Space Homesteading Paper

[Jim Davis]

The sea is not land.  Very different rules apply.

And very different rules apply in space as well.

But I understand you disagree. So claim a piece of the moon. Ask the government of your choice that recognizes English common law to recognize your claim because it's in accordance with English common law. Report back to us.

[mrmandias]

The sea is not land.  Very different rules apply.

And very different rules apply in space as well.

But I understand you disagree. So claim a piece of the moon. Ask the government of your choice that recognizes English common law to recognize your claim because it's in accordance with English common law. Report back to us.

Under the common law, that claim would have to backed by occupancy and/or use.  Occupancy and/or use would be impossible without *a lot* of funding.  Funding requires reduction of as much uncertainty as possible.  The Outer Space Treaty is a major source of uncertainty, because there are credible differing opinions on whether it allows private property ownership or not.  The idea of space settlement initiatives is to reduce or even eliminate that uncertainty.

Your response isn't a serious attempt to engage, its just rhetorical dismissal.  I can't point to a single comment you've made in this thread that has been serious or respectful or worthwile.  We deserve better from you, and so do you.  Please try to bring more light than heat.

[A_M_Swallow]

The sea is not land.  Very different rules apply.

And very different rules apply in space as well.

But I understand you disagree. So claim a piece of the moon. Ask the government of your choice that recognizes English common law to recognize your claim because it's in accordance with English common law. Report back to us.

I cannot afford the spacecraft needed to plant the flag, the traditional sign of a land claim, plus ISRU hardware.  However there are many governments that can.

As for reporting back, I continue to support the law change.

[IRobot]

Ok, let's look at a hot topic this week: 30 years after the Falklands war, Argentina still claims ownership of the islands.

No UN, no international treaties, the whole thing was "solved" with a war. Argentina now shouts loudly. Does it change anything? No!

Claiming land in space will either result in future wars or simple arguments exchange between countries.

[mrmandias]

Ok, let's look at a hot topic this week: 30 years after the Falklands war, Argentina still claims ownership of the islands.

No UN, no international treaties, the whole thing was "solved" with a war. Argentina now shouts loudly. Does it change anything? No!

Claiming land in space will either result in future wars or simple arguments exchange between countries.

Correct.  Keeping humanity out of space is the only surefire way of keeping human ills like wars and contention out of space.

[jongoff]

The sea is not land.  Very different rules apply.

And very different rules apply in space as well.

But I understand you disagree. So claim a piece of the moon. Ask the government of your choice that recognizes English common law to recognize your claim because it's in accordance with English common law. Report back to us.

You know Jim, if he actually followed the requirements of this proposed law (by actually setting up a permanently inhabited facility on the moon), I bet you they'd actually have a good chance of getting some sort of recognition even without a law like what Rand is suggesting. This isn't just "claiming a chunk of the Moon" without doing anything to actually validate that claim, as much as you want to keep propping that strawman up.

Normally I enjoy and learn from your contrarian views, but I'd prefer a little less straw.

~Jon

[Jim Davis]

This isn't just "claiming a chunk of the Moon" without doing anything to actually validate that claim, as much as you want to keep propping that strawman up.

Yes, it's more about arbitrarily making up laws that validate a claim and then saying the claim is valid because it follows those laws.

The whole point is that nations cannot make laws that validate land ownership in space because such laws are an assertion of sovereignty which the Outer Space Treaty forbids. That is pretty much the whole thrust of the proposal: assert sovereignty while denying doing so. I think this would be transparently clear if such a proposal were made to a Supreme Soviet, Revolutionary Council, or Islamic Consultative Assembly somewhere.

[Jim Davis]

Under the common law, that claim would have to backed by occupancy and/or use. 

What common law is that? Anglo-Saxon common law? Is the moon, Mars, etc traditional Anglo-Saxon lands? Why should Anglo-Saxon law prevail in those jurisdictions?

[A_M_Swallow]

Under the common law, that claim would have to backed by occupancy and/or use. 

What common law is that? Anglo-Saxon common law? Is the moon, Mars, etc traditional Anglo-Saxon lands? Why should Anglo-Saxon law prevail in those jurisdictions?

