U.S.-Thai pair facing death for 'sea home' should fight charge, Thailand says

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-thailand-seahome/u-s-thai-pair-facing-death-for-sea-home-should-fight-the-charge-thailand-says-idUSKCN1RV0KM

by petethomas • 7 years ago

129 205 7 years ago

reuters.com

thinkingkong• 7 years ago

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

Luc• 7 years ago

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

lostlogin• 7 years ago

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

nabla93• 7 years ago

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.

dsfyu404ed4• 7 years ago

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]

TheOtherHobbes• 7 years ago

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.

anotheryou• 7 years ago

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

Analemma_• 7 years ago

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.

ghaff3• 7 years ago

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.

stale20026• 7 years ago

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.

opportune2• 7 years ago

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

nabla93• 7 years ago

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.

ghufran_syed• 7 years ago

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.

return04• 7 years ago

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.

codingdave• 7 years ago

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.

nabla93• 7 years ago

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.

jaytaylor• 7 years ago

"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!?

wavefunction2• 7 years ago

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• 7 years ago

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

GavinMcG• 7 years ago

But failure to escape has the same outcome as turning yourself in, why not make a run for it?

duxup2• 7 years ago

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?

dsfyu404ed4• 7 years ago

What is there to take? It's not like their floating tube with a house on top is worth a lot or efficient to liquidate.

drivingmenuts• 7 years ago

You don’t have to have anything. All it takes is for som one to think you have something. If they can afford to build a hut on a tube, someone, somewhere will likely take an interest.

ragesh• 7 years ago

I'd imagine that one of the perks of sovereignty is that no one, other than your own army, is obliged to protect you.

Causality1• 7 years ago

They're explicitly not claiming sovereignty.

duxup2• 7 years ago

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

seszett• 7 years ago

What is there to take?

Well, their house to begin with.

rayiner• 7 years ago

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.

throwaway20484• 7 years ago

Or not, as it may be.

HeyLaughingBoy2• 7 years ago

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• 7 years ago

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

stale20026• 7 years ago

but what do they do after they have something worth stealing and pirates show up?

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.

trickstra6• 7 years ago

are you saying the Thai navy are the pirates in this case?

jonathankoren3• 7 years ago

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.

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

return04• 7 years ago

It’s something that’s granted by others. Sometimes it’s through agreement. Other times it’s by fear of force.

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.

stale20026• 7 years ago

that plan works, right up until a US Coast Guard cutter pulls up and sends over a boarding party.

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?

coldtea4• 7 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land

Another related issue (but totally unrelated to the first link):

http://www.offshoreradio.co.uk/

riazrizvi3• 7 years ago

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.

nostrademons3• 7 years ago

You could imagine a different form of law based on personal & community sovereignty rather than geographic. See eg. Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age, where citizens are members of various phyles, each with global sovereignty but clustered within enclaves in each major city. Interactions between citizens of the same phyle are governed by the laws of the phyle, which themselves are shaped by the values of its citizens. Interactions between different phyles are subject to the Common Economic Protocol, which you could think of as a trade agreement governing protection of property rights and economic wherewithal but saying nothing about the personal conduct of people.

User232• 7 years ago

We're watching this process play out in real-time in the USA.

Pyxl101• 7 years ago

nation state boundary

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.

jcims• 7 years ago

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.

4ntonius8lock• 7 years ago

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.

joejerryronnie• 7 years ago

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“

etherael• 7 years ago

It looks to me like the Thai navy is proceeding based on a specific interpretation of international law;

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;

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).

trickstra6• 7 years ago

they specifically charge them with threatening the sovereignty of Thai kingdom, which is punishable by death. I doubt interfering with oil shipping lines would bare the same punishment. So it probably can't be under this article

Scoundreller5• 7 years ago

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• 7 years ago

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

Scoundreller5• 7 years ago

New, probably. But used sailboats aren't hard to find at good prices. Something about there being two great days for boat owners: the day they buy it and the day they sell it.

