Space Homesteading Paper

[jongoff]

Out of curiosity, did you actually bother reading the whole paper?

Jon, are you just being insulting or do you really imagine that the proposal is so well thought out and well reasoned that any disagreement must be the knee jerk reaction of someone who never bothered to read it? 

Not at all, it just seemed like you were raising two points that he spent many pages on, and it seemed like you hadn't read his counterarguments.

The passing of laws regarding land ownership is the prerogative of a sovereign power. The proposal brings about the very situation it was designed to prevent - conflict over extraterrestrial bodies.

Do you or anyone really imagine that other nations would meekly acquiesce if the US were to implement this proposal?

Honestly I'm not sure. The fact that the proposed law would require recognition of claims from anyone who met the requirements, regardless of nationality did sound like it definitely would help. Though I think it would also help a lot of they were talking much smaller land claim recognitions--600,000km^2 seemed ridiculously huge (twice the size of Colorado). My guess is if they were talking say something in the 10-100km^2, and they were willing to recognize anyone's claims that fit the homesteading requirement, that they might actually not get that much pushback. But that's why I wanted to get peoples thoughts on things.

Your original comments seemed less like you had read it and disagreed with it than that you had skimmed the executive summary and not read his actual detailed case. I apologize if I offended.

~Jon

[QuantumG]

The passing of laws regarding land ownership is the prerogative of a sovereign power.

Nonsense. English common law already recognizes land claims made by private individuals outside sovereign territory - both titles on land with other sovereign territories and titles on land outside any sovereign territory.

[Phosphorus]

The passing of laws regarding land ownership is the prerogative of a sovereign power.

Nonsense. English common law already recognizes land claims made by private individuals outside sovereign territory - both titles on land with other sovereign territories and titles on land outside any sovereign territory.

You've just given the answer to the question -- "how sane individuals can bear with existence of inefficient interntational bureaucracy (UN, etc.)".
Specifically -- no matter how cumbersome international bureaucracy is, it has a saving grace of preventing private interests from Anglo-Saxon countries, armed with their (arguably fairly abominable) common law systems, wreaking havoc with the world and claiming legitimacy. On this planet, the UN leash arrived arguably too late; the pockets where reason (a.k.a working civil law systems) still rules are too few. Now, similar ideas applied to the rest of the Universe, despite the fact that we are too far from actually colonizing it, have to be stopped dead in the tracks. IMHO.

[gbaikie]

The passing of laws regarding land ownership is the prerogative of a sovereign power.

Nonsense. English common law already recognizes land claims made by private individuals outside sovereign territory - both titles on land with other sovereign territories and titles on land outside any sovereign territory.

You've just given the answer to the question -- "how sane individuals can bear with existence of inefficient interntational bureaucracy (UN, etc.)".
Specifically -- no matter how cumbersome international bureaucracy is, it has a saving grace of preventing private interests from Anglo-Saxon countries, armed with their (arguably fairly abominable) common law systems, wreaking havoc with the world and claiming legitimacy.

It has nothing to do with "interntational bureaucracy". The issue is the American stupidity in it's bureaucracy.
The Congress if you assume it approaches anything resembling rational conduct should have passed something like this, decades ago.
But of course the congress doesn't actually function rationally, and it requires for citizens to go into to the hallowed halls, and tell him- "hey, this something which actually important and spend some time considering it."
To expect them to immediately act in rational manner and actually pass something which lacks the normal hordes of lobbyist supporting their next campaign: is optimistic.

It's more likely it will take a decade of constant annoyance by "the little people" before it slowly seeps into their minds that it might actually be worth considering seriously.

[Jim Davis]

Nonsense. English common law already recognizes land claims made by private individuals outside sovereign territory - both titles on land with other sovereign territories and titles on land outside any sovereign territory.

Fine. Claim the South China Sea and ask the Australian government to recognize your claim.

Then check back with us.

[Jim Davis]

Honestly I'm not sure.

I suspect that you, and Rand for that matter, are quite sure. I can't read your minds of course but those are my suspicions.

I see this proposal as essentially a tactical one. I think Rand does understand that the Outer Space Treaty prohibits land ownership and ideally would like the US to withdraw from the treaty and make explicit claims of sovereignty. He realizes that proposing such a move would be very unpopular with virtually zero chance of adoption not the least because of other provisions such as nuclear weapons in space. So in lieu of outright withdrawal he makes the present proposal which gives lip service to the treaty but is in effect an abrogation. Rand doesn't really care if his proposal violates the Outer Space Treaty or any other treaty or law for that matter. He wants extraterrestrial land ownership and doesn't care too much how that goal is achieved. He is like an attorney who wants his client to prevail regardless of the strengths or weaknesses of his clients case. And I don't think there is anything wrong with that. He's an advocate and this is what advocates do.

