Bitcoin-Trading 'Seasteader' Now on the Run For His Life (fee.org) 240
An American bitcoin trader and his girlfriend became the first couple to actually live on a "seastead" -- a 20-meter octagon floating in international waters a full 12 nautical miles from Thailand.
Long-time Slashdot reader SonicSpike shared this article from the libertarian Foundation for Economic Education describing what happened next: [W]hile they got to experience true sovereignty for a handful of weeks, their experiment was cut short after the Thai government declared that their seastead was a threat to its national sovereignty... Asserting that [their seastead] "Exly" was still within Thailand's 200-mile exclusive economic zone, the government made plans to charge the couple with threatening Thailand's national sovereignty, a crime punishable by death. However, before the Thai Navy could come detain the couple, they were tipped off and managed to escape. They are now on the run, fleeing for their lives.
Venture capitalist and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel has donated over $1 million to the Seasteading Institute -- though news about this first experiment must be discouraging. "We lived on a floating house boat for a few weeks and now Thailand wants us killed," one of the seasteaders posted on his Facebook feed.
Last week the Arizona Republic reported that since the Thai government dismantled his ocean home, he's been "on the run" for over two weeks.
Long-time Slashdot reader SonicSpike shared this article from the libertarian Foundation for Economic Education describing what happened next: [W]hile they got to experience true sovereignty for a handful of weeks, their experiment was cut short after the Thai government declared that their seastead was a threat to its national sovereignty... Asserting that [their seastead] "Exly" was still within Thailand's 200-mile exclusive economic zone, the government made plans to charge the couple with threatening Thailand's national sovereignty, a crime punishable by death. However, before the Thai Navy could come detain the couple, they were tipped off and managed to escape. They are now on the run, fleeing for their lives.
Venture capitalist and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel has donated over $1 million to the Seasteading Institute -- though news about this first experiment must be discouraging. "We lived on a floating house boat for a few weeks and now Thailand wants us killed," one of the seasteaders posted on his Facebook feed.
Last week the Arizona Republic reported that since the Thai government dismantled his ocean home, he's been "on the run" for over two weeks.
lol (Score:1)
Send a carrier group as an escort for the lulz
Re: (Score:2)
Send a carrier group as an escort for the lulz
Or just don't bother.
Patience is a virtue; wait a few months and the first tropical storm will completely solve this problem for you.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> libertarians don't usually have carrier groups.
[...]
But, surely they can contract with someone for such security.
Re: (Score:3)
They got all that bitcoin -- hire Halliburton.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
says he hiding behind our carrier groups and all theother benefits protections his nation state provides
Anarchy (Score:1)
Living without government is a two-edged sword. With total freedom comes total responsibility for self-defense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A recent study has shown that libertarians tend to be more rational than others. Leftists and rightists of non-libertarian beliefs tend to be more emotional, with leftists being overly sensitive to those who suffer.
A libertarian society does not incentivize poverty. A libertarian society protects rights including LIBERTY, hence its name. Among those rights is the most fundamental right, the right to life, which is why in a libertarian society people could call on police to protect them from deadly mobs.
I'm not seeing a problem here. (Score:1)
Great Britain had much the same problem with the Argentina and the Falklands, and it's worked out fine for them.
I think China also has a similar project going.
All the seasteaders need to do is sell some of their bitcoins and build a navy to protect their interests.
Or has the value of BTC dropped too much for that?
Re: (Score:3)
Great Britain had much the same problem with the Argentina and the Falklands, and it's worked out fine for them.
Must be an even bigger problem with the USA and Canada - never mind territorial waters, they are actually touching each other FFS!
Re: (Score:2)
Countries can claim what they want, and argue before the international community in the UN - but when it comes down to the reality of sovereignty, the only concern that really matters is the ability to apply force or the threat of force. Plenty of people have tried to claim their own independent country, but the only ones who do not eventually end up facing an 'invasion' by law enforcement are those who too small and unobtrusive to be worth the expense.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a problem if you agree on how the borders are defined. For the US and Canada that's *mostly* been done. There are a few disputed areas even there.
The problem with letting people set up new countries is that they can then challenge your existing borders. China is busy building islands in the South China Sea to do exactly that.
