U.S.-Thai pair facing death for 'sea home' should fight charge, Thailand says(reuters.com)
reuters.com
U.S.-Thai pair facing death for 'sea home' should fight charge, Thailand says
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-thailand-seahome/u-s-thai-pair-facing-death-for-sea-home-should-fight-the-charge-thailand-says-idUSKCN1RV0KM
211 comments
While this Thai case doesn’t seem to be a micronation, but rather simply a house, I agree with your point about micronations.
Nationhood, but really we’re talking about sovereignty, isn’t something you can just declare. It’s something that’s granted by others. Sometimes it’s through agreement. Other times it’s by fear of force.
That’s why I was always skeptical of things such as the Seasteading Institute that wanted to declare a cruise ship a country, and then have the “populace” commute to San Francisco. That plan works, right up until a US Coast Guard cutter pulls up and sends over a boarding party.
The sea floor is littered with this folly.
Republic of Rose Island. Seized the the Italian Finance Police, and sank by the Italian Navy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Rose_Island
The Republic of Minerva. A reef island 250 miles from Tonga. Evicted and claimed by the Tongan Navy. https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/republic-of-minerva
Sealand. Raided by pirates, but honestly ignored by the U.K.
Putting aside the varying seriousness and motivations of micronation would-be-founders, it’s hard to judge the history of such endeavors[0] as being anything other than failure.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_micronations
Nationhood, but really we’re talking about sovereignty, isn’t something you can just declare. It’s something that’s granted by others. Sometimes it’s through agreement. Other times it’s by fear of force.
That’s why I was always skeptical of things such as the Seasteading Institute that wanted to declare a cruise ship a country, and then have the “populace” commute to San Francisco. That plan works, right up until a US Coast Guard cutter pulls up and sends over a boarding party.
The sea floor is littered with this folly.
Republic of Rose Island. Seized the the Italian Finance Police, and sank by the Italian Navy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Rose_Island
The Republic of Minerva. A reef island 250 miles from Tonga. Evicted and claimed by the Tongan Navy. https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/republic-of-minerva
Sealand. Raided by pirates, but honestly ignored by the U.K.
Putting aside the varying seriousness and motivations of micronation would-be-founders, it’s hard to judge the history of such endeavors[0] as being anything other than failure.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_micronations
> that plan works, right up until a US Coast Guard cutter pulls up and sends over a boarding party.
Why would they do that? Its not illegal to run a cruise ship.
Its also not illegal to pretend that you are a nation. Its even not illegal to live on a boat, out in the ocean!
Are you aware that ships travel into and out of the US all of the time, and none of them have to worry about the coast guard invading them?
Why would they do that? Its not illegal to run a cruise ship.
Its also not illegal to pretend that you are a nation. Its even not illegal to live on a boat, out in the ocean!
Are you aware that ships travel into and out of the US all of the time, and none of them have to worry about the coast guard invading them?
Why wouldn't they do it? Coast Guard (of various nations) board ships all the time for various reasons.
As soon as these seasteaders are deemed a threat/annoyance to the state they are goners. Maybe they did not pay tax on their crypto earnings, maybe they have an anti-state blog, maybe they produce copious amounts of LSD, etc etc.
At the end of the day, the man/state with the biggest boomstick wins.
As soon as these seasteaders are deemed a threat/annoyance to the state they are goners. Maybe they did not pay tax on their crypto earnings, maybe they have an anti-state blog, maybe they produce copious amounts of LSD, etc etc.
At the end of the day, the man/state with the biggest boomstick wins.
Why wouldn't they do that?
Well they dont do that right now.
There are lots of ships in the ocean, right at this moment, and the US coast guard isn't going around sinking any of them.
Sure, if they enter their waters, and try to break their countries laws, then it might happen. But this is instead about international waters.
People travel around the world, on boats, all of the time.
I could get on a boat, right now, and travel into the ocean, and I'm not going to have to worry about the coast guard sinking me.
Well they dont do that right now.
There are lots of ships in the ocean, right at this moment, and the US coast guard isn't going around sinking any of them.
Sure, if they enter their waters, and try to break their countries laws, then it might happen. But this is instead about international waters.
People travel around the world, on boats, all of the time.
I could get on a boat, right now, and travel into the ocean, and I'm not going to have to worry about the coast guard sinking me.
Pleasure craft get boarded all the time by the coast guard. [0][1][2][3][4] Often on trips from the west coast to hawaii, often on trips sailing north from southern california.
The coast guard, can at any time board / search your vessel without any probable cause or warrants. Even in international waters. It's on you to make sure you're not doing anything illegal that would warrant a seizure of your vessel and all the property on it. ( again, even in international waters )
You're right though, they likely won't sink it.
[0] https://www.uscg.mil/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=luZU9g1tNsc%3... [1] https://www.sailfeed.com/2012/10/coast-guard-boardings-and-y... [2]https://mblb.com/admiralty-maritime/the-fourth-amendment-rig... [3] https://www.getmyboat.com/resources/tips-for-renters/638/wha... [4] https://coastguardnews.com/what-to-expect-during-a-coast-gua...
The coast guard, can at any time board / search your vessel without any probable cause or warrants. Even in international waters. It's on you to make sure you're not doing anything illegal that would warrant a seizure of your vessel and all the property on it. ( again, even in international waters )
You're right though, they likely won't sink it.
[0] https://www.uscg.mil/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=luZU9g1tNsc%3... [1] https://www.sailfeed.com/2012/10/coast-guard-boardings-and-y... [2]https://mblb.com/admiralty-maritime/the-fourth-amendment-rig... [3] https://www.getmyboat.com/resources/tips-for-renters/638/wha... [4] https://coastguardnews.com/what-to-expect-during-a-coast-gua...
Are you aware that those cruise ships that travel into and out of the US must be registered to a flag state, whose laws they must comply with? Once they are in the US, they must comply with US law.
Even Sea Sheppard[0] flies flags of internationally recognized sovereign nations, along side more dubious flags such as the Iroquois Confederacy.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptune%27s_Navy
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptune%27s_Navy
I bet those ships are flying flags for a nation that has good diplomatic standing in the US.
Yup. Huge difference between being a flagged vessel of, say, Panama, and complying with all rules of the sea, and being a flagged vessel of nowhere and claiming you're not subject to any laws.
And worth pointing out that even flagged vessels of other countries can (and often are) boarded and inspected by the USCG.
And worth pointing out that even flagged vessels of other countries can (and often are) boarded and inspected by the USCG.
> It’s something that’s granted by others. Sometimes it’s through agreement. Other times it’s by fear of force.
Thailand has signed the UN law of the sea and set its territorial claim at 12 miles, so it knows that its territory ends at 12 miles. They are disrespecting their contract by performing hostile operations in international waters. If anything, the other signatories to UNCLOS should complain.
> The Contiguous Zone is an intermediary zone between the territorial sea and the high seas extending enforcement jurisdiction of the coastal state to a maximum of 24 nautical miles from baselines for the purposes of preventing or punishing violations of customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary (and thus residual national security) legislation.
https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/Law-of-the-Sea-Me...
@yongjik: china (the country) has no legal basis to extend its sovereignity there. But i guess it can send a ship and station it there , and the us could not lawfully capture it unless certain conditions were met. The US is not a signatory to UNCLOS so this is hypothetical. I am also sure the US and russia are frequent visitors of each other from international waters near Alaska.
Thailand has signed the UN law of the sea and set its territorial claim at 12 miles, so it knows that its territory ends at 12 miles. They are disrespecting their contract by performing hostile operations in international waters. If anything, the other signatories to UNCLOS should complain.
> The Contiguous Zone is an intermediary zone between the territorial sea and the high seas extending enforcement jurisdiction of the coastal state to a maximum of 24 nautical miles from baselines for the purposes of preventing or punishing violations of customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary (and thus residual national security) legislation.
https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/Law-of-the-Sea-Me...
@yongjik: china (the country) has no legal basis to extend its sovereignity there. But i guess it can send a ship and station it there , and the us could not lawfully capture it unless certain conditions were met. The US is not a signatory to UNCLOS so this is hypothetical. I am also sure the US and russia are frequent visitors of each other from international waters near Alaska.
This interpretation of international laws doesn't pass sniff test, and frankly on the same level as sovereign citizen movement. If China builds a floating house 14 miles from San Francisco and declares it as Chinese territory, do you think the US will respect that?
If US claimed only 12 miles off the coast, then under what interpretation of any law would they just come and take it and charge the occupants with treason? And we are not talking about declaring any Chinese territory, don't put up a strawman.
