4 ms·

This seems like the failure: abuse of shipping/visa exemptions. At minimum, it would be fair to mandate that port countries provide visas for the sole purposes

by ethbr1 2y ago

This seems like the failure: abuse of shipping/visa exemptions. At minimum, it would be fair to mandate that port countries provide visas for the sole purposes of mariners transiting back home, at the mariners' discretion. You're not going to keep someone from staying on a boat if they think they're going to get paid... but you can at least resolve the international red tape that prohibits them from choosing to leave the boat.

lazide 2y ago
Why would that country care? They did not generate the problem, get no profit from resolving the problem, and actually end up footing the bill for the problem from some random irresponsible owner. The only reason they don’t just sink them is because of the PR backlash - and that would end up costing them even more in weapons and cleanup. It’s more like someone abandoning random RVs in your town - full of orphans. Just, ugh. What a nightmare for everyone.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  At the point the ship has been allowed to dock, due diligence on the owner/papers should have already been performed. If that process fails, it should be improved at that stage. It seems inhumane from an ethical perspective to essentially maroon a person on an abandoned ship, simply because it's slightly more convenient.
  - lazide 2y ago
    Who is doing the marooning though - the owners, or the various authorities randomly nearby when the owner abandons them? The authorities doing anything besides arresting the owners is just enabling more owners doing the same thing and dumping the mess on their doorstep. Bad policy.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      Currently: both. The owners obviously. The local authorities through inaction. My point is there's functionally no difference (and arguably, one which benefits the owners) by stranding crew on abandoned ships. Either way you're left with an abandoned ship. So why not avoid the human tragedy?
      - lazide 2y ago
        All I can say is, you have no idea what marooning is if you think the local authorities are the ones doing it. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marooning https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marooning] Doing what you propose just creates a huge moral hazard, and would result in even more of this kind of BS on their doorstep.
        ethbr1 2y ago
        So your moral system is fine with leaving a person on a ship, unpaid, and with no way to get home... to avoid moral hazard to shipowners? That seems like a serious devaluing of human life. An abstract goal isn't a justification for a concrete ill.
        lazide 2y ago
        What does my moral system have to do with it? Or yours? Are you a taxpayer in any of the jurisdictions involved? Do you own any of these boats? Are you going to fly over there and solve this problem yourself individually? Near as I can tell, you’re just moralizing about how other people should solve the problems created by the ship owners without doing anything to actually solve the problem, and with no skin in the game. Same as me, of course. But I’m trying to explain the reasoning of the folks with skin in the game. It’s easy to be high and mighty when it isn’t your actual problem, and you don’t have to pay for it.
        ethbr1 2y ago
        That's one thing if you're, say, Saudi Arabia and don't particularly care about human rights. Different matter in countries that generally try to be more decent to people... ... but in this case (per your reasoning) are looking the other way past human suffering to make sure that shipowners don't have more incentive to dump boats. I'm saying "That's a shitty moral justification for causing human suffering." Are you saying you think it's a good one, per your personal opinion? Or that you don't, but it doesn't matter because you're not a minister of transportation?

by ethbr1 2y ago

lazide 2y ago

Why would that country care? They did not generate the problem, get no profit from resolving the problem, and actually end up footing the bill for the problem from some random irresponsible owner. The only reason they don’t just sink them is because of the PR backlash - and that would end up costing them even more in weapons and cleanup. It’s more like someone abandoning random RVs in your town - full of orphans. Just, ugh. What a nightmare for everyone.

ethbr1 2y ago
At the point the ship has been allowed to dock, due diligence on the owner/papers should have already been performed. If that process fails, it should be improved at that stage. It seems inhumane from an ethical perspective to essentially maroon a person on an abandoned ship, simply because it's slightly more convenient.
- lazide 2y ago
  Who is doing the marooning though - the owners, or the various authorities randomly nearby when the owner abandons them? The authorities doing anything besides arresting the owners is just enabling more owners doing the same thing and dumping the mess on their doorstep. Bad policy.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    Currently: both. The owners obviously. The local authorities through inaction. My point is there's functionally no difference (and arguably, one which benefits the owners) by stranding crew on abandoned ships. Either way you're left with an abandoned ship. So why not avoid the human tragedy?
    - lazide 2y ago
      All I can say is, you have no idea what marooning is if you think the local authorities are the ones doing it. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marooning https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marooning] Doing what you propose just creates a huge moral hazard, and would result in even more of this kind of BS on their doorstep.
      - ethbr1 2y ago
        So your moral system is fine with leaving a person on a ship, unpaid, and with no way to get home... to avoid moral hazard to shipowners? That seems like a serious devaluing of human life. An abstract goal isn't a justification for a concrete ill.
        lazide 2y ago
        What does my moral system have to do with it? Or yours? Are you a taxpayer in any of the jurisdictions involved? Do you own any of these boats? Are you going to fly over there and solve this problem yourself individually? Near as I can tell, you’re just moralizing about how other people should solve the problems created by the ship owners without doing anything to actually solve the problem, and with no skin in the game. Same as me, of course. But I’m trying to explain the reasoning of the folks with skin in the game. It’s easy to be high and mighty when it isn’t your actual problem, and you don’t have to pay for it.
        ethbr1 2y ago
        That's one thing if you're, say, Saudi Arabia and don't particularly care about human rights. Different matter in countries that generally try to be more decent to people... ... but in this case (per your reasoning) are looking the other way past human suffering to make sure that shipowners don't have more incentive to dump boats. I'm saying "That's a shitty moral justification for causing human suffering." Are you saying you think it's a good one, per your personal opinion? Or that you don't, but it doesn't matter because you're not a minister of transportation?