When I was living in Sealand >20 years ago (another micronation project), was fun tracking the other projects -- this one was one of the most successful. Liberland and a few maritime efforts were as well. Surprisingly few attempts, really.
The new "network state" theories are a lot more interesting overall, though -- creating new groups of people FIRST, then building out progressively more solid physical infrastructure (potentially in different places), then networking them.
"In 1947, after the post-World War II peace treaty forbade Italy to own or operate bomber aircraft and only operate a limited number of transport aircraft, the Italian Air Force opted to transfer some of its Savoia-Marchetti SM.82 aircraft to the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, pending the definition of their exact status"
I think I did some talks about it ~15 years ago which are probably online. A quick search brings up some stuff but I don't remember which were about Sealand which were about the business. Overall, not horrible; water for showering was limited (rain and a watermaker which often clogged), food/cooking were intermittent (we got grocery deliveries from Tesco to a nearby dock and brought them out every 1-2 weeks)
I've discovered I can tolerate almost any local conditions (tiny dorm room, Sealand, sleeping in a car, trailer in Iraq, tent in Afghanistan, random tiny apartment, hotel, airport lounge, 5 star hotel suite, villa, etc. are all not that different) as long as I have Internet.
I'm currently looking at getting a (50-80', solar, nice) sailing catamaran in a few years and doing RTW trips on it.
I've also found that I can tolerate a variety of lodging conditions and harsh environments, especially cramped ones, so long as I have Internet. I wonder, what psychological mechanism is at play here that allows us to trade comfort for connectivity?
Huge life hack for early career if you are living condition and location independent is to work at direction of employer in some location they pay for; saves a lot of money. Might be a compound in Saudi Arabia with a villa and driver, might be a corp apartment in Mexico City, etc.
(not an expert, but based on my research to date:) 50' is borderline (one competent captain, potentially the owner, and one of the passengers helping out at times; of course if you're doing passages, etc you need multiple humans for 24x7 watchkeeping, even if one of the watches is held by someone only competent enough to wake the master. i.e. it's just at the limit of what a couple can probably manage themselves. 40-45 is probably better for that, but for passagemaking across the Pacific you might want bigger, and for group charter use bigger is somewhat better, especially since when you charter you almost certainly will have 2+ crew)
80' is absolutely full time paid captain, full time paid mate (potentially engineering or water toy support), and a steward/also mate-when-needed. If it's being used fully, probably need 2-3 other crew for rotation, and potentially would go 3+1 for a heavily chartered 80'. The paid captain at 80' is not merely for driving the boat but also the management of staff, maintenance scheduling, charter management, etc.
80'/24m is also where the commercial regs come into play (which I'd probably be trying to meet anyway), and 80' cat is already going to have a hard time with marinas in a lot of places (due to being wide, as well as long), but due to solar + good watermatermakers + excellent tenders, could probably operate at anchor far more than otherwise.
I'd probably do the "Boat DAO" model with the 80' and have 4-6 rentable cabins (not true retail, but within friend network, etc, and more particular when I'm using it). This is the specific boat I want: https://sunreef-yachts.com/en/launched/sunreef-80-eco-141/ (although by the time I'm in a position to order, and wait 2-3 years for production, there may be something better, and I'm hoping Starlink, lithium-ion batteries, etc. continue to improve -- mainly from a cost and maintainability perspective.)
Part of my motivation is that some of my friends are doing a lot of Seasteading related stuff and I'd want a boat to be able to visit/stay during some of those events using fixed platforms.
Would probably run Caribbean (where I live) from mid-NOV to mid-MAY (hurricane season avoidance), and then summer in Med, for at least a year or two, then do 2-3 year RTW journey once or twice. My plan would be to personally occupy it ~3 months out of the year at least, and to be able to charter entire boat or individual cabins for enough to defray most of the operating costs if successful. Spending the next couple years getting familiar with sailing around the Caribbean as well as obviously earning more money to be able to afford this ($3-10mm capex, 10-20%/yr of that also total operating budget, although some fraction comes back as earnings). I think I could realistically crowdfund/investment contract ~50-75% of this as well if the business model works out, maybe through prepaid/discounted use. I might get a ~30' powerboat here in Puerto Rico since <41.5' can be lifted out of the water and put into a warehouse rack during hurricane season, and powerboats are far more useful for day and 1-3 day trips around here due to currents/winds. Something able to get to Vieques/Culebra/Culebrita and maybe to USVI or even BVI.
> When I was living in Sealand >20 years ago (another micronation project), was fun tracking the other projects -- this one was one of the most successful. Liberland and a few maritime efforts were as well.
Liberland was never an attempt at building an actual state, it was just a scam meant to generate PR and extract money out of gullible suckers willing to buy a citizenship of a nonexistent state. Liberland's claimed territory (Gornja Siga) is not exceedingly inhabitable, given that the Danube floods it with water multiple meters deep every so often. And their terra nullius story is a lie, as there was never a chance the existing states that manage Gornja Siga would allow for a rogue state to form.