I really think you should read up on the history of the Republic of Minerva. Essentially, Tonga got the other South Pacific countries together, told them what they’re going to do, and then did it. You can do this when you’re a recognized sovereign country. No one cares about outlaws.
It is also a good illustration that sovereignty is fundamental to law, it determines which patches of land the law applies to, and thus defines the nation state boundary. All nation states must consider an attack on sovereignty in the harshest terms on every patch of their land. Otherwise the patches of their land they don't protect just erode under a succession of border violations, until they de facto belong to the violators, and that remaining nation state includes only the parts they did protect. So it's just logical that we keep returning to nations with borders that people will fight to the death to protect, and here we are.
You could imagine a different form of law based on personal & community sovereignty rather than geographic. See eg. Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age, where citizens are members of various phyles, each with global sovereignty but clustered within enclaves in each major city. Interactions between citizens of the same phyle are governed by the laws of the phyle, which themselves are shaped by the values of its citizens. Interactions between different phyles are subject to the Common Economic Protocol, which you could think of as a trade agreement governing protection of property rights and economic wherewithal but saying nothing about the personal conduct of people.
Sovereignty is always personal or community, with geographic or other (e.g., subject matter) limits adopted by the sovereign (perhaps with encouragement from others, particularly other sovereigns whose preferred domains would otherwise be threatened.)
That's actually kind of the point of GP: the geographic limit here doesn't apply to the power of the sovereign around whose notional domain the line is drawn, it applies as a rule adopted governing relations between sovereigns but does not in practice apply where no sufficiently powerful sovereign has an interest at stake for which they will Lodge a protest (backed with the implicit threat of force.)
Parties using geographic games as a way to reject affiliation with recognized sovereigns are not evading the power of such sovereigns, only the protection of them.
That's actually kind of the point of GP: the geographic limit here doesn't apply to the power of the sovereign around whose notional domain the line is drawn, it applies as a rule adopted governing relations between sovereigns but does not in practice apply where no sufficiently powerful sovereign has an interest at stake for which they will Lodge a protest (backed with the implicit threat of force.)
Parties using geographic games as a way to reject affiliation with recognized sovereigns are not evading the power of such sovereigns, only the protection of them.
That book ended on a pessimistic note though- with a reenactment of the boxer-war, because those tribes where cultural incompatible- some beeing overly creative and industrious, driving others into dependancy.
It also was very pessimistic on technocratic solutions for the "good nurture" problem. Basically nothing can replace a real parent coaxing a self-expanding mind into beeing.
It also was very pessimistic on technocratic solutions for the "good nurture" problem. Basically nothing can replace a real parent coaxing a self-expanding mind into beeing.
I get the sense most Neal Stephenson books don't actually end on either an optimistic or pessimistic note, they just...end. He doesn't seem very interested in passing judgment on whatever future he imagines, he just wants to imagine it. The world simply is the way it is, and humans will continue to be humans, and that occasionally involves doing shitty things. Technology just amplifies that.
He's pretty good at imagining it too - The Diamond Age was published in 1995, just as the Internet was beginning to take off, and yet it envisioned The Internet, videoconferencing, smart paper, drones, and a whole bunch of other technological innovations that didn't catch on for 15 years or so. Cryptonomicon was published 10 years before Bitcoin but fully described two of its biggest use-cases, remittances and digital gold. Snow Crash had the "America is good at only 4 things: music, movies, microcode, and high-speed pizza delivery" line in 1992, 20 years before it became true and right as the rest of the country was celebrating us becoming the sole superpower.
He's pretty good at imagining it too - The Diamond Age was published in 1995, just as the Internet was beginning to take off, and yet it envisioned The Internet, videoconferencing, smart paper, drones, and a whole bunch of other technological innovations that didn't catch on for 15 years or so. Cryptonomicon was published 10 years before Bitcoin but fully described two of its biggest use-cases, remittances and digital gold. Snow Crash had the "America is good at only 4 things: music, movies, microcode, and high-speed pizza delivery" line in 1992, 20 years before it became true and right as the rest of the country was celebrating us becoming the sole superpower.
Snow Crash is so bizarre. It launches you straight into the story with no explanation, starting off with some crazy pizza delivery man in a rocket car with swords and an electric zapper thing for people who don't pay the bill. The whole book is like that--it never explains how, why, or when, leaving you to piece it all together yourself. The entire time I was reading it, I was waiting for a 30000 feet view of the world. But then it ended, never having fully explained itself.
I've never read anything else quite like it, and honestly don't know what I think of it. Are all of Neal Stephenson's books like that?
I've never read anything else quite like it, and honestly don't know what I think of it. Are all of Neal Stephenson's books like that?
That’s a federation, like the USA or Switzerland. It doesn’t matter what type of government you have, it must protect its control over its laws, the federated system is a subset of those laws. So federated governments would take a similarly dim view if foreign entities tried to park and govern themselves in that federation’s border, the foreigners can’t just say, “hey you’ve got a new state in your border”.
In this case the federated system is worldwide, and the individual phyles by definition must park and govern themselves within the federation's border. Because the federated system is worldwide, it must contain only a small subset of the laws we normally associate with a nation-state, those that directly affect peaceful trade and dispute resolution. Cultural values are left for the phyle to administer.
Another key difference is that your phyle follows you around, geographically, while your nation's jurisdiction ends at its borders. If I'm an American expat interacting with another American expat in Shanghai, I'm still subject to Chinese law. If I'm a Neo-Victorian (to use one of the phyles from Diamond Age) interacting with another Neo-Victorian in Hong Kong, I'm subject to Neo-Victorian law. A block over could be a Han Chinese (also using the Diamond Age phyle, but in this case it corresponds to a real ethnicity in our world) enclave, and its citizens would be subject to Han Chinese law when interacting with other Han Chinese. If, as a Neo-Victorian, I cross the street to do a business deal with a Han Chinese, our dealings are governed by the Common Economic Protocol, the set of laws common to the federated system as a whole.
Another key difference is that your phyle follows you around, geographically, while your nation's jurisdiction ends at its borders. If I'm an American expat interacting with another American expat in Shanghai, I'm still subject to Chinese law. If I'm a Neo-Victorian (to use one of the phyles from Diamond Age) interacting with another Neo-Victorian in Hong Kong, I'm subject to Neo-Victorian law. A block over could be a Han Chinese (also using the Diamond Age phyle, but in this case it corresponds to a real ethnicity in our world) enclave, and its citizens would be subject to Han Chinese law when interacting with other Han Chinese. If, as a Neo-Victorian, I cross the street to do a business deal with a Han Chinese, our dealings are governed by the Common Economic Protocol, the set of laws common to the federated system as a whole.
> Another key difference is that your phyle follows you around, geographically, while your nation's jurisdiction ends at its borders.
A nation-states jurisdiction does not end at it's borders unless it chooses for it to, which few do entirely. It ability to practically enforce it's rules may or may not do so, depending on the power of the state and power and interests of other states who may be concerned with the specific matter (especially, but not exclusively, the one in whose borders the target of the enforcement is located.)
A nation-states jurisdiction does not end at it's borders unless it chooses for it to, which few do entirely. It ability to practically enforce it's rules may or may not do so, depending on the power of the state and power and interests of other states who may be concerned with the specific matter (especially, but not exclusively, the one in whose borders the target of the enforcement is located.)
How is this different from the millet system?
> nation state boundary
Note that "nation-state" has a particular meaning, and I think the word you're looking for here is just "state" or "sovereign state". Nation-states are sovereign states that are particularly culturally homogeneous.
> nation-state. noun. a sovereign state whose citizens or subjects are relatively homogeneous in factors such as language or common descent.
Note that "nation-state" has a particular meaning, and I think the word you're looking for here is just "state" or "sovereign state". Nation-states are sovereign states that are particularly culturally homogeneous.
> nation-state. noun. a sovereign state whose citizens or subjects are relatively homogeneous in factors such as language or common descent.
Thanks you’re right.
We're watching this process play out in real-time in the USA.
You probably mean Ukraine. As far as I know, no part of the United States has been invaded or annexed by its neighbor.
The US has had wars with its neighbors to the north and south, with military conflicts taking place on what is currently US soil.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War
and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812
The British even did heavy damage to Washington DC in 1814, including the Capitol and the White House: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War
and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812
The British even did heavy damage to Washington DC in 1814, including the Capitol and the White House: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington
The GP poster was talking about an infringement of US sovereignty playing out “in real-time”.
No, I mean in the USA. "Watching" means a thing is in progress. "Watched" is what we say when it has been completed.
For example, California's "sanctuary state" law is a formal rejection of federal sovereignty over immigration. A full rejection of federal sovereignty would be secession, which we will probably see, at least de facto, within a century if trends continue as they are.
