, keep posting, and you may get more help than you expected.


Gee, what would we ever do without you to really explain us to and about us? :rolleyes: Now that's snarky, and very well deserved, I might add..

[wizardwatson]

How about you? I know I've asked before, but its good the lurkers see your group in action.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

My agreement with Chris that began in this thread was not honored to my standards and was canceled by me under less than amicable circumstances.

[Spikender]

Why do you type like a broken AI based off of Thomas Jefferson, Christopher?

[Christopher A. Brown]

Why do you type like a broken AI based off of Thomas Jefferson, Christopher?

Hah!

One finger on an iphone about 70% of the time minimum.

I have no electricity or internet except for the phone. Occasionally I get to wifi at a coffee shop.

Then of course I've watched no TV for 17 years but do ponder natural law intensely looking for ways to awaken it in people inspiring unity. Such tends to work very well with those not burnt out with overly deep involvement in partisan politics.

Those who focus too closely upon it are drained of hope by it. I've know. since Reagan that it was a basic multi ring circus run by corrupt clowns.

That's why.

[Spikender]

That makes a lot of sense.

Though wouldn't it be corrupt ringmasters instead of clowns?

After all, clowns are the pawns used to distract us, not the ones in charge.

[Christopher A. Brown]

That makes a lot of sense.

Though wouldn't it be corrupt ringmasters instead of clowns?

After all, clowns are the pawns used to distract us, not the ones in charge.

True, but there are more than one kind of clown, and clowns have gained pervasive control within our neglect to maintain the quality of our society. This is enabled by the selection of them to get promotions because too few of us are testing authority and holding them to standards acceptable for our survival and evolution. This is due to far too few of us observing or hearing the people, each other, we prefer the circus and leave the promotion and selection of leaders to clowns.

We tolerate this within our short term indulgence as it is preferred to addressing unreasoned fears collectively promoted by default in evasion by dark clown masters, as social theatre imposed on us with lethal violence for millennia.

Therefore we leave it all up to clowns rather than being "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" by maintaining with vigilance, our simple agreements of what and how to defend our unalienable rights.

[wizardwatson]

That makes a lot of sense.

Though wouldn't it be corrupt ringmasters instead of clowns?

After all, clowns are the pawns used to distract us, not the ones in charge.

How would define a clown?

I would define it along these lines...

http://i.imgur.com/RpWFFh8.png




http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?478636-Recommending-removal-of-RPF-reputation-system-to-minimize-cyber-bullying&p=5933110&viewfull=1#post5933110

Everyone in this topic except for me is a certified pussy bitch starstarstar.

[Christopher A. Brown]

I have drafted a constitution

Still hoping to get an answer upon this aspect of the intent of our existing constitution and framing documents.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

[Ender]

Still hoping to get an answer upon this aspect of the intent of our existing constitution and framing documents.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

Do YOU agree and accept that the only real founding document is the Declaration? That the Constitution was a coup by big gov proponents?

[wizardwatson]

Do YOU agree and accept that the only real founding document is the Declaration? That the Constitution was a coup by big gov proponents?

We hold these truths to be self-evident.

Chris needs us to sign in blood, so he can get his world savior merit badge from Dances with Wolves.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Best place to do it is in Canada. Vast open stretches of uninhabited land. Access to water, either lakes or the vast stretches of coastline. So long as you don't do too much environmental damage, I can't see why Canadians wouldn't agree to let you have a portion of land for a couple hundred billion. If the experiment was a success, further territorial advancements could be made by gaining the support of the Canadian people, and signing land treaties with them (not likely). Or conquest (much more likely).

Realistically you sort of have to get the land from an existing power. The only real virgin land left is:

1) Antarctica
2) Under the ocean
3) Floating on top of the ocean (barge society)
4) Space apartments (possibly connected to a space elevator)
5) The Moon
6) All the other planets in the universe.

-Antarctica is really impractical of course. It's below freezing all the time, there's no natural resources (except maybe ice). And the sea freezes up every year, making establishing a reliable port or harbor difficult. Also, there's almost nothing scenic about an endless icy wasteland. The human mind couldn't take it, it would be like living in the 7th level of hell.

-Under the sea would be amazing. Unfortunately the pressure is enormous down there. Underwater hotels have been built, but only in fairly shallow water. If you're imagining large picture windows of the ocean, forget about it. Besides, it's dark down there. Likely, most human interaction would be inside, as if you're living in a spaceship. Anyone going outside would need to go through an airlock. Not only would the living environment be enormously expensive to build, but it would also be dangerous. One pressure leak could spell doom.

