New country (again)

[Fragment]

If you look into crime data reports, they do separate forable and offenses.

Do they? Where? Most of the data I see separates based on the name of the crime. And a lot of crimes don’t distinguish. Sex with a minor under 13 in the UK is rape, regardless of the circumstances. You might be able to find more detail if you look at full court transcripts to see if violence, force, coercion or deception is used. But that’d require reading through pages and pages to find out about a single case.

But no-one cares about that. As was mentioned over 90% of people are against AMSC. You say “there are more MAPs than we know”. It’s true- but even a lot of those MAPs are against sex with minors. Just look at VirPed.

Legalization, even if it happens, is well down the line.

[Outis]

I think a new state shouldn't be just for maps. For one thing, population decline, another is that I don't think a state should be focused on a single narrowly defined agenda such as being just for gays, just for maps, just for petrol heads, just for sports people. I think any state has to have some level of diversity and be multifaceted in its objectives.

What I think does work is starting with a constitution that protects all citizens rights to relationships, respect, human rights etc. It could even be explicit further in this by stating that this includes all LGBTQ, straight, maps and any other sexuality. It recognises maps as a sexuality and behaviour is not determined by sexuality, behaviour is covered under laws of that state.

Laws would develop over time but would never target any one group or sexuality. So rape and abuse laws are good, but apply to all sexualities and people. There could still be an Age of Consent for actual sex if that's what citizens wanted but intolerance of maps or treating maps differently would not be tolerated since it's against the constitution.

Governance would be entirely citizen run.

The constitution is the bedrock and so protects the rights of everyone.
People can vote on matters of the state such as economic decisions, laws, business, services etc, but they must always abide by the constitution. So you couldn't have a sex register that if a constitutional right is a right to privacy or it's in the constitution that no register or list will be used to group citizens for matters of the law or rights. So you couldn't have a register of Jews or a register of pedophiles or a register of criminals etc.

Get the constitution right first.

Then build an economy. Praxis is building an economy and citizens vote on how it's used. What projects are funded, what groups need to form, they are also buying land from a state to form an independent city state and encourage people to relocate there once it exists, to create a real state with real people living there. Build a business park, residential property, infrastructure. Start with a town and build out a city state.

Will it work for Praxis? Who knows, maybe it will become the first true democracy where citizens run it. Have DAOs for government departments such as healthcare and law. For example in the law and justrice DAO department, proposals and goals are set out and citizens can see them and vote on them. Lets say a law is proposed to change AoC to 28, well citizens have a month to debate and discuss this proposal and vote on it.

[FairBlueLove]

I think there are more MAPs on Earth than those against it.

Wait a sec.... So you think that, given we are 5% of the world population, there is more than 90% who just don't care?

Why do you sound like you have disdain for my opinion?
You say 5%, based on the revenue projections for some PIMs I think we are far more than what is calculated. Regardless, 5 percent of billions is a huge number of the population.

It was a mathematical remark to point out what seems like an impossibility. No disdain intended. I agree that there are more MAPs than we might naively estimate, however.

[TMKnight]

The way I want to be governed is this. The only laws I would agree to follow are "An ye harm none, do what ye will." The immortal words of the Wiccan Rede, regardless of your ideology these two laws make up every other law that exists.

However, my only change would be to put "free will" ahead of "harm none". Because if harm is first then no one can partake in sports (as an example). Most fun things in life borderline or are dangerous, the risk of harm is always there. No one should tell another what risks they should and should not take. The risk is theirs.

The only exception to free will I would accept is for youths to take some kind of education up to and including arithmetic and language arts. Or when those two cardinal laws are broken then should someone face being chastised. Anything else would be an agreement and choice to work within the agreed-upon duties to your employment, citizenship, partnership, friendship, so on so on.

So long as my actions cause no harm, or take away someone else free will then I should be able to do what I want, when I want, wherever I want.

The only acceptable time I can harm someone, or something is in self-defense; the defense of another person, property, or animal; and if I had no intent or malicious and I took great care in preventing harm. For example, I should be allowed to drive a hundred miles an hour anywhere, but if I hit someone and I failed to stop or failed to take actions that might have prevented the injury or death of a human, animal, or property depending on which one of those it was the level of punishment would fit the crime. Obviously, we will not put someone to death for killing a mailbox, but should have killed an animal or human then you not only caused harm but most people would not choose to be hit by a reckless driver.