For example, California's "sanctuary state" law is a formal rejection of federal sovereignty over immigration. A full rejection of federal sovereignty would be secession, which we will probably see, at least de facto, within a century if trends continue as they are.
> California's "sanctuary state" law is a formal rejection of federal sovereignty over immigration.
It is not, since they do not attempt to prevent the federal government from enforcing federal immigration laws in California. They refuse to assist such enforcement in any way - but that is a right that was always implicit in the federal structure of the government, and was made explicit by the courts in Printz v. United States (ironically, it was a 5-4 case split along ideological lines, with the liberal minority arguing in favor of the federal government able to commandeer state law enforcement).
If you want to see an example of actual formal rejection of federal sovereignty, that would be something like the Kansas' Second Amendment Protection Act, which explicitly declares:
"It is unlawful for any official, agent or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States to enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas."
A historical example would be the states' resistance to the fugitive slave laws. For example, here's Pennsylvania specifically targeting slave hunters in 1826:
"If any person or persons shall, from and after the passing of this act, by force and violence, take and carry away, or cause to be taken or carried away, and shall, by fraud or false pretense, seduce, or cause to be seduced, or shall attempt so to take, carry away or seduce, any negro or mulatto, from any part or parts of this commonwealth, to any other place or places whatsoever, out of this commonwealth, with a design and intention of selling and disposing of, or of causing to be sold, or of keeping and detaining, or of causing to be kept and detained, such negro or mulatto, as a slave or servant for life, or for any term whatsoever, every such person or persons, his or their aiders or abettors, shall on conviction thereof, in any court of this commonwealth having competent jurisdiction, be deemed guilty of a felony."
That part of the law was stuck down as unconstitutional. But the very same SCOTUS decision - Prigg v. Pennsylvania - also mentioned that the state could ban its officials and law enforcement from assisting in any way, and that's exactly what Pennsylvania did afterwards.
It is not, since they do not attempt to prevent the federal government from enforcing federal immigration laws in California. They refuse to assist such enforcement in any way - but that is a right that was always implicit in the federal structure of the government, and was made explicit by the courts in Printz v. United States (ironically, it was a 5-4 case split along ideological lines, with the liberal minority arguing in favor of the federal government able to commandeer state law enforcement).
If you want to see an example of actual formal rejection of federal sovereignty, that would be something like the Kansas' Second Amendment Protection Act, which explicitly declares:
"It is unlawful for any official, agent or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States to enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas."
A historical example would be the states' resistance to the fugitive slave laws. For example, here's Pennsylvania specifically targeting slave hunters in 1826:
"If any person or persons shall, from and after the passing of this act, by force and violence, take and carry away, or cause to be taken or carried away, and shall, by fraud or false pretense, seduce, or cause to be seduced, or shall attempt so to take, carry away or seduce, any negro or mulatto, from any part or parts of this commonwealth, to any other place or places whatsoever, out of this commonwealth, with a design and intention of selling and disposing of, or of causing to be sold, or of keeping and detaining, or of causing to be kept and detained, such negro or mulatto, as a slave or servant for life, or for any term whatsoever, every such person or persons, his or their aiders or abettors, shall on conviction thereof, in any court of this commonwealth having competent jurisdiction, be deemed guilty of a felony."
That part of the law was stuck down as unconstitutional. But the very same SCOTUS decision - Prigg v. Pennsylvania - also mentioned that the state could ban its officials and law enforcement from assisting in any way, and that's exactly what Pennsylvania did afterwards.
> For example, California's "sanctuary state" law is a formal rejection of federal sovereignty over immigration.
No, it is not; it is a (Constitutional, per cases dating back to the federal fugitive slave laws) refusal to expend State resources assisting federal enforcement of federal law. Leaving enforcement of federal laws to the feds is not rejecting federal authority or sovereignty.
No, it is not; it is a (Constitutional, per cases dating back to the federal fugitive slave laws) refusal to expend State resources assisting federal enforcement of federal law. Leaving enforcement of federal laws to the feds is not rejecting federal authority or sovereignty.
This is the first thing that occurred to me when I heard about them a couple days ago. They may think they have discovered a utopia, but what do they do after they have something worth stealing and pirates show up?
Have an army and munitions? I don't think Seasteaders are opposed to defense.
But at that point to really be effective you're probably going to need to recreate the governmental structures you're trying to escape from.
Right, but apart from the national defense, hospitals, schools, roads, subways, water, electricity, sanitation, and public order - what has the government ever done for us?
They gave us the aqueduct?
Of course they gave us the aqueduct. That goes without saying!
What's the correct Latin grammar for "Romans, go home"?
Romani domus!
"Romanes eunt domus?" That's more "people called Romanes, they go the house".
You need the imperative and accusative: "Romani ite domum". Now write it 100 times.
You need the imperative and accusative: "Romani ite domum". Now write it 100 times.
Bridges?
The government didn’t do those things for us. The government used violence to force us to pay for those things, regardless of whether we wanted to or not, among many other things we were also forced to pay for.
I am glad the government forced us to pay for those things. That's a lot of the job!
Its only a job if you contract them voluntarily.
What if the government forced us all to buy BigMacs every day under threat of jail time? Some people would certainly be happy that they are being fed “for free” (deducted prepay for two weeks of government bigmacs from each paycheck + convenience fee + online payment fee + tax), but you might not. Further, this is also assuming government finds the most effective solutions at the lowest cost. Usually they just do the latter to meet the absolute bare minimum. There’s no way for government services to be zero cost, so they assign their own overhead.
So now we have a Department of Burgers in every state. Everyone has to buy them every day, if you dont you go to prison, you cant see the cost breakdown of the bigmacs and the quality is inferior to private BigMacs. Some people who love bigmacs and would buy them anyways say “I am glad the government forced me to pay for them. Thats a lot of the job!”, and those who would never buy them find negative value from such a proposal.
What I’m trying to say is that even if you anecdotally agree, it does not make it right.
What if the government forced us all to buy BigMacs every day under threat of jail time? Some people would certainly be happy that they are being fed “for free” (deducted prepay for two weeks of government bigmacs from each paycheck + convenience fee + online payment fee + tax), but you might not. Further, this is also assuming government finds the most effective solutions at the lowest cost. Usually they just do the latter to meet the absolute bare minimum. There’s no way for government services to be zero cost, so they assign their own overhead.
So now we have a Department of Burgers in every state. Everyone has to buy them every day, if you dont you go to prison, you cant see the cost breakdown of the bigmacs and the quality is inferior to private BigMacs. Some people who love bigmacs and would buy them anyways say “I am glad the government forced me to pay for them. Thats a lot of the job!”, and those who would never buy them find negative value from such a proposal.
What I’m trying to say is that even if you anecdotally agree, it does not make it right.
Perhaps the essential components of pirate defense can be provided more inexpensively with today’s technology than in the past, and large organizations move slowly to adopt efficiencies without an external forcing function.
Obviously not, since since if "components of pirate defense can be provided more inexpensively with today’s technology", then the same technology is available to the pirates...
By the time you have an army you're a government yourself, and you're gonna need to levy taxes, draft conscripts, etc.
Simply put, a non-nation-state can't bring the resources to bear to fight against a nation state. They're just gonna get rolled.
Simply put, a non-nation-state can't bring the resources to bear to fight against a nation state. They're just gonna get rolled.
Actually- are you sure about this? Armys- get strange, like most of them will consist of some drone ships and high tech weapons very soon.
That is something, that anyone can build with a little hi-tech manufacturing power.
Every third world country by now can buy a chinese tomahawk version. Ever increasing artefact power actually lowers the playing field here.
Does it matter, though? If you have access to something that gives you effective sovereignty, whether it's million-man armies or drone ships, you are a de facto government.
That's only if you want a standing army. Standing armies are the root of civilization, and of all evil, depends on how you look at it (I actually think both are true, since they aren't exclusive).
If you don't have a standing army then you better have treaties with ones that have standing armies. The small kid does not get picked on if he has the right friends.
I think nearby nations might have some objections about people attempting to build private armies. (read: aren't going to allow it to happen)
Private armies* are certainly tolerated... when they're being hired by states, anyway.
*or, uh, "security contractors"
*or, uh, "security contractors"
[deleted]
are you saying the Thai navy are the pirates in this case?
> but what do they do after they have something worth stealing and pirates show up?
What do ships do now? Are you aware that ships travel in international waters all of the time, and they don't ever have to worry about pirates? This just isn't a real concern.
What do ships do now? Are you aware that ships travel in international waters all of the time, and they don't ever have to worry about pirates? This just isn't a real concern.
They have to worry about pirates _all the time_.
They call the navy. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-piracy_measures_in_Somali...
There are more places in the world than Somalia.
