8 ms·

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

CydeWeys 8y ago
Why should the US step in to defend sea-steaders who are claiming they are free of the sovereignty of all governments? I don't want my tax money being wasted on that. Defend US interests, sure, but this isn't a US interest.
- mschuster91 8y ago
  > Defend US interests, sure, but this isn't a US interest. One of the two is a US citizen, and usually nation states are bound to protect the rights of their citizens abroad.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    Even citizens who have decided that they want to deliberately live outside the sovereignty of any government?
    - hollerith 8y ago
      If the citizen has been charged with a felony in an American court, should the US State Department in your opinion help him?
      - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        ??? You're going to have to explain what you mean a bit more. I'm not getting the relevance at all.
        hollerith 8y ago
        It might be relevant because good government agencies rely on formal processes and are suspicious of simple arguments like "well, there are signs that the citizen in trouble is skeptical of the very idea of national sovereignty, so why should the US, a sovereign nation, lift a finger to help him?" This goes under the general heading of "rule of law", as opposed to rule of the whims of individual officials. In other words, US citizens travelling the world would prefer to know before they get into trouble overseas which behaviors their State Department considers so egregious as to disqualify them for the help that citizens can usually expect. Ergo, the State Department probably publishes a list of such behaviors or situations. I am asking you whether if it were your job to specify such a list, would having felony charges pending in a "US-based" (i.e., state or federal) court be on the list?
        AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        Are either of these people in trouble with the US? I didn't see that in the article. That's why I don't see the relevance of what you're asking. But let's suppose I want no government to have jurisdiction over me. I'm not quite renouncing my US citizenship, but I am explicitly trying to remove myself from all government control. If while doing this I run afoul of a foreign government, should I expect the US to protect me? (They may still do so, for their own sake rather than for mine, but it seems to me that I have no right to expect them to do so.) Here's a slightly stronger version of the same issue. Ronnie Biggs was an Englishman, wanted in England and living openly in Brazil because it had no extradition treaty with England. If, while doing so, he got in trouble with Brazil, would anyone expect England to try to protect him as an English citizen? He still was one, but...
        hollerith 8y ago
        I thought it relevant because you don't want the US to help him even though he's not in trouble with the US, which makes me curious whether you want the US to help those that are in trouble with the US.
      - mschuster91 8y ago
        > If the citizen has been charged with a felony in an American court, should the US State Department in your opinion help him? I'm a German and I'd say, yes the German state is supposed to help such a person. In fact, every state that signed the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is bound by law to do so, per Art. 5 lit a of said Convention.
- weaklearner 8y ago
  well I definitely do want my tax money being spent on this.
  - throwaway2048 8y ago
    I doubt the American government is in any hurry to enable this type of movement.
    - weaklearner 8y ago
      of course not but the united states definitely tries to protect its nationals from what it views as inappropriate harassment and legal enforcement from foreign governments.
logfromblammo 8y ago
The point of seasteading is you do not flag your ship under any nation whose jurisdiction you are seeking to evade. To be unflagged is to be boarded by any nation's ships as a pirate vessel, so you use a flag of convenience, like Panama, Liberia, Malta, Cyprus, Marshall Islands, or even landlocked nations like Mongolia--anyone whose navy is unlikely to find and board your vessel, and who will not seek to enforce laws regarding crew and passenger safety or conduct. The only interest the US is likely to have in this is specifically with the US citizen, not the Thai citizen or the vessel. So the US State Department, which is already involved as much as it cares to be involved. If anyone in the US executive cared about such things, the US ambassador or a consul might mention that if Thailand does not keep to the LoST, the US would be less inclined to support the right of free navigation for Thai oceangoing vessels that may have cause to transit the South China Sea. And this would disappear right quick. A glorified fishing bobber with two people living on it does not make a Sealand situation.

Why should the US step in to defend sea-steaders who are claiming they are free of the sovereignty of all governments? I don't want my tax money being wasted on that. Defend US interests, sure, but this isn't a US interest.

mschuster91 8y ago
> Defend US interests, sure, but this isn't a US interest. One of the two is a US citizen, and usually nation states are bound to protect the rights of their citizens abroad.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  Even citizens who have decided that they want to deliberately live outside the sovereignty of any government?
  - hollerith 8y ago
    If the citizen has been charged with a felony in an American court, should the US State Department in your opinion help him?
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      ??? You're going to have to explain what you mean a bit more. I'm not getting the relevance at all.
      - hollerith 8y ago
        It might be relevant because good government agencies rely on formal processes and are suspicious of simple arguments like "well, there are signs that the citizen in trouble is skeptical of the very idea of national sovereignty, so why should the US, a sovereign nation, lift a finger to help him?" This goes under the general heading of "rule of law", as opposed to rule of the whims of individual officials. In other words, US citizens travelling the world would prefer to know before they get into trouble overseas which behaviors their State Department considers so egregious as to disqualify them for the help that citizens can usually expect. Ergo, the State Department probably publishes a list of such behaviors or situations. I am asking you whether if it were your job to specify such a list, would having felony charges pending in a "US-based" (i.e., state or federal) court be on the list?
        AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        Are either of these people in trouble with the US? I didn't see that in the article. That's why I don't see the relevance of what you're asking. But let's suppose I want no government to have jurisdiction over me. I'm not quite renouncing my US citizenship, but I am explicitly trying to remove myself from all government control. If while doing this I run afoul of a foreign government, should I expect the US to protect me? (They may still do so, for their own sake rather than for mine, but it seems to me that I have no right to expect them to do so.) Here's a slightly stronger version of the same issue. Ronnie Biggs was an Englishman, wanted in England and living openly in Brazil because it had no extradition treaty with England. If, while doing so, he got in trouble with Brazil, would anyone expect England to try to protect him as an English citizen? He still was one, but...
        hollerith 8y ago
        I thought it relevant because you don't want the US to help him even though he's not in trouble with the US, which makes me curious whether you want the US to help those that are in trouble with the US.
    - mschuster91 8y ago
      > If the citizen has been charged with a felony in an American court, should the US State Department in your opinion help him? I'm a German and I'd say, yes the German state is supposed to help such a person. In fact, every state that signed the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is bound by law to do so, per Art. 5 lit a of said Convention.
weaklearner 8y ago
well I definitely do want my tax money being spent on this.
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  I doubt the American government is in any hurry to enable this type of movement.
  - weaklearner 8y ago
    of course not but the united states definitely tries to protect its nationals from what it views as inappropriate harassment and legal enforcement from foreign governments.

logfromblammo 8y ago

The point of seasteading is you do not flag your ship under any nation whose jurisdiction you are seeking to evade. To be unflagged is to be boarded by any nation's ships as a pirate vessel, so you use a flag of convenience, like Panama, Liberia, Malta, Cyprus, Marshall Islands, or even landlocked nations like Mongolia--anyone whose navy is unlikely to find and board your vessel, and who will not seek to enforce laws regarding crew and passenger safety or conduct. The only interest the US is likely to have in this is specifically with the US citizen, not the Thai citizen or the vessel. So the US State Department, which is already involved as much as it cares to be involved. If anyone in the US executive cared about such things, the US ambassador or a consul might mention that if Thailand does not keep to the LoST, the US would be less inclined to support the right of free navigation for Thai oceangoing vessels that may have cause to transit the South China Sea. And this would disappear right quick. A glorified fishing bobber with two people living on it does not make a Sealand situation.