People go overseas to legally participate in activities illegal in their home country all the time.
> 1: International waters do have laws and you are subject to them and the flag you fly under.
Then don't fly a flag. This will restrict what ports and territorial waters you can visit (if any?) and also mean you cannot expect any help if attacked by pirates, so you will need to provide your own security.
> 2 ... why don't you think criminals would already be using these to have drug or arms sales?
How exactly do you think criminals transport drugs and illegal weapons? By sea of course. They do not get harassed until they are within the territorial waters of a country where such activities are illegal. The exception in this case is ships breaking international law (violating embargoes, transporting illegal nuke material etc.) which are fair game.
But why would a criminal start a meth lab on a ship? Much easier and cheaper to get a trailer in the woods, or a factory in Mexico.
> 3: Let's say you have a ship with no laws ... government like entity
Yes. But it would be a government anyone can opt into and opt out of at any time.
> 4. What happens in the case of an emergency?
In an emergency: SHTF. Everyone who is onboard these ships will know the risks and decide if the reward is good enough.
You try that. If you don't fly the flag - you are not under the protection of any sovereign nation and are essentially subject to the powers of any other.
> territorial waters of a country where such activities are illegal.
No - they don't get harassed until they get detected - if we knew where they were - we'd take them out in international waters.
> anyone can opt into and opt out of at any time.
You can do that now - move to Somalia.
> risks and decide if the reward is good enough
So just ignore that part then - caveat emptor right?
Most seasteaders would prefer to define their own sovereignty. And of course this has its issues with respect to being attacked by various folks, pirates, navies of various countries, etc. A fairly good writeup appeared in Ars Technica [1]. James Grimmalman, a professor of Law at New York Law School, did a legal analysis which was fairly widely cited as well.
It seems to me like it is an assumption that if you weren't sailing under any flag that no one would come to your aid in an emergency. They may not be obligated to, but unless you were doing something that a country really, really didn't like, and it was generally known you were doing it, I think that most vessels that pick up your distress call would likely respond. I could be wrong. Are there any recent historical events that might help predict future outcomes?
> 1: International waters do have laws and you are subject to them and the flag you fly under.
Then don't fly a flag. This will restrict what ports and territorial waters you can visit (if any?) and also mean you cannot expect any help if attacked by pirates, so you will need to provide your own security.
> 2 ... why don't you think criminals would already be using these to have drug or arms sales?
How exactly do you think criminals transport drugs and illegal weapons? By sea of course. They do not get harassed until they are within the territorial waters of a country where such activities are illegal. The exception in this case is ships breaking international law (violating embargoes, transporting illegal nuke material etc.) which are fair game.
But why would a criminal start a meth lab on a ship? Much easier and cheaper to get a trailer in the woods, or a factory in Mexico.
> 3: Let's say you have a ship with no laws ... government like entity
Yes. But it would be a government anyone can opt into and opt out of at any time.
> 4. What happens in the case of an emergency?
In an emergency: SHTF. Everyone who is onboard these ships will know the risks and decide if the reward is good enough.