I doubt that anyone sailing in the Pacific ocean has to worry about this stuff.
I doubt that anyone sailing in the Pacific ocean has to worry about this stuff.
Other places also have piracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy_in_the_21st_century
In general, you see piracy where it's profitable (i.e. on valuable commerce routes), and where the local governments are not particularly good at fighting it, either because they're weak, or because they're corrupt, or both. Sometimes, because they're too busy fighting each other - piracy generally ticks up during major wars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy_in_the_21st_century
In general, you see piracy where it's profitable (i.e. on valuable commerce routes), and where the local governments are not particularly good at fighting it, either because they're weak, or because they're corrupt, or both. Sometimes, because they're too busy fighting each other - piracy generally ticks up during major wars.
I see.
As someone who was trained as a merchant ship's officer and specifically, on how to react to pirates, that simply being in international waters is "protection" is certainly news to me!
As someone who was trained as a merchant ship's officer and specifically, on how to react to pirates, that simply being in international waters is "protection" is certainly news to me!
Are you aware that people travel all the time, in sailboats, in the ocean, and most of them don't get attacked by pirates?
If I am in the Pacific ocean, sailing in my personal boat, I'm don't have to be worried about being literally attacked.
People do this all the time, and do not get attacked.
Yeah, if you enter a literal war zone, you might have to worry about that. But that is not most of the ocean.
Most of the ships in the ocean do not have to worry about literal pirates.
If I am in the Pacific ocean, sailing in my personal boat, I'm don't have to be worried about being literally attacked.
People do this all the time, and do not get attacked.
Yeah, if you enter a literal war zone, you might have to worry about that. But that is not most of the ocean.
Most of the ships in the ocean do not have to worry about literal pirates.
>Law doesn't exist in the aether. It's an organized way to control the use of force, and to get other people to use coercion and the threat of force on your behalf. If you can't use force yourself, or convince someone else to do it on your behalf, you're in trouble.
Indeed. I used to bristle when someone would say that I didn't really 'own' the land I paid for with my home. Of course I do, it says so right here...taps deed.
But then I realized that all I really own is a contract with my neighbors, and that if shit goes down I'm no different than any other schlub standing on the grass I used to mow.
Indeed. I used to bristle when someone would say that I didn't really 'own' the land I paid for with my home. Of course I do, it says so right here...taps deed.
But then I realized that all I really own is a contract with my neighbors, and that if shit goes down I'm no different than any other schlub standing on the grass I used to mow.
Well the thing is, Nation states say you NEED their social contract, or things will go bad. They say it's mostly for your own protection. And there is no other way.
So far, for people trying to escape this contract, the main issue they have found are the very nation states that promise the need for protection and the contract.
I'm not saying these guys have a better way. But I see where they are getting at.
Like living in the ancient world with absolute rulers and dreaming of representative government. We know now there were better options. But at a time when representative government has never been tried, the concept just floating, people will say you need absolute rules, or what will happen?
I'm sure the first time a few guys got together and decided they would do something by decree they were put to death and the history was never recorded. I'm sure those first efforts were very amateur.
I think visionaries by definition have to be a bit out of touch. That is what allows them to live in a possible reality vs a normal one.
I'm decidedly from this one. But I have a lot of respect for the kind of person it would take to do this thing.
Not that I'd do a business venture with them. I admire vision.
So far, for people trying to escape this contract, the main issue they have found are the very nation states that promise the need for protection and the contract.
I'm not saying these guys have a better way. But I see where they are getting at.
Like living in the ancient world with absolute rulers and dreaming of representative government. We know now there were better options. But at a time when representative government has never been tried, the concept just floating, people will say you need absolute rules, or what will happen?
I'm sure the first time a few guys got together and decided they would do something by decree they were put to death and the history was never recorded. I'm sure those first efforts were very amateur.
I think visionaries by definition have to be a bit out of touch. That is what allows them to live in a possible reality vs a normal one.
I'm decidedly from this one. But I have a lot of respect for the kind of person it would take to do this thing.
Not that I'd do a business venture with them. I admire vision.
It looks to me like the Thai navy is proceeding based on a specific interpretation of international law;
Article 60 https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unc...
1. In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have the exclusive right to construct and to authorize and regulate the construction, operation and use of:
(a) artificial islands;
(b) installations and structures for the purposes provided for in article 56 and other economic purposes;
(c) installations and structures which may interfere with the exercise of the rights of the coastal State in the zone.
In all the articles I've read regarding this, they specifically say they're doing it because it is a hazard to oil shipping in Phuket (which I guess would be (c) here). This appears to be a nonsense justification, but critically important is that they're attempting to venture a justification at all. They're not just saying "This is a stateless installation and we're destroying it because we can", as the "beyond the borders of anyone willing to use force on their behalf" narrative would otherwise indicate, and if they were on the high seas beyond the 200nm limit, it's unclear if there would actually be a problem at all with the Thai navy (but probably not, or at least not in this exact fashion).
Article 60 https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unc...
1. In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have the exclusive right to construct and to authorize and regulate the construction, operation and use of:
(a) artificial islands;
(b) installations and structures for the purposes provided for in article 56 and other economic purposes;
(c) installations and structures which may interfere with the exercise of the rights of the coastal State in the zone.
In all the articles I've read regarding this, they specifically say they're doing it because it is a hazard to oil shipping in Phuket (which I guess would be (c) here). This appears to be a nonsense justification, but critically important is that they're attempting to venture a justification at all. They're not just saying "This is a stateless installation and we're destroying it because we can", as the "beyond the borders of anyone willing to use force on their behalf" narrative would otherwise indicate, and if they were on the high seas beyond the 200nm limit, it's unclear if there would actually be a problem at all with the Thai navy (but probably not, or at least not in this exact fashion).
they specifically charge them with threatening the sovereignty of Thai kingdom, which is punishable by death. I doubt interfering with oil shipping lines would bare the same punishment. So it probably can't be under this article
This is similar to the “wiseguys” structure Henry Hill describes in Goodfellas:
“Hundreds of guys depended on Paulie and he got a piece of everything they made. And it was tribute, just like in the old country, except they were doing it here in America. And all they got from Paulie was protection from other guys looking to rip them off. And that's what it's all about. That's what the FBI could never understand. That what Paulie and the organization does is offer protection for people who can't go to the cops. That's it. That's all. They're like the police department for wiseguys“
“Hundreds of guys depended on Paulie and he got a piece of everything they made. And it was tribute, just like in the old country, except they were doing it here in America. And all they got from Paulie was protection from other guys looking to rip them off. And that's what it's all about. That's what the FBI could never understand. That what Paulie and the organization does is offer protection for people who can't go to the cops. That's it. That's all. They're like the police department for wiseguys“
Related:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land
Another related issue (but totally unrelated to the first link):
http://www.offshoreradio.co.uk/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land
Another related issue (but totally unrelated to the first link):
http://www.offshoreradio.co.uk/
Or not, as it may be.
[deleted]
It always astonish how little preparations people do before start projects like this where they throw money away. if you have extra money building that kind of construct is not significant, but it's wasted effort nevertheless.
- Just cursory skimming of Wikipedia of laws of the sea would be enough to reveal that the place where they build their hut is within region of the sea where Thai government has the final say.
- China recently lost the South China Sea Arbitration where tribunal decided that construction of installations and artificial islands does not give rights to claim any sovereignty. If China can't win a arbitration, neither can some Bitcoin Joe.
- There already exists practical way seasteading outside the government if you have they money. You buy yachts registered in offshore accounts. You can also buy a citizenship for tiny island nations that leave you totally alone. Rich people store their valuables in freeports or in their yachts. There are superyacht art collections that rival big museums floating around the world.
- Another example is floating armouries that private military companies have. They those ships to store military grad weapons.
- Just cursory skimming of Wikipedia of laws of the sea would be enough to reveal that the place where they build their hut is within region of the sea where Thai government has the final say.
- China recently lost the South China Sea Arbitration where tribunal decided that construction of installations and artificial islands does not give rights to claim any sovereignty. If China can't win a arbitration, neither can some Bitcoin Joe.
- There already exists practical way seasteading outside the government if you have they money. You buy yachts registered in offshore accounts. You can also buy a citizenship for tiny island nations that leave you totally alone. Rich people store their valuables in freeports or in their yachts. There are superyacht art collections that rival big museums floating around the world.
- Another example is floating armouries that private military companies have. They those ships to store military grad weapons.
We don't know how much preparation they actually made.
