Allocating property rights on the Moon

[ToSeek]

Races, beauty contests, franchises, and build-out requirements for lunar property

We have a big batch of real estate sitting in the sky just waiting to be divvied up by humanity and settled. The Aldridge Commission called for property rights. Whether and how property rights are accomplished could be the difference between a settled Moon and an unsettled Moon.

[Andromeda321]

Ok, question of the day: why does the moon really need property rights? What's the problem with treating it the same as Antarctica: no one owns it but you're not going to build your base on top of one already in existance because there's more then enough room. Very far down the road something should be done perhaps but it's not like we're going to reach that point sometime soon...

[Doodler]

Ok, question of the day: why does the moon really need property rights? What's the problem with treating it the same as Antarctica: no one owns it but you're not going to build your base on top of one already in existance because there's more then enough room. Very far down the road something should be done perhaps but it's not like we're going to reach that point sometime soon...

Won't work for the Moon for the long term. The Moon will eventually colonized, and whether the resources are used locally or not, there will come someday some form of land and resource grab for future expansion.

Nothing like Antarctica at all.

Better to acknowledge reality now and prepare for it, rather than wait for the first spacesuit ruptured in anger in a territorial dispute.

[ryanmercer]

Ok, question of the day: why does the moon really need property rights? What's the problem with treating it the same as Antarctica: no one owns it but you're not going to build your base on top of one already in existance because there's more then enough room. Very far down the road something should be done perhaps but it's not like we're going to reach that point sometime soon...

Because if you wait till space is scarce, you'll have bloodshed. If you settle it now, you could still have blood shed but it becomes avoidable.

[Demigrog]

Ok, question of the day: why does the moon really need property rights? What's the problem with treating it the same as Antarctica: no one owns it but you're not going to build your base on top of one already in existance because there's more then enough room. Very far down the road something should be done perhaps but it's not like we're going to reach that point sometime soon...

I'd like the question to be settled now, if only to put a fork into the Lunar Embassy style businesses. I hesitate to call them scams precisely because the issue has not been resolved; I want to make sure that such companies cannot come back centuries from now and make legal claims on the moon after there is something worth claiming (a la the SCO linux lawsuits, UniSys and LZW compression in GIF files, etc). Naturally, I'd expect the owners of the companies to pay back "investors".

[R.A.F.]

I hesitate to call them scams precisely because the issue has not been resolved...

If someone stands to make any money off of this...It's a scam.

[dvb]

The way I see it is, if you land there, mark your territory, and guard your borders, it's yours.

Canada has a huge border to protect, and if we didn't protect it, we'd lose it to someone else. That's how you claim your land. By protecting it!

[Andromeda321]

Canada has a huge border to protect, and if we didn't protect it, we'd lose it to someone else. That's how you claim your land. By protecting it!

Yes, but who'd want to invade Canada?
[ducks and runs]

[dvb]

Canada has a huge border to protect, and if we didn't protect it, we'd lose it to someone else. That's how you claim your land. By protecting it!

Yes, but who'd want to invade Canada?
[ducks and runs]

Some country tried to invade Canada in the year 1812. The name of that country seems to have slipped my mind though. :-k

[Brady Yoon]

Was it England?

[dvb]

Was it England?

http://www.multied.com/1812/Index.html

The War of 1812 is one of the forgotten wars of the United States. The war lasted for over two years, and while it ended much like it started; in stalemate; it was in fact a war that once and for all confirmed American Independence. The offensive actions of the United States failed in every attempt to capture Canada.

[Candy]

mark your territory

[Ut]

I agree. The nations of Earth have no authority over the Moon, therefore anyone claiming ownership by registering it as property with those nations has an empty claim. If they wish to protect their supposedly purchased lands, they should not seek out the help of their local governments. If you want to keep it, prevent others from taking it. It's as simple as that.

[daver]

[

The War of 1812 is one of the forgotten wars of the United States. The war lasted for over two years, and while it ended much like it started; in stalemate; it was in fact a war that once and for all confirmed American Independence. The offensive actions of the United States failed in every attempt to capture Canada.

Hmm, I'll disagree slightly. From my limited reading, the War of 1812 had a fairly significant effect on the future of the US--at the end, the Europeans pretty much entirely stopped providing the American Indians with firearms. This essentially spelled the end of effective Indian resistance.

[TravisM]

Canada's like a loft appartment above a really good party...

[tjm220]

Canada's like a loft appartment above a really good party...

Hey can you keep it down, some of us are trying to sleep!

[Doodler]

If people ever start living there permanently, you're going to have property issues. If mining resources ever occurs, you're going to have property issues.


Get it straight now, and settle it. Its going to be a colony, not a commune.

[sidmel]

If people ever start living there permanently, you're going to have property issues. If mining resources ever occurs, you're going to have property issues.

Are we talking about the moon or Canada?

**Coughs and heads to Mexico**

[Fortis]

What you want is The Outer Space Treaty.

