4 ms·

Your commentary on the man's life encapsulates many of the reasons that could make a person want to just ditch civilization and live on a boat. - Constant worr

by Bakary 7y ago

Your commentary on the man's life encapsulates many of the reasons that could make a person want to just ditch civilization and live on a boat. - Constant worry about looking proper - Constant worry about your reputation (when people are probably busy thinking about their own reputation instead of yours) - A large amount of legal restrictions around anything at all - Telling people what to do so that they conform to your expectations - Wealthy people determining the legal and regulatory landscape according to their needs - Less wealthy people losing sleep over whether they are pleasing those wealthy people - Less wealthy people badgering even less wealthy people so that they do what the wealthy people want I don't necessarily think that his lifestyle is the best idea or that he is an enlightened sage, but the contrast between the two world views is captivating. > Mom says "Nice that you are important, it's more important that you are nice". Playing nice is a 2nd grade skill. If you define "nice" as just doing what wealthier people want because of incentives to do so. In a more Nietzschean sense, being nice is what you have to be when you are powerless. If you turn the calculus the other way, it's worth asking what incentives the lad has to listen to demands. Can he be arrested or have his boat taken away? I don't have the answers to these questions, but I do wonder what the power balance is in this case.

AstroJetson 7y ago
Here is the deal. People own the land on both sides of the ICW. While the "riparian" rights are being fought in court, it's coming down to "do I own the water line". If I do then I can control the water line to the center of the channel. Before the nonsense of a Sean boat, they owned to the high tide line. But now they can point to a boat with issues (Sean's boat) they can make a claim out to mid channel. Blocking him from anchoring. You ask "Can he / we be arrested and the answer is yes. Yes in Florida and a growing segment in Georgia and the Carolina's. There is no power balance at the Sean level. There is at the boater association level. But Sean isn't helping us going "We are responsible boaters with motive power and boats that look like they will last the next 36 hours. Nietzschean sense has SFA to do with the GA legislature. You are throwing a theoretical against a "This Shit is Happening Now" The GA legislature is listening to tax payers not Nietzschean sense. This is a real thing, not some textbook quiz.
- icebraining 7y ago
  > Sean isn't helping us The question is: why should he? Maybe he's OK with doing what he's doing and moving on when he's forced to, rather than following your appeasement strategy.
  - AstroJetson 7y ago
    I see your point, I wrote a bad sentence. Let me try again. Sean is hurting us. He's setting an example about people that want to get away and do their own thing. And his example, of a derelict boat, sets the groups that can make it even harder against all cruisers. So he can come into an area, get the locals to pass laws to stop free anchoring, and he is "moving on when he's forced to." Lather, rinse, repeat down the ICW, and soon it's all closed to open anchoring. This is actually happening, Sean and people like him is slowly getting the anchorages closed. I'm excited to live in a world where people think it's ok for the few to ruin it for the many. If we all play nice, then we can have nice things. But people decide the want to things their way without thinking of the long term consequences. And while you think, sheesh it's one guy on a boat, the reality is he got press coverage and while a few are going Ohhh FOSS software, nomad life, this guy is styling. Lots of others with clout are going, Boat about to sink in my river and create a huge problem, let stop this guy and the rest from doing it. They don't have surgical tools, they simply say "no more free anchoring within a 1000 yards of a structure", which effectively closes down most of the ICW. Hope this was a better set of sentences.
    - seandepagnier 7y ago
      @astrojetson You seem to be a snobby boater. You remind me of the "yacht club" commadore in new jersey who waited around for me to show up so he could tell me about all the things I couldn't do (that I hadn't even done) I found this attitude only exists in the USA, New Zealand out of the 30 countries I sailed. All the other places people are more rational. Fortunately it's a small percentage even in these places. The fact is, my boat is more seaworthy than many that cross the sea every year. All the really important things are sound. I do have a life jacket just so I can pass the coast guard inspection. Never used it. The only thing you or anyone else manages to criticize me of are cosmetic issues. Saying my boat will likely sink is judging a book by it's cover. You can't tell if a boat is going to sink by looking at pictures of it! The proposed "solutions" such as paint or scrubbing all consume resources and energy, and in some cases also cause pollution. So these are actually a negative impact for everyone. If it becomes impossible to anchor somewhere from too many selfish people, I'm not sure why I would want to anchor in that place anyway. There are plenty of other places (and countries) where this will never happen.
HeadsUpHigh 7y ago
Yes, yes we all get that. It's all theoretical nonsense. This is about actual laws and the damage they can cause to every other boater. You want to escape civilization, you can't. Tie a rock around your neck and dive at the Marianne's trench. Guess what you'll find on your way down? Plastic. Civilization is everywhere at this point so you can't escape it or it's rules. And at the end of the day, same with every other anarchist pipe dream, the strong one wins.
- Bakary 7y ago
  It's Sean's case it's not really nonsense. I can't know for sure what's going on through his head, but he seems to have clearly made up his mind to live life on his own terms as much as possible, even at the cost of a shorter lifespan and much comfort. If everyone chose the "rational" way of just adapting to everything and keeping their head down, we would never have civil rights, regime changes, embryonic labor rights, and any number of struggles where people go beyond a utilitarian calculus at a great cost to themselves. This is how power balances have gotten overturned historically. You also have some leeway of personal adaptation. It's one thing to stay within the bounds that society sets forth. It's another to grovel and revel in your servitude. For instance, looking at Astrojetson's comments, at no point did they blame the riverside landowners for their selfishness and nosiness, the blame was all on Sean for daring to do what he's doing. They were no longer psychologically able to criticize the true source of the problem.

