
U.S.-Thai pair facing death for 'sea home' should fight charge, Thailand says - petethomas
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-thailand-seahome/u-s-thai-pair-facing-death-for-sea-home-should-fight-the-charge-thailand-says-idUSKCN1RV0KM
======
rayiner
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.

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
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?

~~~
randyrand
Have an army and munitions? I don't think Seasteaders are opposed to defense.

~~~
hn_throwaway_99
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.

~~~
klipt
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?

~~~
csharpminor
They gave us the aqueduct?

~~~
coldtea
Of course they gave us the aqueduct. That goes without saying!

~~~
logfromblammo
What's the correct Latin grammar for "Romans, go home"?

~~~
LifeLiverTransp
Romani domus!

~~~
logfromblammo
"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.

------
nabla9
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.

~~~
Analemma_
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.

~~~
opportune
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

~~~
isostatic
Illegal to who?

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

~~~
trickstra
which is exactly who in international waters?

------
jaytaylor
"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!?

~~~
wavefunction
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.

~~~
dontbenebby
Considering IIRC both Laos and Vietnam have visa on arrival and highly
bribeable border guards, they should be able to escape relatively easily.

~~~
Canada
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.

~~~
Scoundreller
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.

------
Luc
Some pictures of the underwater construction (a hollow 'weighted spar'):
[https://ocean.builders/a-view-from-below-the-
seastead/](https://ocean.builders/a-view-from-below-the-seastead/)

~~~
lostlogin
I like that they were trying to create a reef-like environment.

------
everyone
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.

~~~
Tomte
They found the way out! Unfortunately, they also found that unless you are
part of a pre-existing societal organisation, you're vogelfrei.

~~~
everyone
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.

~~~
Tomte
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.

------
mikeash
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?

~~~
closetohome
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.

~~~
shitgoose
re point #2, treatment of Assange is not according to the first world
standards either.

~~~
mikeash
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.

~~~
shitgoose
All political prisoners are accused of some crime.

------
logfromblammo
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.

~~~
throwaway2048
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.

~~~
weaklearner
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.

~~~
_bxg1
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.

~~~
weaklearner
precisely.

------
Scoundreller
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.

~~~
aaronarduino
A seastead it probably a lot cheaper than a 30' sailboat.

~~~
alsobrsp
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.

------
thinkingkong
I mean. Dont take it sitting down but also get the hell out of Thailand if you
can (and you can).

------
duxup
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?

~~~
Causality1
They're explicitly not claiming sovereignty.

~~~
duxup
What do they feel they get out of being in international waters?

------
return0
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.

------
axaxs
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.

~~~
bluntfang
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?

~~~
50656E6973
>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.

~~~
axaxs
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.

~~~
marssaxman
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?

------
gorbypark
[https://youtu.be/c83TiSJ6sfA?t=64](https://youtu.be/c83TiSJ6sfA?t=64) How sad
:(

------
aloer
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](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

------
MaupitiBlue
Why not just buy a 46’ catamaran?

~~~
AWildC182
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.

~~~
noneeeed
Thanks for the explanation. I hadn't considered the length of the tube in the
this setup.

Is this how floating oil rigs work?

~~~
AWildC182
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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small-waterplane-
area_twin_hull)

~~~
ghaff
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.

------
hash872
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

~~~
dsfyu404ed
>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.

~~~
tomatotomato37
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

------
blackflame7000
“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

~~~
trickstra
what's so ironic about it? His girlfriend is Thai. And that part of the sea
has very low waves.

~~~
blackflame7000
That they moved away from the jurisdiction of the government in a town that in
english looks like it could be pronounced “Fuck it”

------
csours
This really reminds me of the game Subnautica

------
_bxg1
A death sentence? Excuse me?

------
shmerl
Reminds me Waterworld.

------
voldacar
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

~~~
reading-at-work
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.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
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.