Re: (Score:2)
The problems are where they aren't quite touching. https://www.pri.org/stories/20... [pri.org]
There's also the Canada and Dane dispute, which has gotten serious, with the Danes stealing our bottle of Canadian Club, leaving a bottle of Schnaps and now fighting on Google. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
You can't escape society (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You can't escape society (Score:4, Informative)
Their vessel / seastead is clearly situated on International Water - meaning, it is *OUTSIDE* the territorial sovereignty of Thailand
In the international waters, activity on board the ship are subject to laws of country of origin. Secondly, any country is free to bring forward criminal charges against a ship's crew or passengers, And even if the charges are bogus, nobody is going to protect you, unless it's in their own economic interest to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
Laws, the word you are looking for are laws
Laws only work when governments are willing to apply them. If you believe all governments follow their own law, let alone international law, you live a very sheltered life. Off the top of my head I can cite 5 recent instances where individuals have been arrested and/or kidnapped and tried, or are currently awaiting trial, in or by a country which has absolutely no jurisdiction over them. Take a guess at a few of them.
Re: (Score:3)
Thailand, as I mentioned above, is a truly fucked-up country. It does not respect any international convention.
Most countries are willing to do international murder if it's convenient.
Re: (Score:2)
Most countries are willing to do international murder if it's convenient.
Most countries, dare I say all, are not sentient. They are neither willing nor unwilling to do anything because they don't have "will".
A more accurate observation is that most people would are willing to commit murder are also willing to do other unscrupulous things. People who are willing to do unscrupulous things are disproportionately successful at obtaining positions of power regardless of the structure of a country's government. Consequently, it is unlikely that any country will have a government compo
Re: (Score:2)
Most countries, dare I say all, are not sentient. They are neither willing nor unwilling to do anything because they don't have "will".
Indeed. It would be more accurate to say, "Most people who gain the power of state, are willing to do international murder if it is convenient."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. These idiots that go on about the "UN" or "international waters" or "international law" or whatever aren't based in reality. They are 15 minutes from Thailand.
Re:You can't escape society (Score:5, Insightful)
International waters are not a lawless zone. There are a few key treaties that govern them. One key principle is that all ships must be registered to a country of origin, and the government of that country is then responsible for law enforcement upon that ship.
There's nothing in practice to stop someone from just sailing out into international waters with an unregistered ship - but eventually someone is going to come to investigate this suspicious activity, probably assuming it's involved in smuggling of some variety or covert military operations, and as the ship is unregistered any one with big enough guns is free to come and take it by force.
It's hard enough to really find 'international waters.' As the individual of the story discovered - treaties regulate national territorial claims, but countries can extend their economic claims as far as they want, and many have done so upon realizing the lucrative possibilities of ocean mining and oil extraction. Parts of the South China Sea are claimed by six different countries, all of which insist that they and they along have the ownership to exploit those areas of ocean economically - though in practice China routinely sails large military ships around there as an unsubtle reminder that they have effective control by virtue of having the ability to blow anyone else out the water if they choose. If you want to find some real, claimed-by-noone ocean, you're going to have to go further from shore than a commuter ferry will cover.
Re: (Score:3)
Mod SuricouRaven up! I was going to post exactly this, but now don't have to.
The whole "living beyond the reach of law" is a fantasy most popular with Libertarians (some religious cults get into this also), and grifters sometimes come up with schemes to try to sell this as an actual possibility to the gullible.
But the fantasy is also a lie. As was mentioned up thread this guy is not "living on his raft", he is just occasionally spending time there and hyping this raft as a "seastead". He does not raise food
Re: (Score:3)
I suppose it might be possible... you'd need a giant heap of money to buy a ship, for a start. A proper ship. Then retrofit it - solar power, electric propulsion, water filtration, hydroponic gardens. Recruit enough idealists to crew it, register in a country that'll let just anyone register.
The smallest, cheapest container ship I can find prices on is a 2010 estimate of $10M for a 500TEU. That's small as cargo ships go, but it'll be big enough for our project. You'll have to spend the same again to retrofi
Re: (Score:2)
No, you have successfully recruited 20,000 people who stated their desire to join. When the call goes out, how many of them are going to be willing to actually uproot their life and move? Even if every single one does, that's 25,000 people in a state of 1.4 million. You are nothing.
