5 ms·

> If you're flying some made-up flag on the high seas there is no reason that the navy of some actual county can't just roll up and sink your stupid dinghy. Th

> If you're flying some made-up flag on the high seas there is no reason that the navy of some actual county can't just roll up and sink your stupid dinghy. There are two. On the level of rights and legality, there's non-agression principle. On the level of realpolitik, there's you being prepared to sink them first.

jeffbee 5y ago
The NAP is a fiction made up by American libertarians. It is not a doctrine adhered to by the Russian navy. The reality of the matter is that any vessel not flying a real flag enjoys no standing whatsoever in the laws or treaties of the seas. Freedom of navigation is a right of states, not individuals. If you are not a state or under the protection of a state (a real one, not a comic book one) then you do not have the right to navigate the high seas.
- laverya 5y ago
  Which is why so many ships sail under the flags of states with the ability to protect them, like the USA, Great Britain, Russia or China, and not Panama, Liberia or Bolivia.
  - jeffbee 5y ago
    If you sink a ship registered in Panama, you have made war against Panama and transitively against the United States of America and all other signatories of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance.
  - simonh 5y ago
    If say Russia sinks a Bolivian boat, there are plenty of other major nations with navies that will get upset about it just because they want to keep the Russians in check. Not because they care about Bolivia. If the Russian navy sinks some stateless seasteading anarchists, nobody is going to give a crap.
- golergka 5y ago
  > The NAP is a fiction made up by American libertarians. That's true, but that's also true for any other human doctrine, from human rights to US constitution, so I don't see how it makes it any less important. > It is not a doctrine adhered to by the Russian navy. The beauty of it is, it doesn't have to be.
tablespoon 5y ago
> There are two. On the level of rights and legality, there's non-agression principle. On the level of realpolitik, there's you being prepared to sink them first. LOL. I'm pretty sure that even possessing anything close to the capability to sink a modern warship (let alone using it) will doom any seasteading fantasy through a concentrated application of unwanted attention.
- laverya 5y ago
  Depends on how that capability is setup, I imagine. "We have remotely operated mines at a 5nm radius and HMGs for close-in anti-boat defence" would be enough to deter anyone without anti-ship missiles, but still more than enough to kill a modern warship that comes too close. (Modern warships are generally not stupid enough to sail into hostile mines, however) I've got no idea how you'd be able to maintain a perimeter of mines in the open ocean, though.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > Depends on how that capability is setup, I imagine. "We have remotely operated mines at a 5nm radius and HMGs for close-in anti-boat defence" would be enough to deter anyone without anti-ship missiles, but still more than enough to kill a modern warship that comes too close. (Modern warships are generally not stupid enough to sail into hostile mines, however) That doesn't make sense. A modern warship would have anti-ship missiles or aircraft with ranges far greater than 5nm that could fly right over those mines. Also, such a defense doesn't protect against a blockade, which would allow the seastead to be defeated without firing a shot. I'd imagine pretty much all conceivable implementations would be utterly dependent on trade for basic and not-so-basic supplies. Another threat: a commandeered supply ship loaded up with hostile marines and law enforcement.

jeffbee 5y ago

The NAP is a fiction made up by American libertarians. It is not a doctrine adhered to by the Russian navy. The reality of the matter is that any vessel not flying a real flag enjoys no standing whatsoever in the laws or treaties of the seas. Freedom of navigation is a right of states, not individuals. If you are not a state or under the protection of a state (a real one, not a comic book one) then you do not have the right to navigate the high seas.

laverya 5y ago
Which is why so many ships sail under the flags of states with the ability to protect them, like the USA, Great Britain, Russia or China, and not Panama, Liberia or Bolivia.
- jeffbee 5y ago
  If you sink a ship registered in Panama, you have made war against Panama and transitively against the United States of America and all other signatories of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance.
- simonh 5y ago
  If say Russia sinks a Bolivian boat, there are plenty of other major nations with navies that will get upset about it just because they want to keep the Russians in check. Not because they care about Bolivia. If the Russian navy sinks some stateless seasteading anarchists, nobody is going to give a crap.
golergka 5y ago
> The NAP is a fiction made up by American libertarians. That's true, but that's also true for any other human doctrine, from human rights to US constitution, so I don't see how it makes it any less important. > It is not a doctrine adhered to by the Russian navy. The beauty of it is, it doesn't have to be.

tablespoon 5y ago

> There are two. On the level of rights and legality, there's non-agression principle. On the level of realpolitik, there's you being prepared to sink them first. LOL. I'm pretty sure that even possessing anything close to the capability to sink a modern warship (let alone using it) will doom any seasteading fantasy through a concentrated application of unwanted attention.

laverya 5y ago
Depends on how that capability is setup, I imagine. "We have remotely operated mines at a 5nm radius and HMGs for close-in anti-boat defence" would be enough to deter anyone without anti-ship missiles, but still more than enough to kill a modern warship that comes too close. (Modern warships are generally not stupid enough to sail into hostile mines, however) I've got no idea how you'd be able to maintain a perimeter of mines in the open ocean, though.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Depends on how that capability is setup, I imagine. "We have remotely operated mines at a 5nm radius and HMGs for close-in anti-boat defence" would be enough to deter anyone without anti-ship missiles, but still more than enough to kill a modern warship that comes too close. (Modern warships are generally not stupid enough to sail into hostile mines, however) That doesn't make sense. A modern warship would have anti-ship missiles or aircraft with ranges far greater than 5nm that could fly right over those mines. Also, such a defense doesn't protect against a blockade, which would allow the seastead to be defeated without firing a shot. I'd imagine pretty much all conceivable implementations would be utterly dependent on trade for basic and not-so-basic supplies. Another threat: a commandeered supply ship loaded up with hostile marines and law enforcement.