Based on the link that Luc posted[1] I don't believe this to be all that money consuming of a project. It appears to be a large steel tube (possibly quire cheap if you aren't in a hurry) with a small structure living on top. I'm figuring $20k USD assuming you sub out the welding at far east labor rates.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19700655]
Based on the link that Luc posted[1] I don't believe this to be all that money consuming of a project. It appears to be a large steel tube (possibly quire cheap if you aren't in a hurry) with a small structure living on top. I'm figuring $20k USD assuming you sub out the welding at far east labor rates.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19700655]
150k but including R+D (via https://ocean.builders )
I suspect most people would be more worried about the practicalities. It doesn't look like the cosiest living space, unless you're particularly fond of eating fish.
It's also not obvious that it would provide much protection from a typhoon, or even a large storm.
It's also not obvious that it would provide much protection from a typhoon, or even a large storm.
>It's also not obvious that it would provide much protection from a typhoon, or even a large storm.
So long as the structure on top holds up a floating post with a bunch of weight in the bottom should basically laugh at any storm. It can't roll. It just moves up and down with the waves. It's like a winter mooring buoy. The stability is exactly why this method of construction is chosen.
So long as the structure on top holds up a floating post with a bunch of weight in the bottom should basically laugh at any storm. It can't roll. It just moves up and down with the waves. It's like a winter mooring buoy. The stability is exactly why this method of construction is chosen.
To live Stiltsville you have to be in the right frame of mind and arrange yourself with the authorities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiltsville
Carl Hiaasen writes about it in Skin Tight and Stormy Weather, that's enough for everyone to know.
Carl Hiaasen writes about it in Skin Tight and Stormy Weather, that's enough for everyone to know.
They're 12mi offshore: they can re-supply by canoe if the water's still enough. Better yet, a squanoe (square-backed canoe) with an electric trolling motor that they can recharge at base.
This was something that boggled my mind when reading about the history of Sealand, and specifically how they tried to set up an extraterritorial "data haven" on it. Like, OK, some random Joe decides his floating rock is an independent nation, that's all fine and good. But apparently they actually believed that countries took their independence claims seriously, as opposed to it just not being worth the Royal Navy's time and money to do anything about some yahoo on an abandoned artillery platform. And so they tried to set up illegal businesses on it! Did none of them think that this would only last as long as it took for somebody at a government to actually pay attention?
The same goes for all these libertarian dreams about seasteading nations with no regulations. Guys, that's only going to last as long as nobody actually cares about what you're doing. The moment you begin actually pissing off countries with navies, the aircraft carriers are going to come and all your legalisms about international waters aren't going to count for squat. Because at the end of the day, in both domestic and international law, might makes right. "Seastanders" are a bunch of LARPers who have somehow forgotten that none of this is real.
The same goes for all these libertarian dreams about seasteading nations with no regulations. Guys, that's only going to last as long as nobody actually cares about what you're doing. The moment you begin actually pissing off countries with navies, the aircraft carriers are going to come and all your legalisms about international waters aren't going to count for squat. Because at the end of the day, in both domestic and international law, might makes right. "Seastanders" are a bunch of LARPers who have somehow forgotten that none of this is real.
I think you're right that if you start openly doing illegal things like offering "data havens" your movement has a time limit. And in this case, the couple made a mistake of building in an area where a country could still theoretically claim sovereignty. But, if you're far enough out and not actively doing anything illegal (gambling is probably ok!) like allowing hosting illegal content or trafficking drugs, I really don't think anybody would care.
I do think seasteading is a bit larpish but I think it's something you could do legitimately as long as you understand your boundaries. Like, if you set up some kind of fishing/aquaculture/gambling operation in the mid-Atlantic, I don't think anybody would stop you
I do think seasteading is a bit larpish but I think it's something you could do legitimately as long as you understand your boundaries. Like, if you set up some kind of fishing/aquaculture/gambling operation in the mid-Atlantic, I don't think anybody would stop you
If you really build your 'nation' in the blue waters far away from any economic zones, you should worry more about crime. What if some rusty fishing ship from third world country decides to relieve you from all your valuables for extra income.
The same thing that happens to a vessel under US protection. You give them whatever they want and they enjoy it consequence-free.
The Navy getting involved in a piracy case is like the SFPD getting involved in a bike theft case.
The Navy getting involved in a piracy case is like the SFPD getting involved in a bike theft case.
Agree, the only way to make it work would be to have a credible deterrent. I suspect some private organisations have, or will soon have the capability to deploy orbital kinetic energy weapons. Much cleaner than nukes, and easier to scale a response up and down as needed.
With crisper and gene editing tech advancing rapidly, bioweapons could soon make a credible deterrent for smaller actors. Any deterrent would need to some kind of dead man switch to release the virus if the nation is nuked or they would be at risk of a decapitation strike.
And in the case of Sealand specifically, at least at the time, the U.K. didn’t even need to send in the military to end the data haven. A backhoe through their comms link would almost certainly have sufficed.
They could bypass that via Microwave, no? Altho, yes, they could just topple their antenna on land too.
Right. There’s still at the mercy of a land-based link. Perhaps today satellite would still be practical. Logistics like food and fuel could also be challenging if the U.K. tried to cut that off.
There are ships that travel out in international waters all of the time, and most of them don't get executed by any rando nation that feels like it.
A seastreaded home is no different.
It is rare for a nation to just go around bombing random boats in the water. It just doesn't happen very often.
A seastreaded home is no different.
It is rare for a nation to just go around bombing random boats in the water. It just doesn't happen very often.
> within region of the sea where Thai government has the final say.
They are beyond 12 miles, this region is not territorial waters but international. They don't have the final say, except in matters relevant to their customs, commerce and artificial islands. If this was in a sea shared by two nations, i m sure the situation would be a lot more complicated.
Also, this was more a statement rather than a realistic seastead. The cost of the tiny seastead is ~$150000. Hopefully more will follow which will lead to a larger discussion about governmental overreaches.
They are beyond 12 miles, this region is not territorial waters but international. They don't have the final say, except in matters relevant to their customs, commerce and artificial islands. If this was in a sea shared by two nations, i m sure the situation would be a lot more complicated.
Also, this was more a statement rather than a realistic seastead. The cost of the tiny seastead is ~$150000. Hopefully more will follow which will lead to a larger discussion about governmental overreaches.
State has jurisdiction does not drop to zero at 12 mile range.
States can enforce laws in four areas: customs, taxation, immigration and pollution within 24 nautical miles (contiguous zone). That's anothe 12 nautical miles after territorial waters.
Then there is 200 nautical mile EEZ.
States can enforce laws in four areas: customs, taxation, immigration and pollution within 24 nautical miles (contiguous zone). That's anothe 12 nautical miles after territorial waters.
Then there is 200 nautical mile EEZ.
If it was a statement, they should be embracing their opportunity to fight it in court and prove their point. Hiding from the opportunity to argue their case is not a statement.
To be fair, whilst I doubt their interpretation of international law is sound, I also don't think their unwillingness to be tried for capital offences against the Thai government by a Thai court says much either way of the value of their statement.
It puts the lie to the notion that you can achieve real sovereignty simply by declaring it.
You need force to back it up, or at least, the potential to use force.
You need force to back it up, or at least, the potential to use force.
"Please return, fight it in Thai court!" Said the official.
Why should they voluntarily return to be evaluated against the existing law where the punishment is death!?
Why should they voluntarily return to be evaluated against the existing law where the punishment is death!?
They're presumed to be hiding inside Thailand at the moment so their options are to continue hiding, attempt to escape the borders of Thailand or turn themselves in.
Considering IIRC both Laos and Vietnam have visa on arrival and highly bribeable border guards, they should be able to escape relatively easily.
Thailand has exit controls, so he would have to sneak through some remote area to get out.
Anyway, I really doubt the Thais will sentence him to death or some crazy life term if they do catch him.
Anyway, I really doubt the Thais will sentence him to death or some crazy life term if they do catch him.
Or hop on a boat. They're a few hundred KM from Malaysia.
And these are libertarian seafaring bitcoiners. A sailboat, watermaker/collector and a fishing rod means they should be able to make it anywhere by water.
And these are libertarian seafaring bitcoiners. A sailboat, watermaker/collector and a fishing rod means they should be able to make it anywhere by water.
Vietnam doesn't share a land border with Thailand. I think you mean Cambodia.
Who said they are restricted to land travel?
less id checks-probably easy to bribe past any border guards-easier to get informal cash based transport.
If I was one of these people I'd find the cheapest bus I could find and get into cambodia asap. I would also wear a very large hat and sunglasses. Then I'd go asap to the us-cambodia embassay.
If I was one of these people I'd find the cheapest bus I could find and get into cambodia asap. I would also wear a very large hat and sunglasses. Then I'd go asap to the us-cambodia embassay.
But failure to escape has the same outcome as turning yourself in, why not make a run for it?