Re: You can't escape society (Score:2)
uh oh, so much difference to "Treason" in the "US"
The U.S. doesn't pretend to be a Buddhist country. (To be fair, we don't pretend to be a Christian country, either, which is good because we sure as fuck have a lot of ignorant dumbasses who pretend to be Christian.).
Seems I don't really have a point...
Colour me unsurprised. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Colour me unsurprised. (Score:4, Insightful)
the US invaded Iraq (Score:2)
NATO nations regularly take out pirates.
NATO has no problems killing people, whether by drone or otherwise.
Re: the US invaded Iraq (Score:4, Informative)
When, exactly, did GERMANY supposedly invade Sealand? Mercenaries with German citizenship hired by a former Sealand official != "Germany".
Not even BRITAIN invaded Sealand. It just issued an arrest warrant, then calmly waited for Sealand's royal family to set foot on British soil.
Re: (Score:2)
They actually tried to invade it. So by being factually correct you are historically wrong. The Sealand "citizens" repelled the boarders with water cannons.
Re: (Score:2)
They actually tried to invade it. So by being factually correct you are historically wrong. The Sealand "citizens" repelled the boarders with water cannons.
No they didn't. He's historically quite right. Sealand was never invaded. There was an attempted Coup d'état of Sealand instigated by a Sealand citizen against the family running Sealand.
They also didn't manage to repel them. The attackers successfully boarded and took one of the family members hostage, that same family member then overthrew his captors and "arrested" them. The only thing the Germans did was send a diplomat to negotiate the release of the captured since they were German citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany invaded sealand.
This is nonsense. Roughs Tower (aka "Sealand") belongs to the British government, and is inside British territorial waters, but the UK hs abandoned use of it, and has had little interest in policing the activities there, but would solidly be within its rights to simply show up and clear everyone off some afternoon and forbid and further trespassing, arresting everyone who lands there.
The altercation you reference was simply a struggle between business partners in crime, a purely private affair. The German s
Re: (Score:2)
It was outside of British territorial waters when the occupants at the time declared independence. Then Britain extended those waters. This is the basis on which they claim independence.
The few occupants (Even their monarch doesn't actually live there now) are sensible enough never to do anything which would annoy the British government too much though - they know perfectly well that their legally-dubious independence claim is not going to be effective if they ever become worth the expense and effort of ac
Turkey could (Score:1)
They've jailed thousands of people, including hundreds of journalists [wikipedia.org].
If Recep Tayyip Erdogan decided to kill all the foreigners on a floating octagon, I'm sure they would.
Turkey's NATO membership should be suspended until Erdogan's scumbag Islamist government [battleswarmblog.com] is out of power.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure a NATO country couldn't get away with declaring war on floating octagons.
Given that certain NATO countries can and do get away with declaring war on countries counting millions of people on false pretenses [wikipedia.org], I don't see what would stop them from "declaring war" on a puny little octagon.
Re: (Score:2)
NATO countries have high quality missiles to remove threats at sea.
Turkey fired anti-aircraft missiles into Syria to shoot at Russian planes, simply because the planes were inside Turkey when they pressed the button. They did that knowing fully that the planes would be in Syria when the missiles hit them.
If some stateless entity declares sovereignty inside of a NATO country's exclusive economic zone, they should expect nothing less than the four-star terrorist removal plan.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure a NATO country couldn't get away with declaring war on floating octagons.
Technically if they recognize it as a country first they can say they've been invaded and call upon the whole alliance to aid in expelling them. In practice they'll just ignore your claim. I'm sure there's somebody who's tried the legal theory that their land or house has silently seceded from the US of A and thus the US courts don't have jurisdiction to prosecute any crimes. It doesn't work.
Hey snowflake.. might makes right (Score:1, Insightful)
Now give me your lunch money.
If you honestly think you can park some floating trash off the coast of a sovereign nation - i.e. a nation with a standing military that includes soldiers, aircraft, and a navy - and flout international norms because you had the temerity to scratch some words on paper - then you deserve to have your lunch money (and your boat) stolen.
“Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”
H.L. Mencken, Prejudices: First Series
https://www.goodreads.com/quot... [goodreads.com]
Re: Hey snowflake.. might makes right (Score:1)
Puzzled by all the references to 'floating' and 'boat'. It had a spar, anchored to the ocean floor. The area was chosen for historically low maximum waves, but there's akways a first.
Elwar is far from a snowflake, he recently retired from a career the US military, after volunteering to serve in hazardous areas.
Re: Hey snowflake.. might makes right (Score:4, Interesting)
Besides buying Lamborghinis, going on cruises and attending thousand dollar-ticket Bitcoin Conferences around the world, what else do BTC’s early adopters do with their money? In the case of Chad Elwartowski, ex software engineer and retired bitcoin investor, the answer is pretty novel, and indicative of the amount of creativity, curiosity and bravery that many crypto investors have: seasteading.
From https://coinclarity.com/bitcoi... [coinclarity.com]
It goes on to say:
Seasteading is the idea of removing oneself from the confines of society and government by building an unregulated, nationless house in international waters. This can be accomplished by anchoring a livable platform to the ocean floor with a steel cylinder, otherwise known as a spar. The design is similar to an oil platform, but for the purposes of housing a single family, much smaller and less costly.
Sounds like a very confused, tax-evading scofflaw snowflake to me. He served his country, then decides that what he helped defend is too confining and abandons it to live as a stateless, nation-less individual..
And the dude and his cohorts seem confused on the difference between a spar and a pylon. I can't find the word 'spar' anywhere in this or similar articles:
https://engineering.stackexcha... [stackexchange.com]
Re-defining spar to to mean pylon goes along with their agenda of escaping those annoying rules of society, like paying taxes and investing in a community.
He and his kind truly make me want to hoist a black flag and do some plundering.
Re: Hey snowflake.. might makes right (Score:5, Funny)
He and his kind truly make me want to hoist a black flag and do some plundering.
OK, quick lesson in pirates.
You don't hoist a black flag to do some plundering. You hoist a flag friendly to the people you're going to plunder.
You hoist a black flag when other ships want to get too close to you, to scare them off from trying to board and discovering your loot.
If you raise the black flag and then try to plunder something, you're just making life difficult for yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
The pirate flag - of which there were many - had an important role: It informed the target vessel that they were now under attack, and invited them to surrender. Pirates wanted money, not a fight - if the target crew can be placed into a situation where they know they will not win in battle, they might surrender and hope for mercy. That was the main point in even having a pirate flag in the first place. It's a form of inter-ship communication: "We're pirates. We are going to do our best to plunder your ship
Re: Hey snowflake.. might makes right (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
From the video, it sounds like he mostly wants to do drugs.
What did he expect? (Score:4, Interesting)
And lets be truthful here: This was not a truly independent set up. They were going to require regular fuel, water and food replenishment. If Thailand had really wanted to be dicks (but not overtly violent), they could have done a couple of things: Denied either of these people a visa to enter the country. Yes, some enterprising person would have been willing to ferry them food, water and fuel, and charged them a hefty scalpers rate to do it.
Honestly, they are lucky pirates didn't take them apart or the Thai government didn't flip a missile into them as an example to others.
Re: (Score:2)
Milk them for all the cash they can afford
For Thailand it's just easier to lock them up and have the couple pay for the privilege to keep their fingers. Trying to extort them via jacked up prices is a much longer process than Thailand has patience for. I'm actually shocked that Thailand jumped first rather than China. Typically, things like economic exclusion zones aren't things they feel beholden to.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would Thailand waste the missile? These people running away is more deterrence, and far cheaper.
Re: (Score:2)
Likely they were hooked in and using Thailand's digital infrastructure and using it on the basis that Thailand's laws do not apply to them and they could do anything they wanted on the internet. They found out the hard way they could not. Economic zones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] "are restricted use and access, An exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is a sea zone prescribed by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea over which a state has special rights regarding the exploration and use of
Re: (Score:1)
The first responsibility of any country is maintaining and defending its borders.