The Treaty was opened for signature by the three depository Governments (the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States of America) in January 1967, and it entered into force in October 1967. The Outer Space Treaty provides the basic framework on international space law, including the following principles:

the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind;
outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States;
outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means;
States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner;
the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes;
astronauts shall be regarded as the envoys of mankind;
States shall be responsible for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental activities;
States shall be liable for damage caused by their space objects; and
States shall avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies.

http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/outerspt.html

The only problem with it AFAIK is that it only strictly applies to nations, so some of these dodgy "lunar land" salesmen have attempted to exploit this loophole as private citizens.

[Doodler]

What you want is The Outer Space Treaty.

http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/outerspt.html

The only problem with it AFAIK is that it only strictly applies to nations, so some of these dodgy "lunar land" salesmen have attempted to exploit this loophole as private citizens.

That...thing...isn't going to hold water very long, especially once efficient methods of using local resources are developed.

[heusdens]

What you want is The Outer Space Treaty.

http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/outerspt.html

The only problem with it AFAIK is that it only strictly applies to nations, so some of these dodgy "lunar land" salesmen have attempted to exploit this loophole as private citizens.

The treaty was not signed by Russian federation but by the USSR.
That's a different country.

[Makgraf]

The way I see it is, if you land there, mark your territory, and guard your borders, it's yours.

Canada has a huge border to protect, and if we didn't protect it, we'd lose it to someone else. That's how you claim your land. By protecting it!

Back in March Denmark (Denmark!) actually landed troops and put up the Danish flag on Hans Island, which is Canadian territory. That's probably why our government (i.e. Canada) launched a major military mission to reassert soverignty of the north. Of course because this is Canada we're talking about a "major military mission" translated to 20-50 snowmobiles, of which only 7 were allowed to go because of national park rules (Yes in Canada, national park bureaucrats trump soldiers).

It all seems really cartoonish, but there's a very serious aspect here. If global warming causes the arctic to warm up, ships may be able to regularly cross through it. An actual "Northwest Passage" could revolutionize the shipping industry and the country that controls could find it to be very lucrative.

Which brings us to lunar property rights. Why not.

[Sticks]

Getting back to the subject of this thread, I mentioned this concept on this thread

If you have Real Player you can listen to it on this link

[Sticks]

Getting back to the subject of this thread, I mentioned this concept on this thread

If you have Real Player you can listen to it on this link

Ignore that link

There is a good programme on it, but the specific programme I mentioned on the other thread is no longer there

[ASEI]

I don't know why people point to treaties as if they're worth more than toilet paper. If history is any guide, power and consequences make nations behave, and treaties just accumulate in offices to justify the careers of diplomats.

If there was something that was capable of being taken, and worth taking, on the moon (would require some human presence, before someone settles it lunar territory is worth less than zero), then the people who wanted it would have to defend it, and it would become territory. If no one wanted to take it from someone else, it might still de-facto be someone's property, but you wouldn't have to defend it formally.

I'd rather leave it free to be claimed by whoever has the guts and skill to settle it, not by Earthbound international bureaucrats who won't even put forward their own space program and who would bind future settlers in red tape before they even get started.

[Boxes]

How about this? In order to claim territory on the moon you must place your flags in a grid pattern covering the claimed area with no more than four feet between any two flags. All flags must of course be placed by human hand.

[JonClarke]

I don't know why people point to treaties as if they're worth more than toilet paper. If history is any guide, power and consequences make nations behave, and treaties just accumulate in offices to justify the careers of diplomats.

Treaties provide frameworks in which nations can operate without risk of war and private interests without being sued. They also constrain those who would take unfair advance of others and allow funishment of those who do. While there is such a thing as over legislation, anyone who thinks that lack of effective legal and legislative frameworks is a good thing is welcome to try setting up business in Somalia or Zimbabwe. Hveing worked in a company that used to consider major overseas investments one of the prime considerations was whether there was an appropirate legislative framework. Some very good prospective projects were turned down because of the lack of such a framework.

If people want lunar settlement and development, treaties and laws are essential. Otherwise it just won't happen.

Jon

[Damburger]

Who has the 'right' to the moon? Nobody. Basically these whackos selling deeds to sections of the moon are no worse than a government that would do the same.

The only reason to pull property 'rights' out of thin air like this is to satisfy those fools who think that everything in the universe has to be commercialised. Sadly, I think they may come out on top.

And does the writer of that article seriously mean to suggest that the reason Antarctica is sparsely populated is because there aren't property rights there? You know, if I could get the deeds to a nice stretch of ice there, I might uproot and move so I could start a penquin farm...

[Romanus]

I think the answer is pretty simple:

1.) Declare all past landing sites (Apollo, Luna, etc.) sites as off-limits government property, and place restricted zones around them.

2.) Allow people to claim only as much land as they can *realistically* use, given their resources. For instance, Big Manufacturer X could make good use of 200 sq. mi of the Moon, but I seriously doubt Joe Millionaire could.

Just my two bits.

[JonClarke]

Antarctica is a good analogy, as the evolving legislation over its use have shown. Beginning with the Anatarctic treaty there are agreements in place for environmental protection, conservation of historic sites, search and rescue, tourist operations, biological resources, and other issues. In the 90's there was serious effort given to developing a treaty to allow mining. In the end this was dropped in favout of a world park. I can see the Moon being developed in much the same way.

Jon