Some pictures of the underwater construction (a hollow 'weighted spar'): https://ocean.builders/a-view-from-below-the-seastead/
I like that they were trying to create a reef-like environment.
I do understand the sea-steaders POV.
It is annoying how when you are born, you are born into a pre-existing system of corporations and government over which you have little to no say in.
One must get some pointless job in order to pay rent and not be homeless.
For large sections of our evolutionary history humans lived in small groups and were nomadic.
I reckon we still have instincts to explore and be self-governing and independent which are utterly stymied in the current milieu.
ps. I'm not intending to romanticize the past, which was pretty much chronic warfare and disease.
ps. I'm not intending to romanticize the past, which was pretty much chronic warfare and disease.
They found the way out! Unfortunately, they also found that unless you are part of a pre-existing societal organisation, you're vogelfrei.
I had to look up 'vogelfrei'
" Vogelfrei in German usage denotes the status of a person on whom a legal penalty of outlawry has been imposed. However, the original meaning of the term referred to independence, being "free as a bird"; the current negative meaning developed only in the 16th century. "
The way the meaning has changed is kinda poignant.
" Vogelfrei in German usage denotes the status of a person on whom a legal penalty of outlawry has been imposed. However, the original meaning of the term referred to independence, being "free as a bird"; the current negative meaning developed only in the 16th century. "
The way the meaning has changed is kinda poignant.
I was actually looking in Wikipedia what the English word is, but the German lemma Vogelfrei corresponds to the English lemma Vogelfrei. So it's actually a rarely used loanword, it seems.
What exactly is the crime they’re charged with, and how is death a possible penalty for building a house where you’re not supposed to?
I wonder if Thailand's military junta sees this "violation of sovereignty" as some sort of personal insult against the king. Since the 2014 coup, the military has claimed its rule is necessary to preserve the honor of the Thai royal family. It rabidly prosecutes any perceived insults, which conveniently tend to be committed by critics of the coup. (But of course to criticize the coup is to criticize the king, since the military claims to act only for the sake of the king...)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8se_majest%C3%A9_in_Thai...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8se_majest%C3%A9_in_Thai...
I'm guessing it's a combination of two things
1. The law wasn't really written to apply to what they did.
2. Thailand is a third world country with a third world justice system, and is acting like it.
1. The law wasn't really written to apply to what they did.
2. Thailand is a third world country with a third world justice system, and is acting like it.
re point #2, treatment of Assange is not according to the first world standards either.
How so? He was accused of a crime, fled the country, then tried to dodge extradition by hiding out in a friendly embassy. The embassy part is weird, but he did that to himself. The rest is normal.
All political prisoners are accused of some crime.
Authorities: We're going to put you in prison
Assange: Not if I do it first!
Assange: Not if I do it first!
They dared questioning the power of government.
> They have been charged under a law on the violation of sovereignty, which stipulates punishment of life in prison or death.
This looks similar to a charge for treason or secession, I guess?
This looks similar to a charge for treason or secession, I guess?
Thailand has a really tough Home Owner’s Association
They made too much noise after 9pm - death!
Read the fine article and find the answers in the first sentence.
I did and I didn’t, respectively.
Not the first sentence, but:
> They have been charged under a law on the violation of sovereignty, which stipulates punishment of life in prison or death.
> They have been charged under a law on the violation of sovereignty, which stipulates punishment of life in prison or death.
I saw that. My question is, which law specifically, what exactly is the crime, how do you break this law by building a house, and why does the death penalty provision apply in this case?
I see now why HN guidelines say you shouldn’t tell people to read the article. You ask a question which is vaguely addressed in the article, and people just assume you’re an idiot.
I see now why HN guidelines say you shouldn’t tell people to read the article. You ask a question which is vaguely addressed in the article, and people just assume you’re an idiot.
I did a little googling and found this story:
https://www.bangkokpost.com/news/general/1661300/seastead-co...
Which refers to Thailand’s criminal code section 119:
> Section 119. Intent to cause injury to the Nation
> Whoever, does any act with intent to cause the Country or any part thereof to descend under the sovereignty of any foreign State, or to deteriorate the independence of the State, shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life.
From http://library.siam-legal.com/thai-law/criminal-code-offense...
https://www.bangkokpost.com/news/general/1661300/seastead-co...
Which refers to Thailand’s criminal code section 119:
> Section 119. Intent to cause injury to the Nation
> Whoever, does any act with intent to cause the Country or any part thereof to descend under the sovereignty of any foreign State, or to deteriorate the independence of the State, shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life.
From http://library.siam-legal.com/thai-law/criminal-code-offense...
Thanks. I guess they really didn’t like the “we’re not part of any nation” thing. Seems like a rather vague law to have the death penalty attached to.
I wonder, in which borders does this apply? If they were in international waters, why is Thailand dragging them back, then accusing them of trying to secede? Or under which laws can Thailand claim somebody floating in international waters was seceding from Thailand?
I think so too, sounds like a big stick the govt can use with wide latitude, to make an example out of something they don’t like.
It's not uncommon, unfortunately (although the penalties are usually not so extreme). Usually it also happens to be the countries that have some large-scale territorial disputes with neighbors.
For example, in Russia, there's a law against "public calls to actions that would violate the territorial sovereignty". In practice, this means that saying something like "Crimea was illegally occupied" is technically illegal, and occasionally enforced.
I recall India mulled a similar law with Jammu and Kashmir in mind, although I don't think they ended up passing that.
For example, in Russia, there's a law against "public calls to actions that would violate the territorial sovereignty". In practice, this means that saying something like "Crimea was illegally occupied" is technically illegal, and occasionally enforced.
I recall India mulled a similar law with Jammu and Kashmir in mind, although I don't think they ended up passing that.
It’s an interesting contrast with, say, sovereign citizens in the US. Law enforcement basically doesn’t care what they think about their sovereignty, they just treat them like any other person.
[deleted]
Thailand, that is not how the contiguous zone is supposed to work.
Sovereign territory stops at the 12 NM limit. The contiguous zone extends up to 12 NM beyond that, for the purposes of enforcing sovereign powers within the territorial zone.
A permanently stationed vessel at 14 NM from shore cannot violate sovereignty, because sovereignty does not exist there, and to claim such is to violate the Law of the Sea Treaty. And to violate the Law of the Sea Treaty is to invite Chinese, Cambodian, Vietnamese, Malaysian, and Burmese fishermen to scoop out everything in your 200 NM EEZ and take it home.
Sovereign territory stops at the 12 NM limit. The contiguous zone extends up to 12 NM beyond that, for the purposes of enforcing sovereign powers within the territorial zone.
A permanently stationed vessel at 14 NM from shore cannot violate sovereignty, because sovereignty does not exist there, and to claim such is to violate the Law of the Sea Treaty. And to violate the Law of the Sea Treaty is to invite Chinese, Cambodian, Vietnamese, Malaysian, and Burmese fishermen to scoop out everything in your 200 NM EEZ and take it home.
The question, as always is, who is going to stop them?
"international law" exists only up until the point that nations respect it.
I doubt any other nations are going to launch a formal complaint on the couple's behalf.
"international law" exists only up until the point that nations respect it.
I doubt any other nations are going to launch a formal complaint on the couple's behalf.
at least one is an american national. I'd support the united states sanctioning the ever living hell out of the Thai government if they executed an american national for building a buoy.
This. The appropriate response is "Nah, you can't do that, please leave and we're going to tear that thing down." Construing it as a threat to the country's sovereignty is lunacy.
precisely.
He isn't ever being put to death or life imprisonment. He may get deported.
If they had a US documented ship, the US navy or coast guard potentially.
The point of seasteading is you do not flag your ship under any nation whose jurisdiction you are seeking to evade. To be unflagged is to be boarded by any nation's ships as a pirate vessel, so you use a flag of convenience, like Panama, Liberia, Malta, Cyprus, Marshall Islands, or even landlocked nations like Mongolia--anyone whose navy is unlikely to find and board your vessel, and who will not seek to enforce laws regarding crew and passenger safety or conduct.
The only interest the US is likely to have in this is specifically with the US citizen, not the Thai citizen or the vessel. So the US State Department, which is already involved as much as it cares to be involved.
If anyone in the US executive cared about such things, the US ambassador or a consul might mention that if Thailand does not keep to the LoST, the US would be less inclined to support the right of free navigation for Thai oceangoing vessels that may have cause to transit the South China Sea. And this would disappear right quick. A glorified fishing bobber with two people living on it does not make a Sealand situation.
The only interest the US is likely to have in this is specifically with the US citizen, not the Thai citizen or the vessel. So the US State Department, which is already involved as much as it cares to be involved.
