Oil rigs and cruise ships are high-risk targets because both have the implicit protection of some extant nation-state. Which is the point here, I think.

I meant specifically a "credible threat of doing costly damage" to extort payment. I'm not aware of any oil companies or cruise lines that pay tribute to keep pirates from blowing them up.

There have been plenty of cargo companies paying ransom to get their ships back, but those ships were crewed by a handful of people and taken over.

The royalties oil companies pay are a form of tribute that's been formalized into law.

Further, oil companies and cruise lines benefit from the protection of nearby navies as well as deterrence via international law enforcement. Would a seastead be provided the same?

Considering the kind of boats pirates are likely to possess a seastead militia could likely provide equivalent localized protection. Naval vessels are expensive b/c of the scale of battle they are fighting.

Less than a millions dollars or so of equipment and a few dozen militia would be enough to repel any pirate incursion to date. Pirates are in it for the money, they aren't going to be willing to accept large casualties.

Oil rigs are generally closer to populated areas and tend to move very far in their life time, making them an easier asset to defend. The reason piracy has been so difficult to stop for cargo is because the ships have to move such a long distance and seas are so expansive it's difficult to defend. So I guess the question becomes: will seasteading be more like oil rigs or more like cargo ships? But even if they are more like oil rigs, if they aren't going to associate themselves with a particular nation-state, what is their defense going to be?

IMO, a natural disaster is a bigger concern for a seastead though.

>what is their defense going to be?

A few 3" naval guns should handle any pirate incursion. It wouldn't really cost very much to arm a seastead enough to make it a very costly target for non-governmental attackers.

I agree though that they have much bigger issues than pirates.

hm. I think oil companies usually pay the money to the local powers that protect them rather than directly to the terrorists [1] - but I don't think there is a way around paying your protection money; you pay the government, or you pay the criminals [2] or you maintain your own private army.

[1]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/world/africa/24qaddafi.htm...

[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiquita_Brands_International#P...