The fact that the proposed law would require recognition of claims from anyone who met the requirements, regardless of nationality did sound like it definitely would help.

Seriously? The nations of the world would meekly accept the requirements unilaterally declared as law by the US?

[mrmandias]

A couple of other thoughts.

1.  This is obviously politically unlikely.  It should not be the main focus of the space advocacy community.  While private property ownership is on the critical path to sustainable space settlement, we're more likely to get there in small increments.  This isn't a criticism of Simberg's efforts, though, since he's just one guy and since he is actually getting support from outside the usual space advocate community.

2.  The proposed initiative shouldn't be open to all comers.  Instead, it should be open to persons whose nations have enacted reciprocal legislation.  In my judgment, this doesn't amount to a claim of sovereignty any more than the current initiative does.  Frankly, the proposed Space Prize Act should be done the same way: the prizes should be open to every nation that chips in an amount proportional to their population or their GDP or some equivalent measure.

[IRobot]

The passing of laws regarding land ownership is the prerogative of a sovereign power.

Nonsense. English common law already recognizes land claims made by private individuals outside sovereign territory - both titles on land with other sovereign territories and titles on land outside any sovereign territory.

That is the essence of the nonsense of this proposal. It is useless if a specific nation recognizes land ownership if other nations don't!

If Quirziguistantointang government claims ownership of a piece of the moon just because their internal law allows them, does the US accept it? Of course not!

Do you think China is afraid of the US? Not any more! A US private firm could claim a piece of the moon and China could "invade" it the next day.

International treaties are required if you want some kind of ownership recognition.

[mrmandias]

Though I think it would also help a lot of they were talking much smaller land claim recognitions--600,000km^2 seemed ridiculously huge (twice the size of Colorado). My guess is if they were talking say something in the 10-100km^2, and they were willing to recognize anyone's claims that fit the homesteading requirement, that they might actually not get that much pushback. But that's why I wanted to get peoples thoughts on things.
~Jon

Politically the smaller claims would be much more palatable.

Functionally it could go either way.  If you look at the history of American settlement, you had two different models.  In the colonial settlement model, you had enormous grants of land that were  meant to be sold off by the original grantee to finance settlement.  In the later model, the tracts were sized to be economically viable either for a community (the township) or for a family (the homestead). 

[mrmandias]

Honestly I'm not sure.

I suspect that you, and Rand for that matter, are quite sure. I can't read your minds of course but those are my suspicions.

I see this proposal as essentially a tactical one. I think Rand does understand that the Outer Space Treaty prohibits land ownership and ideally would like the US to withdraw from the treaty and make explicit claims of sovereignty. He realizes that proposing such a move would be very unpopular with virtually zero chance of adoption not the least because of other provisions such as nuclear weapons in space. So in lieu of outright withdrawal he makes the present proposal which gives lip service to the treaty but is in effect an abrogation. Rand doesn't really care if his proposal violates the Outer Space Treaty or any other treaty or law for that matter. He wants extraterrestrial land ownership and doesn't care too much how that goal is achieved. He is like an attorney who wants his client to prevail regardless of the strengths or weaknesses of his clients case. And I don't think there is anything wrong with that. He's an advocate and this is what advocates do.
 

This is progress.  You’ve moved from calling us scam artists to reading our minds and calling us liars.

[mrmandias]

The passing of laws regarding land ownership is the prerogative of a sovereign power.

Nonsense. English common law already recognizes land claims made by private individuals outside sovereign territory - both titles on land with other sovereign territories and titles on land outside any sovereign territory.

That is the essence of the nonsense of this proposal. It is useless if a specific nation recognizes land ownership if other nations don't!

If Quirziguistantointang government claims ownership of a piece of the moon just because their internal law allows them, does the US accept it? Of course not!

Do you think China is afraid of the US? Not any more! A US private firm could claim a piece of the moon and China could "invade" it the next day.

International treaties are required if you want some kind of ownership recognition.

The US is a much more important market than the nation of Q-gong.  And a much bigger market.  I could get by with only the US being willing to accept my product if I were a moon tract owner.  In any case, if you are right (which you could be, we aren't dealing with cut and dry physics issues here), the issue is moot, because no one will get the funding to claim a tract.

[mrmandias]

Lets try to step back a little and generate less heat and more light.  I include myself in that.

