Vote-Location of city

There are currently, it seems, a few proposals about location presented in this thread, and this thread.

In summary, the locations suggested are:

-Antarctica: Specifically the marie byrd land, which is unclaimed.
-South Australia
-The Rocha district is Uruguay
-The Upernavic or another region of greenland
-The Vanatinai province in papua new guinea
-As a boat or some such in the ocean

I think we should regard this poll as final.

I don't think we should regard this vote as final. The cleanslate society will have more than just 8 members.

I voted Ocean colony, though, as it allows us to start small and expand.

Perhaps not ultimately final, but we should make our plans based on the results of this poll. If at some point it seems to be impossible, we will change.

Three votes in- Presumably Me, Nomorelies, and locksley/mike? I guess I'll call it final at 5 votes.

I voted for Vanatinai.

OK. I see mike put in his vote.

One more vote, I guess, until we have a conclusion as to the location issue.

Redsand11j, may I remind you that we are at a very (very) early stage in this project. As I mentioned in another thread (and I recall there was at least a little concensus around this issue), the location isn't really important at this time. What is more important is the cscs concept itself. We should concentrate on the merits of a cscs, irrespective of its location.

I agree- although the unchosen location is a huge distraction from discussion. I point you to a micronational organization which I used to belong to (until giving up on the micronation concept)- we spent our time talking about the flag, the name, the website, the management- and we never got anything done.

After we all decide, as a community, where to be, or at least where to act like we will be, this distraction will be removed. Also, since we will be planning for the 'real' Esperance City, XXXX, instead of the abstract CSCS, somewhere, we will I think be more realistic.

Vanatininai? I presume that's the 'right to buy', 20 pioneers concept?

Correct.

But the problem I have is that it is a lot harder to move house, and mini-government.

well, we are really just choosing the location here, and while certain locations are much more amenable to different strategies (You can't get too much funding from beach vacation in greenland, and you can't make your city out of ice in Papua New guinea, the strategy is yet to be decided.

I suppose it has been two weeks, more than likely anyone who is going to vote has.

Vanatinai wins!

We may now begin planning for Esperance, Vanatinai (Esperance island?) !

By one vote.

it is still a majority- sort of. If more people voted, it could be changed.

Not anymore. I changed my vote to South Australia, so now there is no clear majority. I did this to illustrate a point: voting, when only a small number of people vote, is worthless.

Terraformer, the point was that we could just make up our minds for the time being, and just pick a place to use provisionally.

And I think the only point that illustrates is that you really don't want vanatinai.

This is just a provisional location, so we can stop using time on this, and get onto real issues.

But we'll have to return to the location of the city sometime.

Is Vanatinai that Island place?

Yes-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanatinai

Then we have floating periphals.

If needed, and they very well may be.

Well, we can live in the Periphals, and farm on the land.

Or we can do hydroponics on the peripherals, and live on the land.

Or we can mix the two. Either way, your floating colonies will need some sort of base of operations. Perhaps it could be some sotr of confederacy, the floating colonies being a part of Esperance, but also having some autonomy?

Hmmm... so the Island is the capital 'state', with the floating colonys being the states or districts which decide most of the laws?

Well, I was thinking more 'separate but equal'- of course that might not work out so well.

And I think, in order to retain unity, there would be some degree of centralization necessary. The key is to make sure that the government has no degree of separation from the people- but that the government is the people. A thing to remember is that true democracy is actually very similar to anarchy- if we could achieve it.

Well, I have several theories of how we could achieve that, but they all have one feature: power increases the further down you go, till you reach the individual. Just like rockets; the lower stages have more power than the upper stages.

One problem with modern life and technology is that it requires a centralised government to survive. Or at least it seems to. It may be possible, if home fabrication improves, to do away with the need for large tech companies, and large companies in general. I foresee something of a freeware economy, where people modify plans and share them. This would have a dramatic effect on innovation.

Oh dear. I seem to have gone off topic into the heart of democracy

hmm, we seem to have had another vote- and, considering that the floating platform is compatible with both, I would ask that, in order to settle the tie, whoever's vote is on floating platform choose one.

I can't order you, but it would be nice to break the tie.

Terraformer- I think you're talking more about libertarianism than democracy. The problem with direct democracy (which is what I advocate) is that everyone has an idea, but a final vote should really come down to 10 options or less. The question is how you decide which is the most reasonable.

The only thing I can think of is some sort of internet wiki system*, where someone would put up their idea, then people who agree could sign the talk page. Perhaps having people decide on categories where their ideas belong, then having a simple list for each category, organized randomly, when the person visits, so that each person sees a different order, and it doesn't affect the results.

For deciding which one to use (out of the top 5 or 10), I support a 'partial legislature' system, whereby the people's vote has the same amount of power as the people voting. For example, if 50% of the population votes, then that vote is weighted to 50%, and the congress's has the other 50%.

For deciding which issue is significant enough that a solution is needed, once again, a wiki system*, with partial legislature, except this time the vote is yes/no on the top issue of the week.
the president would be an elected figurehead, whose job is to oversee the running of the courts, although by a partial president** system.

*A 'forum' system could work too.
**same as 'partial legislature', but for the president.

How about Antartica? Unclaimed at the moment, plus all land has to be manufactured - a major boon to decided who owns the land.