Bigelow: Moon Property rights would help create a lunar industry

[RocketmanUS]

The moon is large. It is a matter of being civilized.

Claims can be made and filed. Different areas are suited for different operations.

Everyone will not have to be in the same area ( gold miners on a river ).

The most valuable real estate are plateaus of near constant illuminate near volatile rich permanently shadowed regions. That narrows it down a small amount of real estate near Whipple or Shackleton.

There is more than just mining ( telescopes including radio ).

Aluminum is also a valuable commodity, manufacturing on the moon.

How are they going to defend the claims?

As soon as we start talking about armed corporations, the line between private corporation and state blurs.

It will be hard enough just to get to the moon and one's own claim.

So will run the Lunar space port(s) and others will run the manufacturing facilities,ect. Not all will be miners.

[QuantumG]

You don't get to decide for everyone else what natural law is.

I don't need to. People already agree on natural law.. that's why it's called natural law.

The corporation at that point is de facto sovereign.

Ruling over whom?

Anyone in the controlled territory. Not actually hard to understand.

How?

So far, you haven't made any claims that "corporations" on the Moon would violate the property rights of others, but if that's what you meant to say, then yes, that'd be a de-facto state, I agree. I just don't see how that possibly can be inferred from merely defending a claim. The idea that someone defending their own property is a "state" misunderstands the idea of the state.

[Chris Bergin]

Ok, so this thread turned into a sandpit fight. Cleaned it up as much as I can.

Everyone behave yourselves!

[R7]

So far, you haven't made any claims that "corporations" on the Moon would violate the property rights of others, but if that's what you meant to say, then yes, that'd be a de-facto state, I agree. I just don't see how that possibly can be inferred from merely defending a claim. The idea that someone defending their own property is a "state" misunderstands the idea of the state.

A corporation laying claim on lunar territory and defending it using any form of force is in direct violation of OST article I "there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies.".

Article VI says State Parties have responsibility to ensure that their non-government entities conform to OST articles.

Corporations can't escape OST except by incorporating in non-OST nation and executing the lunar mission from there.

[QuantumG]

The whole point of this thread is to discuss the reversal of the OST.

I would think that a treaty which allows Russia free access to your property would be pretty easy to topple right about now.

[RocketmanUS]

The whole point of this thread is to discuss the reversal of the OST.

I would think that a treaty which allows Russia free access to your property would be pretty easy to topple right about now.

How about a new space agreement on rights of usage of asteroids, planets ( bodies ), space, ect.

[Llian Rhydderch]

The whole point of this thread is to discuss the reversal of the OST.

I would think that a treaty which allows Russia free access to your property would be pretty easy to topple right about now.

How about a new space agreement on rights of usage of asteroids, planets ( bodies ), space, ect.

How 'bout just going there on a private arrangement:  add your capital equipment and labor to extracting some sort of use from the "land" (whether mineral extraction, solar collection, habitats, etc.), and it's yours, as long as you continue to inhabit it and work the claim.

Stay out of the government as much as possible, except for the so-called license required to launch from Earth.  It you can, hope for a fairly liberal law in the nation that provided the launch license, that it (just this one nation) would honor such usage of extraterrestrial land and would not extend future licenses to it's citizens who violate such working/active claims.

[llanitedave]

Your invented definition, with your invented understanding of what natural law is.

As opposed to your invented definition?

The corporation at that point is de facto sovereign.

Ruling over whom?

Call it whatever you libertarians prefer to call it.

Free?

It would be ruling over its "employees", who are at the behest of corporate governance as long as they are on "company property", and have no way to leave without the cooperation of the corporation.  Under those circumstances, they have no expectation of privacy, no right to free speech, and armed people "guarding" them who can use force to impose corporate will, or "policy".

There's no freedom there.  Every corporate libertarian's paradise is little more than a feudal duchy of lords and serfs.

[docmordrid]

Conspiracy theory a hobby?

