Comment by nabla9 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nabla9 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

150k but including R+D (via https://ocean.builders )

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Illegal to who?

Any country which could reasonably claim jurisdiction, or any country that you would directly affect, probably.

which is exactly who in international waters?

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com