I also want to live in a place where if I work I do so for passion or willingness to serve the greater good of the community as a whole. I do not want to live where money is the focus. I want scientists, engineers, doctors, teachers, farmers, chefs, carpenters, and countless other examples to do those jobs because they love what they do and not have to love their jobs based on how much they earn. If that makes any sense.

I want to live in a place where facts and data are the cornerstone of the society. Something to kin of Jacque Fresco's vision is not too far from where I am. If there are only 100 trees in a world and a hundred people and it takes so and so time for those trees to recover we cannot take them all give each of us one. Something has to be taken into account how long does something take to grow back or can be replenished, how much is there before and after, is it recyclable, does it have more than one use that might cause it to be used up faster. Then I might accept someone telling me I have a limit on something as long as there is independent data to support it. Mr. Fresco says the world should be a resource-based economy. Again not to kin from where I am.

I am sure I missed something, but there is a lot there. My island idea would be a land of no money, two laws, and god-willing happiness. Does any of that make sense?

[Outis]

The way I want to be governed is this. The only laws I would agree to follow are "An ye harm none, do what ye will." The immortal words of the Wiccan Rede, regardless of your ideology these two laws make up every other law that exists.

However, my only change would be to put "free will" ahead of "harm none". Because if harm is first then no one can partake in sports (as an example). Most fun things in life borderline or are dangerous, the risk of harm is always there. No one should tell another what risks they should and should not take. The risk is theirs.

The only exception to free will I would accept is for youths to take some kind of education up to and including arithmetic and language arts. Or when those two cardinal laws are broken then should someone face being chastised. Anything else would be an agreement and choice to work within the agreed-upon duties to your employment, citizenship, partnership, friendship, so on so on.

So long as my actions cause no harm, or take away someone else free will then I should be able to do what I want, when I want, wherever I want.

The only acceptable time I can harm someone, or something is in self-defense; the defense of another person, property, or animal; and if I had no intent or malicious and I took great care in preventing harm. For example, I should be allowed to drive a hundred miles an hour anywhere, but if I hit someone and I failed to stop or failed to take actions that might have prevented the injury or death of a human, animal, or property depending on which one of those it was the level of punishment would fit the crime. Obviously, we will not put someone to death for killing a mailbox, but should have killed an animal or human then you not only caused harm but most people would not choose to be hit by a reckless driver.

I also want to live in a place where if I work I do so for passion or willingness to serve the greater good of the community as a whole. I do not want to live where money is the focus. I want scientists, engineers, doctors, teachers, farmers, chefs, carpenters, and countless other examples to do those jobs because they love what they do and not have to love their jobs based on how much they earn. If that makes any sense.

I want to live in a place where facts and data are the cornerstone of the society. Something to kin of Jacque Fresco's vision is not too far from where I am. If there are only 100 trees in a world and a hundred people and it takes so and so time for those trees to recover we cannot take them all give each of us one. Something has to be taken into account how long does something take to grow back or can be replenished, how much is there before and after, is it recyclable, does it have more than one use that might cause it to be used up faster. Then I might accept someone telling me I have a limit on something as long as there is independent data to support it. Mr. Fresco says the world should be a resource-based economy. Again not to kin from where I am.

I am sure I missed something, but there is a lot there. My island idea would be a land of no money, two laws, and god-willing happiness. Does any of that make sense?

That does sound like a nice place and better than my idea. I like simplicity and this ideology is simple and has good core principles.
Shaping that into a real community is a good goal in life.

I've said before that I don't know if these new state ideas would ever really work. They may remain novel ideas and experiments or some may actually take root. My philosophy is it's better to be inside them helping to shape them in case they do take root. Worse case it's a learning experience, best case we end up with a society that is much much better for maps.