If anyone in the US executive cared about such things, the US ambassador or a consul might mention that if Thailand does not keep to the LoST, the US would be less inclined to support the right of free navigation for Thai oceangoing vessels that may have cause to transit the South China Sea. And this would disappear right quick. A glorified fishing bobber with two people living on it does not make a Sealand situation.
Why should the US step in to defend sea-steaders who are claiming they are free of the sovereignty of all governments?
I don't want my tax money being wasted on that. Defend US interests, sure, but this isn't a US interest.
I don't want my tax money being wasted on that. Defend US interests, sure, but this isn't a US interest.
> Defend US interests, sure, but this isn't a US interest.
One of the two is a US citizen, and usually nation states are bound to protect the rights of their citizens abroad.
One of the two is a US citizen, and usually nation states are bound to protect the rights of their citizens abroad.
Even citizens who have decided that they want to deliberately live outside the sovereignty of any government?
If the citizen has been charged with a felony in an American court, should the US State Department in your opinion help him?
> If the citizen has been charged with a felony in an American court, should the US State Department in your opinion help him?
I'm a German and I'd say, yes the German state is supposed to help such a person.
In fact, every state that signed the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is bound by law to do so, per Art. 5 lit a of said Convention.
I'm a German and I'd say, yes the German state is supposed to help such a person.
In fact, every state that signed the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is bound by law to do so, per Art. 5 lit a of said Convention.
???
You're going to have to explain what you mean a bit more. I'm not getting the relevance at all.
You're going to have to explain what you mean a bit more. I'm not getting the relevance at all.
It might be relevant because good government agencies rely on formal processes and are suspicious of simple arguments like "well, there are signs that the citizen in trouble is skeptical of the very idea of national sovereignty, so why should the US, a sovereign nation, lift a finger to help him?" This goes under the general heading of "rule of law", as opposed to rule of the whims of individual officials.
In other words, US citizens travelling the world would prefer to know before they get into trouble overseas which behaviors their State Department considers so egregious as to disqualify them for the help that citizens can usually expect. Ergo, the State Department probably publishes a list of such behaviors or situations. I am asking you whether if it were your job to specify such a list, would having felony charges pending in a "US-based" (i.e., state or federal) court be on the list?
In other words, US citizens travelling the world would prefer to know before they get into trouble overseas which behaviors their State Department considers so egregious as to disqualify them for the help that citizens can usually expect. Ergo, the State Department probably publishes a list of such behaviors or situations. I am asking you whether if it were your job to specify such a list, would having felony charges pending in a "US-based" (i.e., state or federal) court be on the list?
Are either of these people in trouble with the US? I didn't see that in the article. That's why I don't see the relevance of what you're asking.
But let's suppose I want no government to have jurisdiction over me. I'm not quite renouncing my US citizenship, but I am explicitly trying to remove myself from all government control. If while doing this I run afoul of a foreign government, should I expect the US to protect me? (They may still do so, for their own sake rather than for mine, but it seems to me that I have no right to expect them to do so.)
Here's a slightly stronger version of the same issue. Ronnie Biggs was an Englishman, wanted in England and living openly in Brazil because it had no extradition treaty with England. If, while doing so, he got in trouble with Brazil, would anyone expect England to try to protect him as an English citizen? He still was one, but...
But let's suppose I want no government to have jurisdiction over me. I'm not quite renouncing my US citizenship, but I am explicitly trying to remove myself from all government control. If while doing this I run afoul of a foreign government, should I expect the US to protect me? (They may still do so, for their own sake rather than for mine, but it seems to me that I have no right to expect them to do so.)
Here's a slightly stronger version of the same issue. Ronnie Biggs was an Englishman, wanted in England and living openly in Brazil because it had no extradition treaty with England. If, while doing so, he got in trouble with Brazil, would anyone expect England to try to protect him as an English citizen? He still was one, but...
I thought it relevant because you don't want the US to help him even though he's not in trouble with the US, which makes me curious whether you want the US to help those that are in trouble with the US.
well I definitely do want my tax money being spent on this.
I doubt the American government is in any hurry to enable this type of movement.
of course not but the united states definitely tries to protect its nationals from what it views as inappropriate harassment and legal enforcement from foreign governments.
FixedSeaStead:Sailboat::TinyHome:RV ?
I appreciate their interest in building such a thing, but what does it do that a 30' sailboat doesn't do?
Is it more stable? I guess as area gets bigger, you need less material with more square/circular designs.
I appreciate their interest in building such a thing, but what does it do that a 30' sailboat doesn't do?
Is it more stable? I guess as area gets bigger, you need less material with more square/circular designs.
A seastead it probably a lot cheaper than a 30' sailboat.
Good 30' boats aren't that expensive. We got our 43' sailboat for $49k, needed a little work, but moved aboard for 4 years.
The hut on a spar idea doesn't appeal to me at all. Boats provided mobility, are well established tech, and have legal protections.
The hut on a spar idea doesn't appeal to me at all. Boats provided mobility, are well established tech, and have legal protections.
New, probably. But used sailboats aren't hard to find at good prices. Something about there being two great days for boat owners: the day they buy it and the day they sell it.
They go for US$20k-US$30k if you're okay with a 30 year old one. https://www.yachtworld.com/boats/Sail/Cruiser%252FRacer/Cata...
They go for US$20k-US$30k if you're okay with a 30 year old one. https://www.yachtworld.com/boats/Sail/Cruiser%252FRacer/Cata...
I mean. Dont take it sitting down but also get the hell out of Thailand if you can (and you can).
I get some of the appeal to some extent but let's say you could just build something out on the ocean and claim some sort of sovereignty. What protection do you have from someone just coming along and taking it from you?
Do they imagine some sort of everyone has sovereignty paradise, when a Mad Max / Waterworld type result seems just as likely?
Do they imagine some sort of everyone has sovereignty paradise, when a Mad Max / Waterworld type result seems just as likely?
What is there to take? It's not like their floating tube with a house on top is worth a lot or efficient to liquidate.
You don’t have to have anything. All it takes is for som one to think you have something. If they can afford to build a hut on a tube, someone, somewhere will likely take an interest.
I'd imagine that one of the perks of sovereignty is that no one, other than your own army, is obliged to protect you.
They're explicitly not claiming sovereignty.
What do they feel they get out of being in international waters?
[deleted]
> What is there to take?
Well, their house to begin with.
Well, their house to begin with.
Thailand's government is a dictatorship. They are BSing, the seastead was beyond their territorial 12 miles, in the contiguous zone in which they have limited power. The exclusive economic zone is not territorial waters either. They have charged the couple with ridiculous "violation of sovereignty" at a place where they dont have sovereignity.
I'm not on Thailand's side here WRT punishment, that seems a bit ridiculous.
That said, 'international waters' are not the place to build semi-permanent housing. If everyone did that, where/how would ships even operate? How long until Somali pirates show up, murder you, and take all your possessions with no 'government' to protect you? I tend to side with Thailand basically telling them to sod off, just not with the threat of death/imprisonment.
That said, 'international waters' are not the place to build semi-permanent housing. If everyone did that, where/how would ships even operate? How long until Somali pirates show up, murder you, and take all your possessions with no 'government' to protect you? I tend to side with Thailand basically telling them to sod off, just not with the threat of death/imprisonment.
> How long until Somali pirates show up, murder you, and take all your possessions with no 'government' to protect you?
I assume most somali pirates do operate in international waters, which are not officially protected by anyone.
wiki:
> Piracy off the coast of Somalia refers to criminal violence and threats by Somalian pirates in the Gulf of Aden, Guardafui Channel and Somali Sea, in what some say are disputed territorial waters.
I assume most somali pirates do operate in international waters, which are not officially protected by anyone.
wiki:
> Piracy off the coast of Somalia refers to criminal violence and threats by Somalian pirates in the Gulf of Aden, Guardafui Channel and Somali Sea, in what some say are disputed territorial waters.
man this comment feels so helpless. Oh no! what if x happens?! The answer is you deal with it. Will it be rainbows and farts? probably not, but I assume these people want to abandon their home governments because they didn't like the way they were treated. What's wrong with autonomy? What's wrong with facing hardship like our ancestors did?
>What's wrong with autonomy? What's wrong with facing hardship like our ancestors did?
When people rely on others to protect them their whole lives, they never learn how to protect themselves. So naturally the thought of autonomy and self defense triggers a feeling of paralyzing helplessness.
When people rely on others to protect them their whole lives, they never learn how to protect themselves. So naturally the thought of autonomy and self defense triggers a feeling of paralyzing helplessness.
With what? A gun? A cannon? A blunderbuss! In what world can a couple on a floating plot defeat a boatload of pirates with AK47s? These are people who've successfully taken over entire cargo ships, mind you.