A US corporation would still be governed by US laws including the Constititions 13th Amendment which bans involuntary servitude, including indentured servitude  which is what you just described.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[QuantumG]

It would be ruling over its "employees", who are at the behest of corporate governance as long as they are on "company property", and have no way to leave without the cooperation of the corporation.  Under those circumstances, they have no expectation of privacy, no right to free speech, and armed people "guarding" them who can use force to impose corporate will, or "policy".

There's no freedom there.  Every corporate libertarian's paradise is little more than a feudal duchy of lords and serfs.

Uh huh. Pretty sure "escape from slavery" insurance would become very popular if that ever was a thing. In reality, corporations treat their employees like they're their most important asset, because they are, even here on Earth where it costs next to nothing to replace them.

[Robotbeat]

...

In reality, corporations treat their employees like they're their most important asset, because they are, even here on Earth where it costs next to nothing to replace them.

Are you sure we live in the same reality?

[QuantumG]

...

In reality, corporations treat their employees like they're their most important asset, because they are, even here on Earth where it costs next to nothing to replace them.

Are you sure we live in the same reality?

Last I checked, you were living in academia pretending that you had any understanding of corporations.. so no, we're probably not.

[llanitedave]

...

In reality, corporations treat their employees like they're their most important asset, because they are, even here on Earth where it costs next to nothing to replace them.

Are you sure we live in the same reality?

Last I checked, you were living in academia pretending that you had any understanding of corporations.. so no, we're probably not.

I've worked for several corporations.  Each on of them claims, like a mantra, that their employees are their most important asset.  In reality, especially on Earth where it costs almost nothing to replace them, they tend to treat them at best like commodities, at worst like expenses.

The most important assets of a corporation tend to be the golf partners of the Board of Directors, or the legislators in their pockets.

Armed guards on the Moon have no "defense" utility whatsoever.  And once separated from Earth, employees are at the corporation's mercy.  They can't simply walk off the job and go elsewhere like they can on Earth.  Furthermore, as for being still subject to the U.S. Constitution, I've heard no talk or plans about government regulators checking on them to enforce any potential labor or safety regulations.  So what would those armed guards really be doing?

We have a long way to go before we work out any sort of interplanetary commercial behavior, much less property rights.  I suspect this is one of several areas where Elon Musk's dreams are likely to hit a brick wall.

[Robert Thompson]

Mars is advertized to be a land flowing with milk and honey. As far as property rights go, it would be a sooner or easier thing on Mars to achieve the Jeffersonian mythical "Yoeman farmer" where one family can more or less live off the land and avail themselves of useful and appropriate Rights. The moon has very thin and segregated wealth and this model would not work for long. I'm a moon first thinker and I assume the space workers of a commercial or consortium interest would be as highly constrained in their obligations and time use as ISS astronauts, essentially without many "rights" as we understand them, as they are confined by logistics of supply and return vehicles. Those companies will have to screen 6-month space workers probably harder than ISS astronauts who have any-time return capability. That screening does engender trust and 'value', if without an existential loyalty. Minimal human "rights" in space law might follow whatever seasonal off-shore oil workers have, or whatever long-term submariners have. Many many shades of gray that are very close to black, that are not black. I envision that in the signed contract of an oil worker, the 'right' to emergency medical attention back on the mainland is ironclad, but I don't even imagine you could get the same thing for the moon. On several TheSpaceShows, I've heard the recurring theme that even if the participant is utterly perfectly informed of the risk they take, the lawyers and family members (of species homo americanus litigious) in their absence can raise all manner of questions and doubt as to what truly constitutes "informed" and "consent" and "risk" in this new environment. So this topic of property rights could be expanded into personal or human rights. What is the Geneva Convention for space workers?

[Lar]

OK guys. Less sniping at each other's qualifications, please.

[Robert Thompson]

http://www.newstatesman.com/sci-tech/2014/02/who-owns-moon-were-just-going-have-get-there-and-find-out
"Clearly there’s a long way to go – and it is entirely possible that nothing will be done about the legal issues until the first claims are staked. That’s what is so useful about China’s Jade Rabbit project: it makes it clear claims will be staked soon."