The other thing is that the Liberland project was only announced in 2015, which doesn't fit your timeframe if I get you right.
I mean, for a given value of success... Hutt was allowed to continue in as much as their declarations of independence didn't really mean a lot, and he lost numerous court cases showing he did indeed owe tax. In the end it was dissolved and the land was sold off to settle the tax bill.
From where I'm standing (about six hours drive from the Hutt River), Sealand looked way more successful, with some actual court recognition it was outside of UK jurisdiction at various points.
In 2019 the claimant ('Prince' Leonard) died and less than a year later his kids sold the property (under Australian law) to divide assets and pay unpaid Australian taxes. So it has ceased to exist as a claimed sovereign state
I've written a little about "weasels" (Weakly State Like Entities) -- think Disneyland and Burning Man. I think the world is already full of things which do most of what micronations or network states aspire to. Activists who want to build something in this domain should be looking at buying a casino complex near an airport and redoing the decor and values more than buying land.
It's all about licensing and social norms in the end.
The right billionaire / fringe group / clandestine evil organization could do something interesting with Bir Tiwal, the largest expanse of unclaimed land in the world.[0]
In the interests of being pedantic, the slice of Antarctica that no one has any claims in is the largest expanse of unclaimed land on Earth, and it has the advantage of being actually unclaimed.
Bir Tawil and the Danube pockets are claimed, it's just that the border disputes mean that both parties argue it's the other side's claim; should the border dispute get resolved, there will be a clear owner of the land.
This is like Liberland in the Balkans. It's not "unclaimed and no one wants it". There are two drawn lines for the border. Each country prefers a different line, which gives them better territory and the other country Bir Tawil. Neither country will tolerate a third party coming in and claiming the land.
How are they intending to get to Bir Tawil when it is completely surrounded by Egypt and Sudan? Both nations can block any land or air access. Or just arrest anyone planning to go there.
Also, if anything valuable is discovered or built there, Egypt and Sudan can settle their claims. Most likely is Egypt taking Halaib and Sudan have Bir Tawil, but could go the other way. Or Egypt could take both by force.
Could do something interesting, until Sudan or Egypt decide to kick everyone out (even if no one lays claim to it, they could still operate there under the guise of national security).
The law that sent Prince Leonard down this path makes sovcits look like the sane ones. WA had some incredibly bizarre agricultural rules, many still in place until only a few years ago.
He was a farmer with a very large property and a full field of crops ready to harvest but the law was changed and demanded he only sell 2% of it at a price they set, indefinitely, the rest to be burned, making his property now worthless and farming unviable. This was solely done to protect some wealthy friends of the government.
I'm not saying he's a bit off the deep end, but the circumstances that led to it are completely rational in my opinion.
These people are casting spells. As they don't understand legal text (most people don't) they cargo cult the language and make up something that sounds equivalent and then utter it as a magical incantation believing that make their wants a reality.
Hard to blame them when actual lawyers and judges do this all the time too. e.g. the courts in the US actually have decided that the following language means that employers actually can discriminate based on race.
> It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
> (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
> (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
The law has exactly as much force as people (particularly potential enforcers) think it does. If someone's "magic spells" are as convincing to people as a judge's magic spells then they can be treated as functionally equivalent.
> The law has exactly as much force as people (particularly potential enforcers) think it does. If someone's "magic spells" are as convincing to people as a judge's magic spells then they can be treated as functionally equivalent.
You have just described, quite succinctly, the core premises-for-conclusions substitution also at work in the "code is law" nonsense of cryptocurrency.
Apparently their arguments against the Tax office was similarly nonsense. Although it seams the Tax Office didn't bother too much until recently when the bill got big enough to go to court over https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-16/hutt-river-province-d...
My understanding is the local council gave them a bit of cover because it became a bit of a tourist destination in an area the wasn't seeing much activity.
Yep. Legal standing aside, they were always in great voluntary receipt of taxpayer services that were provided because various levels of government either didn’t care enough or saw the tourist / cultural value. By the time Prince Leonard died, Hutt River had well and truly established itself as a piece of Australiana.
> These clauses strongly clashed with the law stating that “Her Majesty is liable in Tort as a master to a servant”
I searched the quoted phrase (with quotation marks) on Kagi, DDG and Google and found literally no results other than this website. Which is actually quite impressive.
That's not correct. In the UK there's the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, and in Canada the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, and Australia this also seems to be the general case, but I didn't immediately find a statutory authority.
There is no right to secede or otherwise unilaterally decide what the remedy for this claim is, but the idea that a tort was committed and the authorities were liable seems like the least crazy idea here.
I cannot believe this showed up on HN front page. I was thinking about anarchy and secession on the way home, and remembered Hutt River, then bam, there it was.
