A new country!
Poll
 | 2 votes (18.18%) | ||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| | 6 votes (54.54%) | ||
| | 3 votes (27.27%) |
11 members have voted
The idea of an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is supported by most nations. A nation is entitled to a zone extending 200 miles from it's shores, for exclusive fishing, and exploitation of natural resources. Looking at the map of Japan's EEZ, you see that there are two uninhabited islands to the South, and to the East that are responsible for securing a big chunk of the ocean.
So important are these flyspecks that if you zoom in on one of the island/reef with google earth of some other software at ( 20°25'22.76"N 136° 4'26.25"E) you can see that the Japanese government has shored the island up with shiploads of concrete, so that some typhoon doesn't accidentally wash the top off, and have it go under sea level.
Naturally, islands like these are contentious. The fact that an uninhabited island would grant a nation exclusive use of over 100,000 square miles of ocean must be contentious.
Do you think we will see the day, that some insignificant reef, will be used to create a new country with virtual members that exists solely for the reason of protecting assets from the existing governments? Perhaps a requirement will be mandated that the citizens tie up their mega yachts once a year for a few days.
It would be if the land was free for the taking. It isn't. You'd need to make two things happen: first, occupy the land claimed by someone else without them successfully taking it back by force. Second, convince trading partners you're legitimate enough to be willing to risk trading with you.Quote: jml24Scott Adams recently blogged on a similar topic. Would it be worthwhile for companies to form such countries to avoid existing government entaglements? If they did, how would that be different from say, China?
It goes without saying that the resources of even the largest corporations are not generally able to accomplish this. I could see an exception for very small Pacific island states, but in that case I would expect larger nations to form some sort of cartel and refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of a land sale.
Quote: thecesspitSee : [link = "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand]Seeland
TheCesspit's link doesn't work. Here's where he intended to link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand
It's fascinating stuff.
This "Principality" looks like, and is the size of, a small off-shore oil platform:
http://www.sealandgov.org/
Quote: jml24Scott Adams recently blogged on a similar topic. Would it be worthwhile for companies to form such countries to avoid existing government entaglements? If they did, how would that be different from say, China?
The hard parts would be protection and participation in world trade.
Say some piss-poor Sub-Sahara African country offers to build a 10-square mile ministate. Sure you can move your HQ there, but what is to stop even a weak neighbor from invading. Then there is the fact that such a place would never be allowed into the WTO.
Enough small islands already to try it on.
Quote: DJTeddyBearSee : [link = "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand]Seeland
Thanks, corrected. The fort, and other WW2 gun forts (The Shivering Sands) in the Thames Estuary have a interesting history.
I find micro-nations curiously interesting.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: jml24Scott Adams recently blogged on a similar topic. Would it be worthwhile for companies to form such countries to avoid existing government entaglements? If they did, how would that be different from say, China?
The hard parts would be protection and participation in world trade.
Say some piss-poor Sub-Sahara African country offers to build a 10-square mile ministate. Sure you can move your HQ there, but what is to stop even a weak neighbor from invading. Then there is the fact that such a place would never be allowed into the WTO.
I am not so sure about your assumptions. Let's say Google decided to establish Googleland and relocate their corproate HQ there. Googleland is built up on a tiny island somewhere far from any established nation. What benefit would the major nations of the world get by refusing to trade with it? Googleland residents would have lots of money and would need to import all their material goods. They would continue to provide services that the rest of the world is currently willing to pay for. They would also still maintain a large economic presence in all major countries via their subsidiaries.
The same arguments apply to security. I am sure Googleland could afford a security force sufficient to fend off pirates and smaller nations without much naval power. Larger nations could easily occupy Googleland but it seems that Googleland's larger trading partners might come to the rescue.
To me the more interesting question is if this would be worthwhile to Google. The benefit would be reduced taxes and the ability to tailor the local laws to attract employees at a lower cost. Would this be offset by the costs? IOW maybe the existence of a state actually offers Google a net benefit. Given that Google is already very efficient at avoiding taxes I think this may be the case.
Quote: WizardAlthough Americans are terrible at geography, I am worried somebody will confuse Sealand with Sea World, and think it was some kind of amusement park souvenir.