[Wigles]

I do not believe that anyone will be "staking claims". More likely they will jse go there and start doing things. Waiting for the legal, government, and particularly intergovernmental policies to be updated to match the real world is unlikely to be appealing to those wanting to do such activities.

Anyway, the "rights" are only as valid as there is someonw willing to enforce them. Governments can control the corporations resident within their countries, but is any other country going to hinder their economy by criticising, or imposing sanctions on, the first country to start mining or establishing a base?

[R7]

The whole point of this thread is to discuss the reversal of the OST.

Umm no, this thread is to discuss Yves' article, which appears not to be about reversal of the OST. It appears Bigelow tries to claim that private property rights would be result of article IX, and not conflict with other articles thus not requiring changes to OST at all.

Your exchange with Robotbeat seemed to indicate that you think private entities have a loophole in OST therefore allowing them to enforce their "rights".

Having said that a new thread with suggestions on how to change/replace OST and discuss what effects they might have might be in order?

I would think that a treaty which allows Russia free access to your property would be pretty easy to topple right about now.

  Your Russia card is faulty in many ways.   

1. Leave outer space treatyless and you can make no legal claim against unmarked, masked men arriving in armored Lunokhod forcing you to leave from your lunar base at gunpoint.

2. Replace OST with treaty giving outer space private property rights and same masked men could arrive anyway to escort you away from your property because certain State has repeated problem respecting treaties, especially sovereignty of others.

[R7]

http://www.newstatesman.com/sci-tech/2014/02/who-owns-moon-were-just-going-have-get-there-and-find-out

The Chinese could take the moon apart and sell it bit by bit without breaking international law. The question we have to ask ourselves is simple: do we see a need to prevent that happening?

Oh for Pete's sake, did the writer read NSF ?? It's scary when seemingly serious article approaches one's attempt at absurd sarcasm...

And the question is not that simple. Would "we" need to prevent only China from doing that, or everyone including ourselves, or everyone else except "us" (USA?) ? First and last makes "us" double standarded hypocrites, the middle one just dumb.

The treaty [OST] says nothing about those non-governmental actors claiming property rights, however. “It doesn’t prohibit them, it doesn’t allow them. It’s completely silent,” says Joanne Gabrynowicz, a professor emerita of space law at the University of Mississippi who acts as an official observer to the UN effort to oversee the legal framework governing use of space.

No it is not completely silent:

States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty.

1. ACME Moon Mining Company making a lunar property claim is national activity.
2. National activity of making lunar property claims is not in conformity of articles I and II.
3. OST State Party must make sure that national activities are conforming to all articles.

Prey tell where the logic fails or how the result is still ambiguity regarding ACME Moon Mining Company.

Nothing in OST prevents ACME MMC from actually going to the Moon and extracting lunar resources.

[A_M_Swallow]

{snip}

The treaty [OST] says nothing about those non-governmental actors claiming property rights, however. “It doesn’t prohibit them, it doesn’t allow them. It’s completely silent,” says Joanne Gabrynowicz, a professor emerita of space law at the University of Mississippi who acts as an official observer to the UN effort to oversee the legal framework governing use of space.

No it is not completely silent:

States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty.

1. ACME Moon Mining Company making a lunar property claim is national activity.
2. National activity of making lunar property claims is not in conformity of articles I and II.
3. OST State Party must make sure that national activities are conforming to all articles.

Prey tell where the logic fails or how the result is still ambiguity regarding ACME Moon Mining Company.

Nothing in OST prevents ACME MMC from actually going to the Moon and extracting lunar resources.

Article VI limits the behaviour of ACME MMC.  It will need a licence to mine the Moon.

... The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty. ...

What is missing is a way of preventing two countries from issuing licences for the same area of the Moon.

Do not be surprised if the second company is run by its president's brother-in-law.