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...

alsobrsp• 7 years ago

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.

logfromblammo4• 7 years ago

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.

throwaway20484• 7 years ago

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.

weaklearner5• 7 years ago

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.

gnopgnip• 7 years ago

If they had a US documented ship, the US navy or coast guard potentially.

gpm• 7 years ago

who is going to stop them?

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.

mikeash6• 7 years ago

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?

wavefunction2• 7 years ago

Read the fine article and find the answers in the first sentence.

mikeash6• 7 years ago

I did and I didn’t, respectively.

afarah• 7 years ago

They dared questioning the power of government.

saagarjha• 7 years ago

They have been charged under a law on the violation of sovereignty, which stipulates punishment of life in prison or death.

This looks similar to a charge for treason or secession, I guess?

microtherion• 7 years ago

Thailand has a really tough Home Owner’s Association

jtms2• 7 years ago

They made too much noise after 9pm - death!

closetohome2• 7 years ago

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.

shitgoose2• 7 years ago

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

Agathos• 7 years ago

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...)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8se_majest%C3%A9_in_Thai...

MaupitiBlue• 7 years ago

Why not just buy a 46’ catamaran?

Scoundreller5• 7 years ago

That's what I'm thinking. An old enough and used one is like an old diesel car. As long as it still runs, it will still be worth what you paid for it.

AWildC1822• 7 years ago

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• 7 years ago

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

Is this how floating oil rigs work?

everyone2• 7 years ago

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.

Tomte2• 7 years ago

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

everyone2• 7 years ago

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.

voldacar2• 7 years ago

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• 7 years ago

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.

voldacar2• 7 years ago

I know it seems unrealistic, but if they didnt feel threatened in some way there wouldnt have been much of a reason to crack down on something so apparently innocuous (and legal)

AnimalMuppet4• 7 years ago

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.

hash872• 7 years ago

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

michaelt• 7 years ago

  Are there are any structures for large
  numbers of people to live on the ocean
  that are actually.... practical?

Would an oil rig count? Some of them have 150 berths - although presumably if you're rich enough to think this is a good idea, you'd want more than a bunk in a shared room.

dsfyu404ed4• 7 years ago

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• 7 years ago

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

qnsi• 7 years ago

there is VC backed Blue Frontiers, funded by wealthy donors. But I don't follow how they are doing

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-30/floating-...

CydeWeys5• 7 years ago

The real problem ends up being food. Solar panels last for decades, and with them you can desalinate your drinking water and power your lights and such. But how do you get enough food to eat? Even just feeding one person requires a surprisingly large greenhouse, and space (and soil) aren't exactly a luxury you have at sea.

axaxs2• 7 years ago

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.

return04• 7 years ago

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.

jtms2• 7 years ago

When the pirates come you just shout that it’s illegal for them to be there through a megaphone

prepend• 7 years ago

No, you just shadowban them until they improve their behavior by no longer pillaging.

holtalanm• 7 years ago

is it that hard to believe these people might have weapons to protect themselves?

bluntfang3• 7 years ago

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• 7 years ago

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.

yongjik3• 7 years ago

Because when some freedom-loving couple takes root in some god-forsaken islet in the middle of nowhere, and when they are trapped in the middle of a hurricane, together with their newborn baby, with three hours to spare before their freedom-house goes underwater, it will be morally wrong to sentence the baby to death just because their parents are idiots, so the government will be morally compelled to send rescue squads, spending taxpayer money and possible endangering lives of rescue workers.

closeparen2• 7 years ago

There is no government protection from property crime in most big cities. Somehow life goes on.

gorbypark• 7 years ago

https://youtu.be/c83TiSJ6sfA?t=64 How sad :(

return04• 7 years ago

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.

shmerl• 7 years ago

Reminds me Waterworld.

_bxg12• 7 years ago

A death sentence? Excuse me?

aloer• 7 years ago

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

...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

blackflame70002• 7 years ago

“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

trickstra6• 7 years ago

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

blackflame70002• 7 years ago

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• 7 years ago

This really reminds me of the game Subnautica

U.S.-Thai pair facing death for 'sea home' should fight charge, Thailand says

Related Stories