by Bakary 7y ago

AstroJetson 7y ago

Here is the deal. People own the land on both sides of the ICW. While the "riparian" rights are being fought in court, it's coming down to "do I own the water line". If I do then I can control the water line to the center of the channel. Before the nonsense of a Sean boat, they owned to the high tide line. But now they can point to a boat with issues (Sean's boat) they can make a claim out to mid channel. Blocking him from anchoring. You ask "Can he / we be arrested and the answer is yes. Yes in Florida and a growing segment in Georgia and the Carolina's. There is no power balance at the Sean level. There is at the boater association level. But Sean isn't helping us going "We are responsible boaters with motive power and boats that look like they will last the next 36 hours. Nietzschean sense has SFA to do with the GA legislature. You are throwing a theoretical against a "This Shit is Happening Now" The GA legislature is listening to tax payers not Nietzschean sense. This is a real thing, not some textbook quiz.

icebraining 7y ago
> Sean isn't helping us The question is: why should he? Maybe he's OK with doing what he's doing and moving on when he's forced to, rather than following your appeasement strategy.
- AstroJetson 7y ago
  I see your point, I wrote a bad sentence. Let me try again. Sean is hurting us. He's setting an example about people that want to get away and do their own thing. And his example, of a derelict boat, sets the groups that can make it even harder against all cruisers. So he can come into an area, get the locals to pass laws to stop free anchoring, and he is "moving on when he's forced to." Lather, rinse, repeat down the ICW, and soon it's all closed to open anchoring. This is actually happening, Sean and people like him is slowly getting the anchorages closed. I'm excited to live in a world where people think it's ok for the few to ruin it for the many. If we all play nice, then we can have nice things. But people decide the want to things their way without thinking of the long term consequences. And while you think, sheesh it's one guy on a boat, the reality is he got press coverage and while a few are going Ohhh FOSS software, nomad life, this guy is styling. Lots of others with clout are going, Boat about to sink in my river and create a huge problem, let stop this guy and the rest from doing it. They don't have surgical tools, they simply say "no more free anchoring within a 1000 yards of a structure", which effectively closes down most of the ICW. Hope this was a better set of sentences.
  - seandepagnier 7y ago
    @astrojetson You seem to be a snobby boater. You remind me of the "yacht club" commadore in new jersey who waited around for me to show up so he could tell me about all the things I couldn't do (that I hadn't even done) I found this attitude only exists in the USA, New Zealand out of the 30 countries I sailed. All the other places people are more rational. Fortunately it's a small percentage even in these places. The fact is, my boat is more seaworthy than many that cross the sea every year. All the really important things are sound. I do have a life jacket just so I can pass the coast guard inspection. Never used it. The only thing you or anyone else manages to criticize me of are cosmetic issues. Saying my boat will likely sink is judging a book by it's cover. You can't tell if a boat is going to sink by looking at pictures of it! The proposed "solutions" such as paint or scrubbing all consume resources and energy, and in some cases also cause pollution. So these are actually a negative impact for everyone. If it becomes impossible to anchor somewhere from too many selfish people, I'm not sure why I would want to anchor in that place anyway. There are plenty of other places (and countries) where this will never happen.

HeadsUpHigh 7y ago

Yes, yes we all get that. It's all theoretical nonsense. This is about actual laws and the damage they can cause to every other boater. You want to escape civilization, you can't. Tie a rock around your neck and dive at the Marianne's trench. Guess what you'll find on your way down? Plastic. Civilization is everywhere at this point so you can't escape it or it's rules. And at the end of the day, same with every other anarchist pipe dream, the strong one wins.

Bakary 7y ago
It's Sean's case it's not really nonsense. I can't know for sure what's going on through his head, but he seems to have clearly made up his mind to live life on his own terms as much as possible, even at the cost of a shorter lifespan and much comfort. If everyone chose the "rational" way of just adapting to everything and keeping their head down, we would never have civil rights, regime changes, embryonic labor rights, and any number of struggles where people go beyond a utilitarian calculus at a great cost to themselves. This is how power balances have gotten overturned historically. You also have some leeway of personal adaptation. It's one thing to stay within the bounds that society sets forth. It's another to grovel and revel in your servitude. For instance, looking at Astrojetson's comments, at no point did they blame the riverside landowners for their selfishness and nosiness, the blame was all on Sean for daring to do what he's doing. They were no longer psychologically able to criticize the true source of the problem.