U.S.-Thai pair facing death for 'sea home' should fight charge, Thailand says
reuters.com
reuters.com
> 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.
You need the imperative and accusative: "Romani ite domum". Now write it 100 times.
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.
*or, uh, "security contractors"
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.
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.
I doubt that anyone sailing in the Pacific ocean has to worry about this stuff.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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...
And worth pointing out that even flagged vessels of other countries can (and often are) boarded and inspected by the USCG.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land
Another related issue (but totally unrelated to the first link):
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
“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“
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).
- 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.
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.
It's also not obvious that it would provide much protection from a typhoon, or even a large storm.
Carl Hiaasen writes about it in Skin Tight and Stormy Weather, that's enough for everyone to know.
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.
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.
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.
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
The Navy getting involved in a piracy case is like the SFPD getting involved in a bike theft case.
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.
You need force to back it up, or at least, the potential to use force.
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.
Why should they voluntarily return to be evaluated against the existing law where the punishment is death!?
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.
Anyway, I really doubt the Thais will sentence him to death or some crazy life term if they do catch him.
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.
ps. I'm not intending to romanticize the past, which was pretty much chronic warfare and disease.
" 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.
> They have been charged under a law on the violation of sovereignty, which stipulates punishment of life in prison or death.
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.
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...
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.
This looks similar to a charge for treason or secession, I guess?
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.
Assange: Not if I do it first!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8se_majest%C3%A9_in_Thai...
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.
"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.
I don't want my tax money being wasted on that. 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.
You're going to have to explain what you mean a bit more. I'm not getting the relevance at all.
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?
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'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.
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.
GP addresses this - China et al.
Well not exactly stop, but take advantage of Taiwan violating the treaty for their own benefit. I think it's a pretty plausible consequence of doing this.
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.
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...
The hut on a spar idea doesn't appeal to me at all. Boats provided mobility, are well established tech, and have legal protections.
Do they imagine some sort of everyone has sovereignty paradise, when a Mad Max / Waterworld type result seems just as likely?
Well, their house to begin with.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.)
> 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
Is this how floating oil rigs work?
You can also do something similar with boats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small-waterplane-area_twin_hul...
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?
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.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-30/floating-...
I wonder if the location was intentional or just great irony
In a certain sense, I guess they accomplished their goal
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.