NASA is based in the USA, where common law applies.  So are the CCDev companies.
China uses its own laws internally but has found it can trade successfully using common law.  It probably learnt this from Hong Kong.

[Warren Platts]

Sorry guys, but this is pure pie-in-the-sky. Basically, what they propose is a Guano Islands Act for the Moon. So it is not only a de facto US land grab, it is a de jure land grab.

Yeah, sure the paper says the proposed Act "makes no pledge of military defense of recognized extraterrestrial properties." On the other hand, that wording certainly isn't a pledge that military defense will never be used. Ultimately, a property right amounts to the right to kick out a trespasser, by force if necessary. But states ultimately have the monopoly on force. So a property right not ultimately backed up by force is worthless.

Yes, it's true that the OST prohibits military activities of all kinds on the Moon; but it does not disallow police activities. So yes, the US could get involved physically defending property rights on the Moon (on behalf of non US citizens to boot) (if of course the US had such a capability, which the way things are going is likely to be a moot point).

And the idea that this would never cost US taxpayers is totally disingenuous and shouldn't fool anybody. They propose that the US impose economic sanctions against an outfit like China that trespasses on a Manx/Dubai property right. Well, what does that mean: imposing a tariff on imported Chinese goods?!? That is a direct cost imposed on US citizens to protect property right of non-US citizens. Nonstarter....

Also the numbers they use are not pulled out of the vacuum of space; they are cleverly chosen. To put this in perspective, 600,000 square miles is the size of a circle with a radius of 380 nautical miles. The EEZ's granted coastal nations by the Law of the Sea are only 200 nautical miles in extent. There are about 30 kilometers per degree of latitude on the Moon: if the initial settlement was located on the north or south pole, the land claim would extend from the pole down to a latitude of 66.8^o. That is frackin' huge, and would definitely lock up the entire volatile/electrostatic placer deposits to be found in the entire polar region under control of one, single, capitalist pig. They say they want to avoid monopolies, but that's exactly what they propose to create.

And there's no principled reason that other countries couldn't pass similar, but different laws. What if China recognized the property rights to the entire Moon? If the US law were legitimate, then there's no principled reason the Chinese law wouldn't be just as legitimate.

Of course, these guys are aware of all this, so, frankly, that makes the paper dishonest as well.

[Cog_in_the_machine]

While private property ownership is on the critical path to sustainable space settlement, we're more likely to get there in small increments.

Perhaps you should say land ownership, since that's the issue as far as I can tell and not "private property ownership" per se. OST already allows ownership of certain things in space - whatever you send up there is still yours, like a mechanic island of sorts. It also forbids destroying other people's stuff for fun or profit, meaning you can set up camp in an area without worrying that someone can come in and casually bump you out of the site.

An important thing not explicitly stated is the right to celestial resource ownership (meaning the tangible stuff like water, metals etc). Considering however that it doesn't say utilizing them is illegal either, I don't see the problem so long as someone can get to them and make use of said resources (even in an economic sense). As far as I know there's no such thing as paying for an ISRU permit. There has also been a precedent of material obtained from a celestial body being sold commercially. Unless I'm mistaken that's legal leverage for the case of selling stuff from space on Earth legitimately.

The way I see things is that there are already enough ambiguities in the law to allow big things like: building a settlement somewhere out there (even from local materials); populating it and sustaining the people (again even with local materials); exporting whatever valuable material there is and selling it to earthlings (it has already been done on at least one occasion I know of).

You can make money out there legally by carting around tourists with fat pockets, or living "off the land" and selling rocks to scientists, artists or whoever is willing to pay for authentic space rocks on Earth (or rare materials to industry, whatever). This is what most would-be space pioneers envision doing in this so called final frontier, do they not?

The broad international laws right now seriously hinder one and only one group of people, as far as I can tell. The ones that hope to make money by selling fancy papers to other people looking to go out there, oh so graciously allowing them to land in a specified area and own every rock in it. I don't see how landlords are a must have for settling, mining and selling otherworldly materials back home.

