This is a really good illustration of the fundamental nature of law:
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
>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.
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.
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).
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“
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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...)
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.
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?
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.
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?
> 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.
> 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”.
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.
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
“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
[+] [-] rayiner|6 years ago|reply
> 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.
[+] [-] jonathankoren|6 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] riazrizvi|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HeyLaughingBoy|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jcims|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] 4ntonius8lock|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] etherael|6 years ago|reply
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).
[+] [-] joejerryronnie|6 years ago|reply
“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“
[+] [-] coldtea|6 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land
Another related issue (but totally unrelated to the first link):
http://www.offshoreradio.co.uk/
[+] [-] throwaway2048|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] nabla9|6 years ago|reply
- 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.
[+] [-] dsfyu404ed|6 years ago|reply
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]
[+] [-] return0|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Analemma_|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jaytaylor|6 years ago|reply
Why should they voluntarily return to be evaluated against the existing law where the punishment is death!?
[+] [-] wavefunction|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Luc|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lostlogin|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] everyone|6 years ago|reply
ps. I'm not intending to romanticize the past, which was pretty much chronic warfare and disease.
[+] [-] mikeash|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Agathos|6 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8se_majest%C3%A9_in_Thai...
[+] [-] closetohome|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] afarah|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saagarjha|6 years ago|reply
This looks similar to a charge for treason or secession, I guess?
[+] [-] microtherion|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wavefunction|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] logfromblammo|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] throwaway2048|6 years ago|reply
"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.
[+] [-] Scoundreller|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] thinkingkong|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] duxup|6 years ago|reply
Do they imagine some sort of everyone has sovereignty paradise, when a Mad Max / Waterworld type result seems just as likely?
[+] [-] return0|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] axaxs|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] bluntfang|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jtms|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] closeparen|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] return0|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] gorbypark|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aloer|6 years ago|reply
> 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
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] MaupitiBlue|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AWildC182|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Scoundreller|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hash872|6 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] blackflame7000|6 years ago|reply
I wonder if the location was intentional or just great irony
[+] [-] csours|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _bxg1|6 years ago|reply