Well, he is from America, where the border violators are welcomed. So it's a cultural shock, like those Westerners who get harsh punishments for what they thought were minor drug infractions.
Re: (Score:2)
Or... Thailand could have charged them a thousand dollar entry fee every time they requested to enter the country.
And on what legal basis could Thailand do that. Last time I checked, they had not "oh, lets charge idiots an ridiculous entry fee, so they stay outside" law. But perhaps you know such a law and like to point it out to us?
Anyway, you miss the fact that they had set up their base INSIDE OF THAILAND ... how do you charge those guys a "entry fee"? With standard "visa on arrival" they could stay ther
Re: (Score:2)
A sovereign nation can apply any entry fee and other conditions they wish to citizens of other nations, or deny entry entirely. Thailand, like most countries, charges for visas, and requires that citizens of most countries hold one before entering.
Yup, freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
But when the response to my extraordinary life was a death sentence I felt that perhaps there was no place in this world for thinking differently, perhaps I should resign myself to an ordinary life and just go with the flow. Give up on freedom.
Either you want freedom, and want it for all, or you don't.
It sounds like he got exactly the freedom he wanted, only without realizing outcomes like this are what happen when horrible people exercise their freedom to be horrible without constraints.
The alternative is to give up some freedoms to avail yourself of other peoples protection from such horrible acts. At scale we call these nations, or governments, or the state.
So are you for complete unrestricted freedom? Or for a limited freedom where others can protect you from those with such unrestricted freedom?
"We are still safe but we are in hiding. The U.S. Embassy in Bangkok has been very helpful and are providing assistance."
And there it is.
I suppose there is a third option. By wanting freedom, you mean you want it for just you and no one else. There are a good number of people who mean that when using that word.
But I can't find much sympathy for hypocrites.
Blame China (Score:5, Insightful)
If these guys had just stated they sit 12 nmi offshore at the pleasure of Thailand's king but are not subject to any Thai laws, there wouldn't have been a problem. But if you sit 12 nmi offshore and claim you're sovereign, well that kicks in a new set of international laws. The maritime border between two sovereign nations is the midpoint between their nearest land masses. So you'd basically move the line for Thailand's waters back to 6 nmi from their shore, and carve out a huge elliptical chunk of water which used to be Thailand's EEZ but is now your EEZ.
But that's silly. It's just a floating octagon, not a nation, right? Well, China has been trying to assert that their artificial islands in the South China Sea [wikipedia.org] count as land and thus extends their EEZ well into waters that are in the EEZ of other countries and international waters. Nobody except China really takes this claim seriously. But the fact that China is trying to pull this off means that all other countries will take a hardline stance against anyone who even remotely looks like they're trying to do something similar. Nip it in the bud so to speak. So Thailand had to kick them out as a signal to China not to try any island-building shenanigans in their waters. They probably didn't need to threaten these two with the death penalty, but taking such an extreme stance discourages other people from trying the same thing in the future.
It also demonstrates why you're not truly independent until you have the military firepower (or allies with the military firepower) to defend yourself against a foreign invasion. As much as we like to think we've grown beyond beating each other up to assert dominance, when push comes to shove that's still the ultimate arbiter of disputes.
Re: (Score:3)
If you are relying on allies with firepower, you aren't independent.
Re: (Score:1)
If you are relying on allies with firepower, you aren't independent.
How many countries in the world fit that description? Four? Five?
All of the other 190 nations aren't independent.
That's a bad metric.
China created 1200+ hectares of lands (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They probably didn't need to threaten these two with the death penalty, but taking such an extreme stance discourages other people from trying the same thing in the future.
They did not threaten them.
That is simply the maximum punishment by law. Which they could have read up before, btw.
If they would have been caught, they would have got a big bill for the military action to get them. Put in jail until it is payed off or "their government" gets them out. That foreigners got killed under Thai jurisdiction is
Don't Blame China (Score:2)
And? The Dutch have been "artificially" extending their northern borders into the sea for centuries. All the umbrage at China building islands and asserting it has a sphere of influence is just Western Exceptionalism in action, thinking that the US followed by the UK and France have the right to
Re: Blame China (Score:1)
You would also find most of the intellectuals and wealthy would leave overnight. In addition, the rest of the world would put you in the same category as the old Iraq and you would be trade embargoed. Sure sure, you're "America" and don't care. But being an arsehole comes at a cost, and I believe it to be a cost you can't truly bear.