-A barge society might actually have a pretty good chance of working. Unfortunately, the ocean can be turbulent, and the weather can get wild out there. The barges would have to be real big to avoid turning with the waves, but also sturdy enough to avoid breaking apart. The key will be to figure out an inexpensive way to build them. But once you have the infrastructure, the rest is great. The societies would be mobile, able to drift to whatever port they wanted. Either to trade, to fish, or just to sight see. Barges could operate independently. Whether choosing to band together or go off independently traveling on their own. This is such a good idea in my opinion, that I expect it to be implemented sometime in the future, probably before we get cheap space travel.

-To have space apartments, you've gotta have a space elevator. You just gotta. Space travel with rockets is unbelievably expensive, and goes up by the pound. The only reasonable way to cheaply get goods and people up and down off the earth is a space elevator. Apartments could surround the elevator and be built in whatever architecture you wanted. Gravity could be implemented by centrifugal force, which means it can be dialed up or down and adjusted how every you like. Pressurized environments in space are still fairly expensive, and you'd be always living in fear of a pressure leak, perhaps from a micrometeorite. Also, you'd need radiation shielding since you don't have an atmosphere protecting you anymore. But the real limitation here is the space elevator. If we can figure out an easy way to assemble Carbon nanotubes, we're golden.

-The Moon is the next logical place to expand to. Unfortunately, it's got a lot of problems. First, no atmosphere, which leaves you exposed to radiation, and meteorites. Second, low gravity, which could possibly damage the human body structure if tolerated for extended periods. As far as travel goes, you could possibly trade with the earth using a giant rail gun (ala The Moon is a Harsh Mistress), since there's no atmosphere to interfere with the propulsion of the gun. Unfortunately, for Earth to trade back would be enormously expensive, since they're in the middle of a huge gravity well. You might need a space elevator. Otherwise, the society might have to become somewhat self sufficient to be practical.

-Space faring technology is on it's way, although it might be a few hundred years in the making. When that time comes, we'll likely see an explosion of innovation in government. We'll have Communists going off into their little enclaves. Bio nationalists going off into theirs. Libertopia will have a place too. The societies will grow over time wherever they lay, and eventually come into conflict, with the most powerful society winning. (Survival of the fittest baby)


We all know libertarian ideas will win in the end, because it fits the best with human nature. (Unless human nature is changed, either through a postmodern machine society, or a Eugenics society, or something). It's just a matter of time. The world isn't quite ready for it just yet, we're still in the conception phase. But as soon as we have the freedom to implement the idea, it will take off like wildfire. Just like how America's innovations in government swept across Europe, toppling monarchies left and right.

[Christopher A. Brown]

-A barge society might actually have a pretty good chance of working. Unfortunately, the ocean can be turbulent, and the weather can get wild out there. The barges would have to be real big to avoid turning with the waves, but also sturdy enough to avoid breaking apart. The key will be to figure out an inexpensive way to build them.

I agree. You have a creative mind.

I've thought about this a good deal too.

Ferrocement is the material to build with. Swell action can provide energy as segments rise and fall. Energy storage could also be moorings of ferrocement. Compressed air or hydrogen and oxygen from electrical generation and electrolysis. A viable product to sell.

The larger the barge assembly, the more energy.

There are islands that could be leased for construction which are actually partially underwater with tides facilitating launching of very large barges.

Shipping might end up a major income asset in some way.

Once large assemblies were complete, construction could be done at sea.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Do YOU agree and accept that the only real founding document is the Declaration? That the Constitution was a coup by big gov proponents?

Yes I do agree and I rely on the Declaration for the prime intents to perfect the constitution, because it is law. At least it is accepted that the Declaration provides the intent for the constitution and Article V exists as law in order to perfect it.

It's a matter of using the law despite the infiltrated governments hijacking of politics and free speech.

My reliance on the Declaration inspires the agreement I seek to proliferate in order to invoke the power of law and perfect the constitution. It was a coup, but not a complete one, or we would long ago be under a monarchy. It's seems quite possible with our incessant attention to state governments compelling them to alter or abolish the behemoth, according to the implied but fully logical intentions of the a Declaration by the asking of these questions and creating unity according to them, we can stop the coup from completing and return the freedoms that the Declaration intended.

How do you answer?

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

[Christopher A. Brown]

We all know libertarian ideas will win in the end, because it fits the best with human nature. (Unless human nature is changed, either through a postmodern machine society, or a Eugenics society, or something). It's just a matter of time. The world isn't quite ready for it just yet, we're still in the conception phase. But as soon as we have the freedom to implement the idea, it will take off like wildfire. Just like how America's innovations in government swept across Europe, toppling monarchies left and right.

Americas innovations in government have been overridden by corporate media in a 1.5 century effort to corrupt the people.

Now the people operate from a basis of fear, without enough knowledge or courage to even identify the primary principles underlying the foundation of the government you refer to. It appears that their fear or confusion is so great and so deeply based in uncertainty, that their mental product of critical thinking, if they can do that, is not trusted.

If that was not true, these questions would have been answered in the affirmative many times.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?