Though I can see who might be upset. Real-estate salesmen, who are hoping to hit pay dirt the day it's announced that every rock in space is officially fair game. Buying and selling real-estate isn't the only way to make money however and at this stage it would probably complicate the commercialization of space rather than help it.

Does anyone aiming to make a buck out there in some other way seriously want to pay for the dirt they walk on, on top of paying for the transport to get there and the tons of equipment for life support? For all intents and purposes right now the land and resources cost nothing. Zero dollars. There is only the previously mentioned costs, salaries to your employees, taxes and whatever else your business has to deal with financially. Why bother trying to use land rights to secure your stuff? Space pirates or space natives are not going to pillage your ship/base/station/fancy space toilet. Even if they do, that sort of activity is already illegal, meaning you can bring big brother to keep them off your back, like in the olden days.

I'm no lawyer and I'm truly sorry for the long rant, but just ...why, why do you modern day frontiersmen see the present legal situation as disadvantageous to you? To me it's like you're staring at a steep mountain that seemingly ends in the clouds and you want to climb it one handed just to make your lives harder.

[Warren Platts]

And what's with the whole "settlement" angle?!? The law requires that the initial settler to "commit to consistently make good-faith efforts to promptly offer, or arrange for, safe and reliable transportation to and from the settlement to all, regardless of nationality, who are willing to pay a fare sufficient to cover expenses and a reasonable profit."

A. that's just crazy.

B. not very free market, is it? E.g., what's a "reasonable profit"?

C. How is the US going enforce such outlandish requirements on non-US citizens?!?

I mean if set up a gold mining operation in Cabeus crater, the last thing I would want is a bunch women and children underfoot. My guys would do their 18-month hitch, and then they would be sent home. Besides, it is highly unethical to send pregnant women and children to the frackin' Moon during the initial stages of any permanently manned facility. For Pete's sake, I am I the only one to realize that? Unbelievable.....

Bottom Line: These guys say on the banner of their website that they want "free markets" and "limited government": the proposed Space Settlement Prize Act by intending to set up one or two monopolies over the best resources on the Moon, while at the same time imposing a laundry list of onerous requirements, while meanwhile extending the reach of US law to include non-US citizens outside of US territory is quite the opposite!

[Warren Platts]

The sea is not land.  Very different rules apply.

And very different rules apply in space as well.

But I understand you disagree. So claim a piece of the moon. Ask the government of your choice that recognizes English common law to recognize your claim because it's in accordance with English common law. Report back to us.

Under the common law, that claim would have to backed by occupancy and/or use. 

And I don't see the relevance of this common law stuff. In the US, any unclaimed land belongs to the federal government by default. You can't just set up your yurt anywhere on federal land and claim squatter's rights. Outside of the US, property claims by US citizens on terra nullius would seem problematic: hence the perceived need for the Guano Island Act (and yes, the property rights claims made under that act are backed by military force, if necessary).

Look, if we want private property rights on the Moon, there are only two ways to go about it: either reform the OST, or chuck it. I think a reasonable proposal would be to add a clause that's based on the Law of the Sea, and grant a 200 nm EEZ around the first permanently manned facility within the vicinity.

The actual inside of the manned facility is already considered under the OST to be sovereign territory of the country under whose flag the spacecraft is flying. So the hab module is sort of like an island claimed under the Guano Act; it's sovereign territory, and therefore deserves a 200 nm EEZ. Like EEZ's on Earth, they are still technically the "common heritage of humankind", it's just that the resources are managed by the country with the EEZ.

Thus, if Shackleton Energy set up shop at the South Pole, since it's a US company, the US federal government would be granted a 200-nm EEZ. Thus, the resources there would be managed by Department of Interior, presumably, and they would decide how the resources were to be disposed of, not Bill Stone. Thus, the Mining Law of 1872 might apply, or the Congress could pass some kind of a new Space Act analogous to the Railroad Act that would grant him many square miles, perhaps in a checkerboard pattern, but not necessarily the entire EEZ, thus leaving some land for other comers so that one business entity isn't controlling the whole place.

The EEZ wouldn't necessarily exclude foreign competition. On Earth, there's nothing preventing a Japanese fisherman from fishing in a US EEZ, or British Petroleum from drilling a well in a US EEZ ( ), it's just that they need permission from the US government first.