Hutt River has been a media curiosity for decades in Australia, Prince Leonard would get trotted out every couple of years on a slow news week. Sad to learn of his passing.
I always feel some sense of loss reading about these things. I recognize that these things rarely if ever succeed their creators, but I still feel like another piece of joy was taken out of the world.
1. Raise an army.
2. Take the land from its existing inhabitants.
3. Attempt to paint this action in the light of sovereignty rather than terrorism or just plain banditry.
4. Defend the land against the existing nation state(s) wishing to reclaim it.
5. Attempt to get recognition from other nations.
Not just the existing nation states who want to reclaim the land, but also anyone else. Maybe Russia will recognise you for free, but no one else will. They will want something out of it. And they will have to believe it is cheaper to get it by recognising you than by defeating you.
For instance, going back to the "about the size of Singapore" example, OP might try to find a nice perch next to some critical strait, and sink any vessel that passes through which is registered in a country that doesn't recognise them. But if OP gets too good at this, then the US Navy will be upset and start shooting their weaponry at OP. If OP manages to sink a few of USN's vessels, it's possible USN will say "well we will stop shooting you if you let through our vessels", but I wouldn't hold my breath.
It's probably just cheaper and easier to marry into a royal family from some small country that whose royals still have a political power, like Brunei or Liechtenstein, then secretly start a secret murdering spree until your newborn is the only royal left and they offer to make you regent, then launch a self-coup against your own six month old.
Start with finding hundreds/thousands/hundreds of thousands of people who will follow you to arbitrary places and adventures. I'm sure Elon Musk could do something; Taylor Swift could too.
Once you have a large enough following for some reason (and ideally a fairly committed one; IDK if "follows someone on YouTube, like MrBeast" is enough -- has to be more like "my favorite musician/artist" or "business idol" or something), the rest is comparatively easy. You could pay people for all the stuff.
Basically the five routes today are: 1) Network State (stuff less than a state at start, ground up) 2) Negotiating with an existing state (free trade zone with more autonomy) 3) Seasteading (mostly an engineering and capital problem) 4) Space (also an engineering and capital problem) 5) Military conquest. Over the past ~70 years the last option didn't really exist, but increasingly it probably could work in some very specific locations, especially if you can find a fig leaf of "this local guy actually needs to be in power, not the guy in power now".
States are created by military/policing power. Nations are created by people with a common identity. Important distinction, even if nation-states are the most common.
“the UN voted about this other self governing region with overlapping boundaries as ours! since when is that a country, here’s an old map! no not that map, this one that I like! My argument also requires me to pretend that new national identities haven't come into existence over the last 75 years anywhere else either!”
There is a really easy way to test if an entity that claims to be an independent state/principality is real or not: Are they allowed to kill people to enforce compliance?
One of the biggest functions of the state is to try to have a monopoly on violence and to use up to lethal force to enforce its will within its borders (or if are the US, even outside its borders).
If they can do that they are a state. If not, they are a pretender
If you and your friends declare that you are independent of the country you're actually in and stop paying your taxes, then at some point it's reasonably likely that that country would send an agent to your property and talk to you about your tax bill. So you say "You have breached the Foreign Acts Act 2024 of the Principality of Shrx" and arrest them and you confine them pending a trial (the Foreign Acts Act provides for three years' jail, but doesn't allow the death penalty). The agent's boss realises they never returned and identifies their last known position as your property and you say "this is my country and he has been arrested pending trial for breach of our law". They contact the police and attempt to use violent force to free their agent. You shoot back. Your best friend is shot beside you, and you shoot one of their police. They retreat and wait for more firepower and eventually defeat you. You declare that the police officer who killed your friend is guilty of murder under the Crimes Against the Person Act 2024, whereas they declare that you are guilty of murder and treason under the National Criminal Code. Your body is physically confined to a certain place, decided on by a government, for 23 years until finally you die of cancer, whereas the police officer who killed your friend suffers no unreasonable limitations on his freedom; like the other police officers who did that job, he receives a medal for bravery, and he keeps working as a police officer for another two years until his wife convinces him it's too dangerous now they have a kid, so he joins his dad's lumber business. He does suffer from stress as a consequence of the murder, but the police force pay for twenty-four hours of psychological counselling a year (over and above the 12 hours he gets from the national health insurance system) which helps even if it doesn't completely match the costs during the worst times.
It's clear that the abolition of the death penalty isn't actually all that relevant to this scenario. We can still judge whether or not shrx was the sovereign of his territory or not.
Isn't that just the same question? The answer is "by the sovereign". If there was a conflict over the right to confine an agent of an Australian government, then whoever wins it is, to some degree or another, the sovereign of that land.
The new "network state" theories are a lot more interesting overall, though -- creating new groups of people FIRST, then building out progressively more solid physical infrastructure (potentially in different places), then networking them.