Crews of cargo ships generally go unarmed, for insurance reasons, and they carry cargoes worth many millions of dollars. It's not hard to understand why a group of pirates might choose to take the risk of raiding such a vessel.
It's harder to see the logic in what would essentially be a glorified home invasion. Where's the money in it? Why wouldn't this hypothetical seasteading couple simply get their own AK47s and threaten to shoot back? Are pirates really going to risk death over someone's household goods?
It's harder to see the logic in what would essentially be a glorified home invasion. Where's the money in it? Why wouldn't this hypothetical seasteading couple simply get their own AK47s and threaten to shoot back? Are pirates really going to risk death over someone's household goods?
In what world can a couple on sovereign land defend themselves from an oppressive government that has a monopoly on violence?These are entities that have imprisoned and oppressed entire groups of people, mind you.
Because when some freedom-loving couple takes root in some god-forsaken islet in the middle of nowhere, and when they are trapped in the middle of a hurricane, together with their newborn baby, with three hours to spare before their freedom-house goes underwater, it will be morally wrong to sentence the baby to death just because their parents are idiots, so the government will be morally compelled to send rescue squads, spending taxpayer money and possible endangering lives of rescue workers.
Those people are all making a choice to put themselves in danger for people who explicitly don't want their support. If you're in the "babies are sacred" camp, there are far easier and more productive avenues for your government to take on. This appeal to emotion ("THINK OF THE CHILDREN") is really, really dumb.
"Think of the children" can be used as an emotional play, but that's not a dumb cliche. There are not many things modern civilization has agreed upon, but one of them is that a child is an independent human being with their own rights and not the property of parents.
In fact, it's a logical consequence of recognizing a human being as an independent individual with natural rights and not the subject of a monarch or whatever authority you have. (Which is itself a pretty modern concept, not commonly recognized in most traditional societies.)
In fact, it's a logical consequence of recognizing a human being as an independent individual with natural rights and not the subject of a monarch or whatever authority you have. (Which is itself a pretty modern concept, not commonly recognized in most traditional societies.)
[deleted]
There is no government protection from property crime in most big cities. Somehow life goes on.
https://youtu.be/c83TiSJ6sfA?t=64
How sad :(
from the article:
> The group said in a statement the home was in a so-called contiguous zone of 12-24 nautical miles, where very limited Thai regulations applied, and they had no intention of setting up any independent state or “micro nation”.
from the two people charged themselves: https://youtu.be/8bceePdFruU?t=77
> ...will be better governance
> mumbling about living in a "smart system"
> as opposed to [...] that current governments have
And if you watch a bit further he's going on about how the FDA takes years to approve drugs and somehow living on the ocean would fix that
> The group said in a statement the home was in a so-called contiguous zone of 12-24 nautical miles, where very limited Thai regulations applied, and they had no intention of setting up any independent state or “micro nation”.
from the two people charged themselves: https://youtu.be/8bceePdFruU?t=77
> ...will be better governance
> mumbling about living in a "smart system"
> as opposed to [...] that current governments have
And if you watch a bit further he's going on about how the FDA takes years to approve drugs and somehow living on the ocean would fix that
[deleted]
Why not just buy a 46’ catamaran?
That's what I'm thinking. An old enough and used one is like an old diesel car. As long as it still runs, it will still be worth what you paid for it.
The floating weighted tube is designed such that it's not influenced by wave action. To oversimplify, the proportion of overall volume/buoyancy that a wave covers and uncovers is insignificant and so even in somewhat rough seas, the platform probably feels like solid land, not bouncing up and down or rocking side to side.
Thanks for the explanation. I hadn't considered the length of the tube in the this setup.
Is this how floating oil rigs work?
Is this how floating oil rigs work?
Yea, generally oil rigs have a similar design with most of the buoyant volume underwater. There are a few different designs to achieve this but ultimately the goal is the same.
You can also do something similar with boats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small-waterplane-area_twin_hul...
You can also do something similar with boats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small-waterplane-area_twin_hul...
I’ve been out of the business for a long time, but in addition to the fact that semi-submersibles pump in ballast and partially submerge when operating, they’re generally anchored using 8 or so anchors. There have been dynamically rigs for deep water drilling but I’m not as familiar with current details. I assume with current oil prices deep water drilling is pretty unattractive.
Are there are any structures for large numbers of people to live on the ocean that are actually.... practical? Not an engineer, but it seems like quite a challenge. I'm sure it's possible to come up with something that's stable most of the time, but edge cases like hurricanes/typhoons would seem to be tough to plan for?
I'd imagine that having a few wealthy backers who buy a used cruise ship would be more practical than trying to build a quasi-permanent structure out on the exposed ocean. The ship could just continuously idle in one place, preferably a pirate/bandit free sort of area near the US.
Of course, ships require an absolutely staggering amount of maintenance, which would probably require some form of collective taxation among the residents to pay for it.... you'd have to have marine engineers on payroll, or fly them out at enormous expense etc. But that just gets to how silly these libertarian ideas are in practice
I'd imagine that having a few wealthy backers who buy a used cruise ship would be more practical than trying to build a quasi-permanent structure out on the exposed ocean. The ship could just continuously idle in one place, preferably a pirate/bandit free sort of area near the US.
Of course, ships require an absolutely staggering amount of maintenance, which would probably require some form of collective taxation among the residents to pay for it.... you'd have to have marine engineers on payroll, or fly them out at enormous expense etc. But that just gets to how silly these libertarian ideas are in practice
Are there are any structures for large
numbers of people to live on the ocean
that are actually.... practical?
>Are there are any structures for large numbers of people to live on the ocean that are actually.... practical?
Oil drilling platforms have refined the concept pretty well.
1. Replace the drilling stuff with a casino to make money.
2. Park it somewhere nobody cares about.
3. "Import" your groceries.
4. ?????
5. Live peaceably in your utopia.
Oil drilling platforms have refined the concept pretty well.
1. Replace the drilling stuff with a casino to make money.
2. Park it somewhere nobody cares about.
3. "Import" your groceries.
4. ?????
5. Live peaceably in your utopia.
I would replace the casino with a PMC headquarters, if only because the resource cost to annex you when you inevitably piss of some country is dramatically higher
there is VC backed Blue Frontiers, funded by wealthy donors. But I don't follow how they are doing
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-30/floating-...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-30/floating-...
The real problem ends up being food. Solar panels last for decades, and with them you can desalinate your drinking water and power your lights and such. But how do you get enough food to eat? Even just feeding one person requires a surprisingly large greenhouse, and space (and soil) aren't exactly a luxury you have at sea.
“Thai sovereignty by raising a small cabin on top of a big, weighted spar in what they say are international waters, 14 nautical miles off the west-coast Thai island of Phuket.”
I wonder if the location was intentional or just great irony
I wonder if the location was intentional or just great irony
what's so ironic about it? His girlfriend is Thai. And that part of the sea has very low waves.
That they moved away from the jurisdiction of the government in a town that in english looks like it could be pronounced “Fuck it”
This really reminds me of the game Subnautica
A death sentence? Excuse me?
Reminds me Waterworld.
The fact that this is even happening shows that the Thai state is seriously quaking in its boots.
In a certain sense, I guess they accomplished their goal
In a certain sense, I guess they accomplished their goal
How do you figure? What does the Thai state have to be afraid of in these two? Do you think they're gonna start some movement to populate the Thai seas while the government just watches in dismay? Seems like the state has a pretty firm grip on the situation.
Secure nations don't have to behave like this, and usually don't. Nations that feel like they're right on the edge of losing control behave like this.
What specifically does (the government of) Thailand have to be afraid of? I have no idea. Looking weak to their own population? Looking weak to the king, which will make him question whether he really needs the military to run the country for him? I don't know.
What specifically does (the government of) Thailand have to be afraid of? I have no idea. Looking weak to their own population? Looking weak to the king, which will make him question whether he really needs the military to run the country for him? I don't know.
I know it seems unrealistic, but if they didnt feel threatened in some way there wouldnt have been much of a reason to crack down on something so apparently innocuous (and legal)
> The pair are part of a “seasteading” movement that advocates the building of floating communities in international waters beyond the bounds of any national laws.
> But the Thai navy raided their home this week and authorities revoked Elwartowski’s visa and charged them.
Law doesn't exist in the aether. It's an organized way to control the use of force, and to get other people to use coercion and the threat of force on your behalf. If you can't use force yourself, or convince someone else to do it on your behalf, you're in trouble. These seasteaders aren't "beyond the bounds of ... national laws" they're beyond the borders of a sovereign entity that is willing to use force on their behalf.