This would be a simple solution and it would keep the OST relevant, unlike the proposed Space Settlement Prize Act.

[mrmandias]

While private property ownership is on the critical path to sustainable space settlement, we're more likely to get there in small increments.

Perhaps you should say land ownership, since that's the issue as far as I can tell and not "private property ownership" per se. OST already allows ownership of certain things in space - whatever you send up there is still yours, like a mechanic island of sorts. It also forbids destroying other people's stuff for fun or profit, meaning you can set up camp in an area without worrying that someone can come in and casually bump you out of the site.

An important thing not explicitly stated is the right to celestial resource ownership (meaning the tangible stuff like water, metals etc). Considering however that it doesn't say utilizing them is illegal either, I don't see the problem so long as someone can get to them and make use of said resources (even in an economic sense). As far as I know there's no such thing as paying for an ISRU permit. There has also been a precedent of material obtained from a celestial body being sold commercially. Unless I'm mistaken that's legal leverage for the case of selling stuff from space on Earth legitimately.

The way I see things is that there are already enough ambiguities in the law to allow big things like: building a settlement somewhere out there (even from local materials); populating it and sustaining the people (again even with local materials); exporting whatever valuable material there is and selling it to earthlings (it has already been done on at least one occasion I know of).

You can make money out there legally by carting around tourists with fat pockets, or living "off the land" and selling rocks to scientists, artists or whoever is willing to pay for authentic space rocks on Earth (or rare materials to industry, whatever). This is what most would-be space pioneers envision doing in this so called final frontier, do they not?

The broad international laws right now seriously hinder one and only one group of people, as far as I can tell. The ones that hope to make money by selling fancy papers to other people looking to go out there, oh so graciously allowing them to land in a specified area and own every rock in it. I don't see how landlords are a must have for settling, mining and selling otherworldly materials back home.

Though I can see who might be upset. Real-estate salesmen, who are hoping to hit pay dirt the day it's announced that every rock in space is officially fair game. Buying and selling real-estate isn't the only way to make money however and at this stage it would probably complicate the commercialization of space rather than help it.

Does anyone aiming to make a buck out there in some other way seriously want to pay for the dirt they walk on, on top of paying for the transport to get there and the tons of equipment for life support? For all intents and purposes right now the land and resources cost nothing. Zero dollars. There is only the previously mentioned costs, salaries to your employees, taxes and whatever else your business has to deal with financially. Why bother trying to use land rights to secure your stuff? Space pirates or space natives are not going to pillage your ship/base/station/fancy space toilet. Even if they do, that sort of activity is already illegal, meaning you can bring big brother to keep them off your back, like in the olden days.

I'm no lawyer and I'm truly sorry for the long rant, but just ...why, why do you modern day frontiersmen see the present legal situation as disadvantageous to you? To me it's like you're staring at a steep mountain that seemingly ends in the clouds and you want to climb it one handed just to make your lives harder.

\

Historically land claims played a huge role in the history of the settlement of this country.  In some areas, the surveyor was the first American in.  That being so, I don't understand why you think that land ownership would complicate settlement.  The most analagous history we have suggest otherwise.

[Cog_in_the_machine]

Historically land claims played a huge role in the history of the settlement of this country.

Historically yes, but times change and the place under consideration is rather different this time around.

That being so, I don't understand why you think that land ownership would complicate settlement.

At this point it has no utilitarian value to a business. Let's assume I'm wealthy enough to attempt some space commercial venture, as opposed to being about as broke as one can be and still have luxuries like electricity. Why would I pay to own land and resources when I can have them for free?

And yes there is the cost of hardware, personnel etc to get them, but that financial burden doesn't lessen if I have to pay a celestial landlord. It increases. I don't even need the space deed someone is dangling in front of my nose as a legal instrument to protect my operation. Current law already forbids people from stealing and/or destroying my stuff. In a nutshell, why must I buy what they're trying to sell me?

The most analagous history we have suggest otherwise.

It's also centuries out of date and millions of miles off as far as it's place in the space-time continuum goes. I understand learning from history. Not so much trying to repeat it to the letter as much as possible, though.