Here goes:

I'm interested in ideas.  Reason one, I'm a lawyer and a space advocate, so the way legal regimes interact with and influence space expansion interests me.  Reason two, I strongly believes that private property ownership is on the critical path to space expansion.  Reason three, I happen to have an interest in the history of American settlement, especially in its legal aspects, *and* I happen to have an interest in international law in its complex interactions with American sovereignty and the Constitution.  That's why a few years back I spent some evenings and weekends reading a lot of the papers and materials on the subject of space settlement initiative proposals and whether they violated the Outer Space Treaty.  This reading included a lot of the pro and con material Simberg cited in his paper.  (His paper contains nothing new that I saw, its more a repackaging for the benefit of Congress).  My conclusion was that there was no obvious and clear legal answer, but that in my personal judgment the space settlement initiative types had the better of the *legal* argument.

I'm not saying you have to take my word for it because I'm a lawyer.  I don't think you have to be a lawyer or blindly accept what a laywer says on this, because a lot of it comes down to a gut feeling on whether a country’s legal system recognizing the legality of property ownership outside its defined national borders is a de facto claim of sovereignty or not.  That gut feeling is going to be influenced by the country you come from.  As someone pointed out upstream, common law countries have a history of thinking that property is a fundamental right that does not derive from government.   The American legal system has in fact adjudicated property rights outside its borders or even in other countries with no intention of claiming sovereignty by doing it.  This is a strong precedent in my mind, though the circumstances are different enough that I can’t say that someone who says these initiatives are illegal is arguing in bad faith or is obviously and clearly wrong.

I say that space settlement initiative types have the better of the *legal* argument.  There are non-legal objections.  For instance, wouldn’t this irritate other countries?  Probably, yes.  But its hard to do anything without irritating some country somewhere.  So the question is how many countries will be irritated, how much will they be irritated, what form will that irritation take?  And, on the other hand, what are the benefits?  This is a cost-benefit question that involves a huge number of imponderables.  Reasonable people can disagree about these imponderables.  Someone taking a different position on this doesn’t mean they are acting in bad faith.

[A_M_Swallow]

Fine. Claim the South China Sea and ask the Australian government to recognize your claim.

Then check back with us.

The sea is not land.  Very different rules apply.

[mrmandias]

Homesteaders need criminal law as property rights to protect them.  A treaty permitting creation of a legislative body able to ban murder, rape, theft etc. is needed.  Powers to create courts, police and levy taxes will also be needed.  This body with powers over the Moon could also register people's property.

You are asking the right kinds of questions.

What you propose would be a claim of national sovereignty and clearly would violate the Outer Space Treaty. 

Obviously once there are tens of thousands of people living on the Moon or elsewhere in space, there simply will have to be some nation(s) on Earth or new extraterrestrial nation(s) that asssert sovereignty and prosecute crime.   But that is a very long way off.

Until that distant day, I see two mitigating factors.  First, in the initial settlement crime should be quite low.  The costs of getting people there means that the settlers will be a fairly select group,.

Second, most countries are willing to apply their criminal laws extraterritorially.  Meaning that if a US citizen on moonbase alpha kills a Brit, in theory the US citizen could be turned over to US authorities for prosecution.  The US could have a law right now that makes it a crime for its citizens to commit murder anywhere in or out of the world.

[A_M_Swallow]

Mr. Simberg states, at the outset, that "new space transportation companies are driving down the cost of accessing space". 

Are they, really? 

 - Ed Kyle

Yes.

Each Shuttle flight is estimated to have cost $0.7 to $1.5 billion.

The Russians are believed to be increasing the price per seat to $60 million.
For 6 people that is 6 * $60M = $360 million.

SpaceX has agreed to make 12 cargo flights to the ISS for $1.6 billion.  That is 1600M / 12 = $134 million per flight

If manned flights are twice that (pessimistic) and have 6 passengers then the price per passenger is
2 * $134 / 6 = $44.7 million

This report said that commercial crew per-seat costs could exceed Soyuz.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2011/05/13/02.xml
Soyuz costs have gone up, not down.  They've nearly doubled during the past decade.

Shuttle, of course, carried cargo along with crew, so would have to be compared not just with multiple Soyuz flights, but with the additional cost of an equivalent number of Progress or Proton flights.

So I'm having trouble seeing the "driving down the cost" part.

 - Ed Kyle

Using the above figures 12 Dragon flights for the cost of 1 Shuttle flight.

1 Shuttle flight can deliver 7 people, including the pilot, and 24,400 kg.

A Dragon can carry 7 people or 6,000 kg but not both.

24,400 kg / 6,000 kg = 4.067  (round up to 5 flights)

So the cargo can be carried for 5 * $134 M = $670 million

The cost of lifting the people then has to be negotiated.