Conversation
Notices
-
I just died of laughter hearing about the pretender for the USA... seriously, read it for yourself.
http://my.raex.com/~obsidian/pretends.html#USA-
@sim I heard about this at some point I think.
We had a somewhat similar case in my country in the late 1800s/early 1900s: a frontier town in the border with Chile, against the Andes, was not really governed or recognized by either country despite the inhabitants wanting a government to do what governments do and bring cops and infrastructure to the area since being that far removed they had to sometimes deal with bandits and trade was slow. There was a german immigrant there that loved beer, and had built his state on a mountainside, and built vats inside for fermenting beer. Twice a year he'd raise a white flag to show the town the beer was ready and everyone would gather at his state for the celebration, and drink until the beer ran out. In one of these meetings, everyone being drunk and annoyed at the lack of attention from the government, they decided that they'd become independant. Since they were now a country they needed a president, and named the German guy as such, (cont)Tuesday, 28-Feb-17 12:02:22 UTC from web-
@nerthos @sim since he was the one who owned the beer production facilities. He didn't take much time to elect a cabinet of ministers from the drunkards sitting around him, and thus they became a country. They didn't do anything really, they'd just fool around and call eachother by their titles and make edicts. Word of this reached Buenos Aires however, and was considered a threat to sovereignity by the government, so they dispatched an army officer with a regiment to deal with this. In a short amount of time the army had put down all the bandits in the area and were marching on the seceded town. Once they got there, they met no resistance whatsoever. The officer was known to be sadistic and asked for the leader of the insurrection. The German guy met him and they talked privately. After the talk was done, they both came out and declared the territory to be again part of Argentina, and no one really complained. (cont)
Tuesday, 28-Feb-17 12:06:27 UTC from web-
@nerthos @sim After the talk, which was not recorded or ever revealed by either party, the German disappeared. It's assumed the officer had given him an ultimatum, to either leave or face military action, and he had agreed to simply leave for Chile. Regardless of this, the whole joke insurrection thing had caused the town to be in everyone's mouth at the time, and the government to pay attention, so they got the army there and later all the government institutions that followed, thus getting all they lacked and had caused the secession. Save for the beer maker that left, it was a happy ending for everyone albeit a really weird piece of the country's history.
Tuesday, 28-Feb-17 12:09:37 UTC from web-
@nerthos
Lmao. That sounds even better. That really got their attention... all because of drunken talk.-
@sim Well at least they went through with it. The moral of the story, similar to the one you linked, is "act the part and the rest will follow suit"
Tuesday, 28-Feb-17 12:16:31 UTC from web-
@nerthos
Oh yeah. Even the government will intervene. I don't suppose they made that mistake again...-
@sim Generally the best way to get a government to act is to say "we'll no longer pay", that'll make them move all they have.
Tuesday, 28-Feb-17 12:22:19 UTC from web-
-
@sim This is in part the reason why if I ever get enough money I intend to buy a big patch of land in a mostly rural area to build a town there. I intend to do so to set up a community based on certain ethical rules, and rather than sell the land to inhabitants instead sell licenses to use the plot of land for a set amount of time (5, 10, 20 years, and for the remainer of the buyer's lifetime, as that's allowed by local law) so that any who in practice owns land there has to go through an interview, and an unqualified heir won't get ownership, allowing the sense of community to remain. Since what counts is "act the part" the goal is to build it as a center of learning and arts, with it's own university, libraries, theaters and all that, so that people will flock there to use those services. That'd force the government to set a proper road access and railroad in there.
Tuesday, 28-Feb-17 12:37:50 UTC from web-
@nerthos @sim As far as financing this goes the intention is to make it a concert-mecca of sorts for bands to play at without as many restrictions as most cities would demand, since most of the legislation in that regard is at the city level.
Tuesday, 28-Feb-17 12:38:36 UTC from web-
@nerthos
Well... I suppose that could work while you owned the land, but I don't know about what happens to the community after you die. People could also exploit it if they wanted to.-
@sim Well, if it's entirely composed of a sort of people, it'll take quite a while to go off rails as most of those people will want to keep their community as it is.
As for abusing it I really don't care what people do to themselves.Tuesday, 28-Feb-17 13:00:51 UTC from web-
@nerthos
Yeah, you would have to make sure it is composed of a certain type of people. Although if inheritance is discouraged, then it won't be very family-friendly... then there is what happens to a widow.-
@sim Honestly as far as inheritance goes the son/daughter would just have to go through the same interviews and background checks their parents did, nothing else. As for widows the contract can be done with a juridic person, so a marriage could be owners both. It's simply to avoid someone who doesn't fit the community suddenly coming into complete posession of a piece of land and throwing harmony off the board. Other than that in all practical aspects it's the same as ownership and heirs can if they wish renew the contract on their name.