[hershey]

Although forming our own functioning country is pretty clearly impossible, you might be on to something with this idea. In preparation for another post I plan to make soon, I've done some reading on gay neighborhoods, or gayborhoods. These are large communities of gay and otherwise queer people that formed primarily in the 60s and 70s. These neighborhoods were home not only to gay people but also to gay businesses and institutions: gay bookstores, gay movie theaters, gay newspapers, and of course gay bars. It was in these communities, in gay bars especially, where the queer community fostered a unique and enduring culture. Of course, gayborhoods were also important to queer activism. People with shared views become more powerful when they cluster together because then they get some political sway. They get to vote in local representatives and city councilmen who will support them, and they get to put their heads together and organize locally and effectively. I've been doing a lot of thinking about how we could form our own counterparts to gay bars and neighborhoods. Its a tricky problem to solve as our community faces very different circumstances to the queer community of the 60s, in a number of ways. It would be great to have more people putting some serious thought into this.

[Outis]

Although forming our own functioning country is pretty clearly impossible, you might be on to something with this idea. In preparation for another post I plan to make soon, I've done some reading on gay neighborhoods, or gayborhoods. These are large communities of gay and otherwise queer people that formed primarily in the 60s and 70s. These neighborhoods were home not only to gay people but also to gay businesses and institutions: gay bookstores, gay movie theaters, gay newspapers, and of course gay bars. It was in these communities, in gay bars especially, where the queer community fostered a unique and enduring culture. Of course, gayborhoods were also important to queer activism. People with shared views become more powerful when they cluster together because then they get some political sway. They get to vote in local representatives and city councilmen who will support them, and they get to put their heads together and organize locally and effectively. I've been doing a lot of thinking about how we could form our own counterparts to gay bars and neighborhoods. Its a tricky problem to solve as our community faces very different circumstances to the queer community of the 60s, in a number of ways. It would be great to have more people putting some serious thought into this.

It's a good idea that you should pursue, any kind of progress is still progress.

I also don't think it's impossible to form a new country, new countries new form. South Sudan 2011, Crimea 2014, Kosovo 2008, Bougainville is preparing for independence, Western Sahara possibly, Azawad 2012, Catalonia almost in 2017, Barotseland almost.

Or citystates like Singapore in 1965, East Timor island state in 2002, Palau island state in 1994, Naru island state in 1968, Monaco and so on.

To form a new state you would need to.

1. Define a border, such as buy an island.

2. Declare independence.

3. Establish a government. These projects I mentioned are forming the government ahead of step 1.

4. Seek recognition which is the biggest challenge. The biggest barrier is usually other countries objecting based on a dispute over the land, but if the land has been bought fairly on the understanding that it would declare for independence and that was in the terms of the same then the liklihood of objection would be much lower.

5. It must be able to demonstrate that it can maintain itself with an economy. Again, these projects are focusing on that early.

There are many micronations that are not recognised however, but they still exist and trade, just without that formal recognition. That could be enough.

So not easy but it's certainly possible. I don't think a nation of maps works, but a nation that isn't anti-map or anti any sexuality is perfectly possible.

[TMKnight]

There are three possibilities I see for building a new country.

First, there is land in Africa we might be able to buy. The areas I suggest have some questionable attributes about it.
Two, demanding land within a nation (likely the USA), where we could have independence similar to or maybe a bit better than the Native Americans have.
Three, If there was artificial gravity, I would like to build a space station. Which might be closer than we think but further than I am willing to accept. But an artificial island out on the ocean is our best bet.

In all cases, we need support from wealthy persons like Samuel Curtis Johnson Junior, or Robert Richards. With their connections and wealth, they could make these mere concepts a reality. At the very least I hope they would help me with my startup. But I did try reaching out to them. No response, either I suck at writing which I do. Or their handlers did not give them my letters, or they never got them. There are so many things. I wish I could have an audience with either man.

I know how to get these communities built. I just lack the resources. Why I want to start my business and talk to Mr. Johnson or Mr. Richards. They are just three names.

Lastly, I know that we all need to stop hiding and start taking a stand. The laws are being come to draconian hell they already are and they are getting worse. Because we are being lumped in with some of the crowds we are against or at least should be. We should be against human trafficking, forcible anything (on to a child), we want to see children with the same kind of freedoms any adult would have. Assuming the kids want it, but that should be their choice too.