"get orf moy laaaaaaand" (Score:1)
"... Thailand's 200-mile exclusive economic zone..."
I wonder what Maylaysia thinks about that?
Death penalty rarely enforced in Thailand (Score:3, Informative)
The death penalty is rarely enforced in Thailand, with only 3 deaths since 2004.
Also, the Thai police have indicated that they do not intend to charged the accused with the death penalty:
"PHUKET: The police investigator tasked with the Royal Thai Navy complaint against American Chad Elwartowski and his Thai partner Supranee Thepdet over the ‘seastead’ built south of Phuket told The Phuket News today (Apr 19) that he will not move to charge the couple under Section 119 – which may incur the death penalty – if he finds no evidence that the structure threatens national security.
Lt Col Siriwat Inyim, Deputy Chief of the Wichit Police told The Phuket News this evening (Apr 19), “This is my case to investigate, and I have received a complaint asking police to press charges under Section 119 of the Criminal Code.”
“However, although I have yet to conclude my investigation, if I do not find any evidence that this seastead threatens national security, I will not ask the Public Prosecutor to move ahead with that charge,” Col Siriwat said."
https://www.thephuketnews.com/police-open-door-to-no-death-penalty-charge-over-phuket-seastead-case-71151.php [thephuketnews.com]
Oh, it's all good then (Score:2)
Insert eyeroll emoji here. Thailand has brutal prisons that anyone should fear.
https://www.thrillist.com/trav... [thrillist.com]
Seriously? (Score:2)
Of all the countries you could pick to float next to, you pick the one with such psychopathic zeal about its monarch that you pretty much can't mention the royal family in any medium. You couldn't possibly be more transparent about wanting a prepubescent sex slave.
Re: (Score:2)
What is that supposed to mean? The royal family is all over all media
Re: (Score:2)
He's not Joe Biden, you think he can get away with that in full view of the media like that?
It's so weird that Republicans think they can high ground any politician these days.
We are now in the age where Ted Bundy or Jerry Sandusky is morally acceptable to run for president.
Idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. You could bank for all of your larger neighbours, like Liechtenstein.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. You could bank for all of your larger neighbours, like Liechtenstein.
It helps to be located in the Alps. Even so, Switzerland has invaded them a few times in recent history.
Re: (Score:2)
You want to be a sovereign state? Go right ahead. Just know that you're upgrading from fighting with other citizens for survival to fighting with other sovereign states for survival. Think about what that fight looks like and maybe reconsider.
Is it that slow of a news day for Slashdot? (Score:4, Funny)
When anyone searches for "sensationalism" on Wikipedia this story should come up as an example. The only place where this dude is running for his life is in his imagination. It wouldn't surprise me if he was now trying to form a new country with John McAfee. They could call it "Fantasy Island".
Re:Is it that slow of a news day for Slashdot? (Score:4, Funny)
Nonsense (Score:2)
Who the hell would even do this? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you had enough money to buy some little island in the middle of the Pacific, build buildings on it, solar/wind/whatever power, farm, make it truly self-sufficient, and also employ your own security forces, sure, I could see that. But some platform in the middle of the gods-be-damned ocean? Who does that?
Sad to say, it is the mental domain of hard core Libertarians and other kooks.
Declaring themselves outside the rule of any nation, yet demanding other nations use the rule of law when dealing with them.
It's like the asshat said "We are still safe but we are in hiding. The U.S. Embassy in Bangkok has been very helpful and are providing assistance."
A true Libertarian and sovereign citizen would never utilize the services of the very country that he decided he needed to set up his own island nation a
Re: (Score:2)
Idiots. (Score:2)
Didn't you guys learn from Sealand?
If you want to live outside territorial waters, where most laws no longer apply, you have to accept that laws no longer apply.
Sealand was taken over several times, and there's stories of hostage-taking, kidnaps, armed assaults, etc.
And that's something that's still considered within the UK territorial waters.
