[ExI] "new communities out of the reach of governments"

[painlord2k at libero.it]

Il 14/02/2009 19.56, Jeff Davis ha scritto:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 3:16 PM, painlord2k at libero.it
> <painlord2k at libero.it>  wrote:


> I totally disagree.  Well, okay...not totally, maybe.  But I have a
> problem with the  default assumption that if you start a new and
> independent community somebody is gonna come after you.  The current
> tone of American involvement in the world is colored by paranoia on
> the one hand and an unrestrained enthusiasm for "applied" militarism
> (driven first and foremost by the profit motive) on the other.  This
> alone would explain the instant uncritical credibility of the "They're
> gonna get ya!" reflex.

I don't think that anyone will try to take over the micronation 
immediately after it start.
The bigger problems will be criminals and criminal activity.
I don't think that the US Navy will want to be involved in such mess.
It is like shooting to a fly with a cannon.

But flies have enemies. Little enemies.
So, micronations need to be strong enough to survive against 
microenemies (say criminals, organized crime, pirates).

Then, if and when they have some degree of success, they will grow (this 
is the measure of success). But when they will grow, they will start to 
show on the radar of big players. Then the need of big friends, allies 
and big sticks will show.

> The world sees all, and may choose to get involved (on which side?).
> Modern techno-states whose people enjoy (and insist upon) high levels
> of wealth and FREEDOM have immensely complex, interconnected, and
> interdependent infrastructures profoundly vulnerable to asymmetric
> attack (ie "terrorism" without the hysteria and prejudice).

Say you are the host of people fleeing from persecution in Islamic 
countries, the muslims could came after you following their enemies.
Then you need to choose if bow and throw the persecuted in the water or 
resist the persecutors (and maybe teach them a bit of respect about you).

Maybe the Muslims would take over the place for their purposes (someone 
tried to take over Sealand, for example). Or maybe they will not like an 
infidel free around, or maybe you appear an easy target.

> These are only some of the factors which, to my way of thinking, make
> up the context for the question.  Others are motivation, and
> capability:  what factors would provoke and attack or make it
> profitable, and what factors might make an attack difficult to carry
> out?

I suggest to not think only to the USoA as a source of agression. There 
are many other lower powers, but much more willing to use their powers 
without scruples.


> A little note here:  I always have in mind a floating ocean community,
> which largely eliminates issues of territorial encroachment.  Largely.


Mirco