I think you can develop a prepared speech where everything you say is legal and truthful. Just describe the principalities of Europe (Andorra, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Monaco), and say the Sealand is also a principality. Show them the coin, and say that they play international sports. Tell them how to say Sealand in Spanish and Dutch (just translate the words).
The last decade saw an impressive expansion in its activity both socially and industrially as it began to develop a growing economic base which underscored its long-standing membership of the international community of States.
Quote: WizardI see that Sealand sells identity cards. I'm thinking of buying one, perhaps to use take advantage of some Vegas promotions for which locals are not eligible for. This, I might add, makes me a little morally uncomfortable, but the art of disguise is a normal part of advantage play.
It might make you more uncomfortable than that. Disguise is one thing. Misrepresentation in a business transaction in order to gain something is fraud. You don't want to end up gambling on chess with chips made of soap and toothpaste, do you?
Quote:That issue aside, can the non-American members comment on what American casinos ask to see in terms of identification for establishing a player card?
It varies. First try at a card, which was at the Sahara (I was staying there) in 08, I used my driver's license but that was rejected. I wound up showing my US visa, which at the time was a credit card sized card with a color photo. Afterwards I sued that exclusively in all my next trips (including the one with you and teddys at the Rampart). Until I tried to get one from the Golden Nugget. They asked for my DL!
Quote: WizardI see that Sealand sells identity cards. I'm thinking of buying one, perhaps to use take advantage of some Vegas promotions for which locals are not eligible for. This, I might add, makes me a little morally uncomfortable, but the art of disguise is a normal part of advantage play. That issue aside, can the non-American members comment on what American casinos ask to see in terms of identification for establishing a player card? For example, do they demand a passport, or will anything that looks somewhat official do? Although Americans are terrible at geography, I am worried somebody will confuse Sealand with Sea World, and think it was some kind of amusement park souvenir.
I've used by British and Canadian driver's licence to sign up for cards in Nevada and Washington. Some places in Washington wouldn't take the UK licence. I've never had to show my passport. I don't think I would either.
Quote: Wizard... can the non-American members comment on what American casinos ask to see in terms of identification for establishing a player card? For example, do they demand a passport, or will anything that looks somewhat official do?
Here's the opposite side of that issue: I'm American, and I have had a number of casinos object when I present a U.S. passport as ID when joining a players' club. They seem to want the ID to have a mailing address printed on it. Sometimes they will accept a passport plus business card (with all the addresses), but sometimes that won't do. Then I just tell them their club and perhaps their casino aren't worth the bother.
Quote: Wizard... I am worried somebody will confuse Sealand with Sea World, and think it was some kind of amusement park souvenir.
I'd be more worried that they'd confuse it with the SeaLand shipping company, as I initially did.
Quote: NareedMisrepresentation in a business transaction in order to gain something is fraud. You don't want to end up gambling on chess with chips made of soap and toothpaste, do you?
I see you read the Gambling in Jail article.
I suppose you're right. It just irks me that locals get second-class treatment when it comes to our own casinos.
Quote: WizardI see you read the Gambling in Jail article.
And remembered some of it, too :)
Quote:I suppose you're right. It just irks me that locals get second-class treatment when it comes to our own casinos.
Can you could get a business address in Arizona and obtain a driver's license there?
Quote: WizardI see you read the Gambling in Jail article.
I suppose you're right. It just irks me that locals get second-class treatment when it comes to our own casinos.
I thought some of the casinos are the reverse, the locals get a better deal and options than the tourist.. some of the longer term promotions are better for locals, surely?
Quote: NareedTime to stake out a claim for Nareednia :P
I think you can do better than that for a sovereign name. How's about Nareedonia? Nareedistan? Nareedland? Nareedsterdam? The Grand Duchy of Nareedica? The capitol could be Nareedville, or maybe Nareedopolous.
It's part of the game.Quote: WizardIt just irks me that locals get second-class treatment when it comes to our own casinos.
Is it any different than being a loyal customer of (insert company name), and seeing the super cheap, new customer promotion that you can't get?
Quote: Wizard
I suppose you're right. It just irks me that locals get second-class treatment when it comes to our own casinos.
I am a little suprised they treat locals worse,. I can see it when they hand out total freebies suchas way back when you could get a Sands coffee mug by showing your out of state drivers license. They didn't want the locals to abuse it. But in general I would think more play is more play.
