Rebooting the constitution and starting a micronation

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.
 
-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.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
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?
 
Back
Top