Once things are well established, each person would have a specialty to trade with others.
If you don't know it, there is a term in America. "Forty acres and a mule"
On the case of weapons in space. I agree about nukes. However, what if a nuke is needed to say blast an incoming asteroid that could wipe out a colony? Also, small arms are not going to fire outside of living quarters because of no oxygen. In space traditional small arms, even if they could fire, will probably throw someone backwards.
{snip}What constitutes an "operation" or an "area under control"? Again, that is where convention trumps a strict letter-of-the-treaty interpretation. Keep it reasonable and it becomes the law.
So governments cannot claim sovereignty over land in space but can claim sovereignty over people and corporations. They may be able to grant a person a permit to mine say a 10 hectare (metric) area. Or possibly a permit for a toll road between two towns.
I know where 40 acres and a mule came from after the Civil War.
However, it is or was common knowledge in America that to provide for a family one needed 40 acres.
A stop off at Mars for supplies would be cheaper and easier than carried all the way from earth.
Also, small arms are not going to fire outside of living quarters because of no oxygen.
In space traditional small arms, even if they could fire, will probably throw someone backwards.
On topic:I think the OST comes pretty close to perfect, once you ignore the fluffy-bunny sentiments and look at the actual treaty obligations.1) No traditional national sovereignty. No flag planting claims over an entire body.2) Sovereignty over your own stuff. And return anything that falls on your country to its original owner.3) No interference with operations.4) Assistance in distress. Including allowing astronauts to emergency land on your territory with guaranteed right-of-return to their own nation.5) No nuclear weapons.6) A requirement of each space-faring nation to regulate commercial activity in space that originates from their territory.The bad parts? 1) The fluffy-bunny-speak makes many people think that ownership of processed materials in space is forbidden. (However, IMO, the subsequent Moon Treaty is the "exception that proves the rule" in the strict legal sense; in specifying additional common-ownership/shared-resources measures, it proves that such measures were not part of the OST.)2) The absoluteness of the no-nukes clause. Limiting it to cis-Earth space would have been sufficient to reduce the Cold War weaponisation of space, without limiting potential future use of nukes as propulsion or tools in deeper space.
Your Optimally is communistic.
Quote from: spacenut on 03/24/2015 12:23 pmYour Optimally is communistic.Not at all. An auction, if it's done properly, will make sure the most efficient mining companies will get the rights. Obviously the revenues generated by mining rights (approx. the value of the resources minus the cost of mining them), belong to the people and nobody else.
Quote from: Oli on 03/24/2015 12:59 pmQuote from: spacenut on 03/24/2015 12:23 pmYour Optimally is communistic.Not at all. An auction, if it's done properly, will make sure the most efficient mining companies will get the rights. Obviously the revenues generated by mining rights (approx. the value of the resources minus the cost of mining them), belong to the people and nobody else.Under that concept, there had better be a pretty good profit for the mining companies as part of the mining costs or no one would do it.
I fail to see how it would benefit outer space exploration or otherwise be "just" to force those few able and willing to take the huge risks in outer space development to pay all other countries royalties, countries most of whom have jack to do with space exploration/usage. UN bureaucracy would gobble up large share of the money, corruption in third world countries the rest. The common people in poor/restless countries would get diddly squat.
There is no reason for the ones with the guns to share the resources with others, except there are others with guns forcing them to.
Quote from: Oli on 03/24/2015 01:45 pm There is no reason for the ones with the guns to share the resources with others, except there are others with guns forcing them to.Apparently all the commodities exchanges in the world didn't get that memo.