Don't locals avoid the strip in any case because locals joints have better games?
Quote: jml24
I am not so sure about your assumptions. Let's say Google decided to establish Googleland and relocate their corproate HQ there. Googleland is built up on a tiny island somewhere far from any established nation. What benefit would the major nations of the world get by refusing to trade with it? Googleland residents would have lots of money and would need to import all their material goods. They would continue to provide services that the rest of the world is currently willing to pay for. They would also still maintain a large economic presence in all major countries via their subsidiaries.
It is not about "refusal to trade" but that trade would not be on the best terms, ie: "Most Favored Nation" status. Russia is not in WTO last I checked, I doubt Iran is in it either. This means higher tarriffs on your goods. "Googleland" could be denied a top-level domain and be at the mercy of other nations as to having service shut off. Their phone lines could be denied connection to the outside world.
Yes, they might want to import quite a bit, but nations get testy when the purpose of a nation is to avoid paying tribute, er-taxes. Ask a Carribean state who has lost their online poker industry. Ask Ireland whom France wanted to make impose a "harmonized" tax rate.
Quote: AZDuffmanI am a little suprised they treat locals worse,. I can see it when they hand out total freebies suchas way back when you could get a Sands coffee mug by showing your out of state drivers license. They didn't want the locals to abuse it. But in general I would think more play is more play.
Don't locals avoid the strip in any case because locals joints have better games?
I've written about this before, but you see promotions all the time that say things like "Show an out of state ID and save x%." As someone who used to play lots of tournaments, many were strictly not open to locals. My host at the Wynn was very frustrated by this, saying she knew lots of worthy local players, but they had a very firm policy that locals couldn't play in their table game tournaments. She recommended I obtain an out of state ID somehow. Many locals do that. I keep meaning to try to get one from California with my parent's address.
The locals casinos generally have the same table game rules. The video poker and slots tend to be looser. The best part about the locals casinos is the prices are cheaper.
Quote: Toes14I think you can do better than that for a sovereign name.
Actually the name Nareednia precedes the name Nareed. It's too late to change it now. And the capital city's name is Neerandra.
Should that fall through, my alternate favorite names are Brainania and Vorlonia.
If I ever get to create my own country, I'm calling it Christland.
No worries, I'm still agnostic, but I'll convert.
Remember that cruise ship that ran aground at high speed when its captain decided to engage in Public Relations Oriented Navigation without his eyeglasses? One of the first boats to respond was the Italian Financial Police... an agency charged with a great many duties one of which is the taxation of mega-yachts that overstay their welcome in Italian waters. It seems the on-board paperwork and the Observed locations of the vessels are not often the same. French laws are similar too. Owners always seem to sail (on paper) prior to being subjected to local taxation. Woe betide the captain who keeps an honest log book!
The owner of the Santa Barbara Free Press was once sailing her yacht by a shore with a donkey tethered to a tree. The captain was ordered to send ships officers to liberate the animal and the officers, aware of possible objections by the locals, are said to have equipped themselves with pistols from the ship's armory before doing so.
And remember, The Belgian Congo? Initially it was merely The Congo, owned privately by the King of Belgium as his personal property.
Quote: Toes14I think you can do better than that for a sovereign name. How's about Nareedonia? Nareedistan? Nareedland? Nareedsterdam? The Grand Duchy of Nareedica? The capitol could be Nareedville, or maybe Nareedopolous.
Nareed already had dual citizenship.
Mexico and Freedonia.
Quote: buzzpaffNareed already had dual citizenship.
Mexico and Freedonia.
Isn't everyone a citizen of Freedonia?
Quote: buzzpaffStop that. I laughed so hard i spit out my duck soup.
You forgot to say you were spending the night at the opera. Hmpf!
BTW, for thsoe of you who ahve no clue what this is about, look up this quote: "I would never join a club that would have me as a member."
Freedonia, of course, was the name of the fictional country in Duck Soup, and the city fathers wrote to Paramount and asked the studio to remove all references in the film to Freedonia because "it is hurting our town's image". Groucho fired back a sarcastic reply asking them to change the name of their town because "it's hurting our picture".