The only reason to live in international waters is to avoid the laws of all countries. By doing so, you subject yourself to the anarchy of that situation, including p
Re: (Score:3)
I fail to summon any sympathy for people with millions of dollars just bobbing about in the ocean for... well, I can only assume one purpose, to evade being subject to the laws in most countries. Buy a yacht, get far away from anyone else, or any territorial claim. And hope like hell you don't become a target and can defend yourself against piracy.
Agreed. The ultimate stupidity here is twofold (and is impressive in its depth): first, if you want to be outside of the laws of all other countries, without having negotiated any treaties, you need to be able to defend yourself because humans as a whole are not inherently nice but rather the opposite. So where is the army? Second, if you need to defend yourself from the unpleasantness of angry people or angry weather, it is far easier to do so from a floating fortress (also known as an armed luxury yach
Re: (Score:2)
There are no harsh drinking laws in Thailand.
Smoking at a beach, no idea, should be ok in my opinion, but throwing away the rests, not.
The former King Rama IX pardoned everyone who was convicted because of "talking bad about the king".
Buy a yacht, get far away from anyone else, With his bitcoin idea he needed fast and reliable internet ... and cheap. On a Yacht you can not even pick *one* ...
Sovereign citizenry (Score:2)
Yeah, your sovereign citizen, seasteading lifestyle is great... when you accept that you can only do it under the implicit protection of nearby liberal democracies.
Nah, he was on Thai 3G (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it means he was living in Thailand, buying stuff in their shops, using their 3G, their banking, hospitals, roads, ports, entering and exiting Thailand without going through an immigration point of entry and without paperwork. Claiming to live on a 'seastead' while actually living in Phuket.... all while trying to sell the same lifestyle to gullible BTC wannabes.
He didn't really live out on a crappy raft in the middle of the ocean during rainy season (think big lightning and storms and rough sea the kind that killed a bunch of Chinese tourists recently).
Phuket head of Immigration, said it (his platform) threatens our sovereignty, he didn't escape, so much as not be there on it when they visited.
He's not "on the run for his life", when they catch him (he'll be in Thailand), he'll be kicked out for overstaying a visa and banned for 5 to 10 years depending on how long he overstayed.
Re:Nah, he was on Thai 3G (Score:5, Informative)
I watched the first part of the video. If Thailand wanted to really go draconian, They could force the guy to stay on that dinky little platform 100% of the time - that would be punishment enough.
Re: Nah, he was on Thai 3G (Score:5, Insightful)
I lived in Thailand for 5 years, and never had to pay any fines.
Perhaps you only become eligible for the fines if you consistently behave like a cunt.
But isn't that the libertarian point? (Score:5, Insightful)
The "freedom" to act like a cunt and get away with it?
That seems like the essence of the libertarian dream.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You know, you don't have to support that ladyboy's extended family for the rest of your life. You could just say no.
Re: Nah, he was on Thai 3G (Score:1, Insightful)
Nothing will happen to her. She is just some bar girl / hooker. She will go back to the streets she came from and die of HIV like the rest.
Re: Nah, he was on Thai 3G (Score:2)
Hyperbole?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:wait (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not really about Chad Elwartowski - it's about Thailand being afraid of China, since if they had let him get that site there it would soon result in a lot of various Chinese proxy settlements to pop-up extending the influence from China like they have done by creating an island in the south China sea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you would like to look on a map how far China actually is away ...
Re: (Score:2)
Close enough to be a concern in that region - it's about control over shipping routes to the Indian Ocean.
Re: (Score:3)
No no, you don't understand.
We're independent homesteaders. You're invading our territorial waters.
Re: wait (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This.
Thailand talks tough about "a threat to its national sovereignty" when it's a houseboat. Lets see what they have to say about an aircraft carrier 15 miles offshore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The traditional 12 mile limit of sovereignty is a relic of the age of sail. In those days the practical limit on your ability to shoot a canonball from shore based canons was 12 miles.
No cannon ever fired a cannon ball anything like 12 miles. The "cannon reach" standard was for the three (nautical) mile limit. The limit was extended to 12 miles by most nations in the 20th Century and has nothing to do with artillery performance.