Difference between revisions of "Protected Waters"
(→Arguments Against) |
|||
| (6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
If initial seasteading were done in protected waters the engineering of the structures would be easier and the costs would be lower. So there are advantages to starting out where the waves are not too big. This is one of the [[seastead]] startup strategies. It allows for a more incremental approach than going directly for open ocean with big waves. | If initial seasteading were done in protected waters the engineering of the structures would be easier and the costs would be lower. So there are advantages to starting out where the waves are not too big. This is one of the [[seastead]] startup strategies. It allows for a more incremental approach than going directly for open ocean with big waves. | ||
| − | |||
| − | It might also be reasonable to start [[User:Vincecate/FloatingVilla|Floating Villas]] off a taxhaven like Anguilla with the intent to move further and further out over time. | + | == Arguments In Favor == |
| + | |||
| + | # As long as you were not fishing or drilling for oil, and kept moving, countries should not complain if you pass through their EEZs in the [http://www.balticseasteading.com/ Baltic] or [[Legal|Mediterranean]]. | ||
| + | # It might also be reasonable to start [[User:Vincecate/FloatingVilla|Floating Villas]] off a taxhaven like Anguilla with the intent to move further and further out over time. Initially you would have to operate under the laws of the country you were near, but if chosen well this might not be too bad. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Arguments Against == | ||
| + | |||
| + | # Being close to an existing government increases the chances that they take notice and try to do something to obstruct things. | ||
| + | # There is a danger that what was initially planned as a temporary step on the path to open ocean becomes the permanent location. | ||
| + | # People and cargo coming and going need to pass through one of a limited number of countries zones. It makes it easier for those countries to group together and influence what happens on the seasteads. | ||
| + | # Even inside protected waters you can sometimes get big waves. For example a [http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/03/03/cruise.ship.wave/index.html?hpt=T2 26 foot wave killed 2 people on a cruise ship] in the [http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&source=hp&q=Barcelona&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Barcelona,+Catalonia,+Spain&gl=ai&ei=fHOPS-D6J9GUtge9qa2HCw&ved=0CAgQ8gEwAA&ll=38.410558,13.447266&spn=18.426723,70.3125&z=4 Mediterranean]. | ||
Latest revision as of 08:55, 4 March 2010
If initial seasteading were done in protected waters the engineering of the structures would be easier and the costs would be lower. So there are advantages to starting out where the waves are not too big. This is one of the seastead startup strategies. It allows for a more incremental approach than going directly for open ocean with big waves.
Arguments In Favor
- As long as you were not fishing or drilling for oil, and kept moving, countries should not complain if you pass through their EEZs in the Baltic or Mediterranean.
- It might also be reasonable to start Floating Villas off a taxhaven like Anguilla with the intent to move further and further out over time. Initially you would have to operate under the laws of the country you were near, but if chosen well this might not be too bad.
Arguments Against
- Being close to an existing government increases the chances that they take notice and try to do something to obstruct things.
- There is a danger that what was initially planned as a temporary step on the path to open ocean becomes the permanent location.
- People and cargo coming and going need to pass through one of a limited number of countries zones. It makes it easier for those countries to group together and influence what happens on the seasteads.
- Even inside protected waters you can sometimes get big waves. For example a 26 foot wave killed 2 people on a cruise ship in the Mediterranean.