This kind of thing is sometimes done to prevent inheritance drama, for example donating your house to your son and making a contract with them where you have practical ownership of the house until your death, so when you die the house goes to your son without complications rather than go through the standard division of wealth.Tuesday, 28-Feb-17 13:12:23 UTC from web-
@nerthos
But if they've lived there for their whole lives then it makes sense to give them the house, rather than pushing them to go through a process that is subject to the bias of whoever interviews them... and thus forcing them out if they just don't like them, or if they want the plot for themselves or as a favour. If this power were granted to the government, for example, they could be bribed to hand the plot over to someone else... suddenly your family home is lost to whatever this new owner wants, and you've got to pack up and leave. Inheritance favours the family owners over developers, for example.-
@sim The idea is to mantain an homogenous community over anything else. As far as government goes, if the government ever made a push to take control of the place I'd rather donate all plots to their current users or burn down the whole place than hand over the project to a politically-driven authority.
Tuesday, 28-Feb-17 13:25:18 UTC from web-
@nerthos
Yeah... that is understandable. I could see it working with you in charge, but it is still easy pickings for corruption using this system to determine things. You would have to put in measures to ensure it doesn't just deteriorate once you die.-
@nerthos
Another problem, if you set up a committee to determine this, and the committee owns the land... you've just made this political. It's most likely going the same way that the government would run it. If you rely on your family, then it might continue... until they run into debts that they can't pay off, or if they die without an heir... eventually, somebody else will end up owning the land and it may end up dissolving due to that.-
@sim The intention is to pass the formal ownership of the place to an heir, if for whatever reason I die.
Tuesday, 28-Feb-17 13:38:17 UTC from web-
@nerthos
Yeah. Mind you, if I'm looking for a place to raise my family... I don't think this would be it. Simply because I would want to buy my own place that is more stable to bring my children up in, and for them to potentially inherit since I would have invested a lot of money into it. But that has become more difficult these days.-
@sim That's fine. The goal is to build sort of a... renaissance city state? A cultural hub of sorts. The aim would be in attracting people who want that, rather than people who want to settle and raise a family. Eventually if possible I'd set up a touristic residential area though for anyone who wants to go there for an event or just to visit.
Tuesday, 28-Feb-17 14:15:22 UTC from web-
@nerthos
Well, I don't know... even in the renaissance era they had inheritance, and it was pro-family oriented. This sounds like something different in that aspect. But otherwise it could work.-
@sim Again there's nothing to discourage family, it's just to prevent land from being owned by people with diametrally different ideologies than what the community was based on. You know as well as I do that nothing says that children have to be similar to their parents as far as ideas.
Tuesday, 28-Feb-17 14:22:38 UTC from web-
-
@sim The truth's that under the system I'm thinking of, people wouldn't be barred from retaining the place unless they were disruptive. The difference of ideology I talk about is not liking team B as opposed to team A, but rather stuff like radical feminism, anarchocapitalism or whatever other weird ideology that kills communities someone might have. I don't want someone like that having a say in the direction the place takes.
Tuesday, 28-Feb-17 14:29:54 UTC from web-
@nerthos
Hmm... but isn't keeping people out because of their ideology also a form of creating a team? Although it is true that some of these people can be destructive to the community because they are destructive towards themselves... or they want to control others or watch the world burn.-
@sim I don't want to cater to free speech activists or anything like that, I want to build a working community without disrupting elements. If I build a town I don't want someone to attack others based on ideological extremism or to vote for things that'd clog the machine in the place. I don't mind different ideas, I do mind disruptive ideas.
Tuesday, 28-Feb-17 14:37:39 UTC from web-
@nerthos
If you want people to build a working community, I think it would be better to focus on what brings people together rather than focusing on extremism or disruption. Disruptions are bound to happen, but how you handle them will define the direction.
I remember joining a program where it brings a small team together, and I ended up feeling a strange connection with them even though we were different to each other. It survived for the course, because we were bonding on the week days frequently... we have to get along. There were team building exercises, even ones where we divided ourselves to face each other in friendly games. We even stayed in the same place for a few days, and took part in a few activities that built on this bond. Then did community stuff, and raised funds for it. It might be better to create this sort of atmosphere.-
@sim That's what the interview's for. Determining whether people just have different ideas or are actually disruptive.
Tuesday, 28-Feb-17 14:47:20 UTC from web-
@nerthos
Yeah. Bringing people together, even ones like-minded, is no easy feat I think. There are going to be off days for people too, where they need to cool off. Days where they will just want to be left alone. Gotta be able to cater for that sort of thing too. Disruptive is a rather broad term, and there could be people that have the ideologies you find questionable but aren't disruptive with it. Then there is the case where people do change, and I think it is better to create an environment where they feel that they can change in a productive way rather than worrying about having the wrong ideas. You just need to create something else that bonds them to the project and community.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@sim Oh, yeah, of course. Officials would have to be both elected by a number of inhabitants of the town and endorsed by the current head of the place (as in, me or whoever I designate as heir) to ensure that they work in the best interest of the project and community. I have no intention to leave it up to whoever wants to exploit the freedom of action little local legislation would allow. A council of population representatives could also review decisions made by officials if there's complaint, so it'd be kind of a constitutional monarchy of sorts.
Tuesday, 28-Feb-17 13:36:52 UTC from web
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
