Bigelow: Moon Property rights would help create a lunar industry

[JasonAW3]

Heck, when I was a Kid and they were first proposing the OST, I knew right then it was a REALLY BAD idea.

Can one of the libertarians around here (and I consider myself one of them) please clearly explain why the OST was and is a REALLY BAD idea? Seems like a libertarian's wet dream to me. As described in the article, Bigelow will get his "zone of operation". The lunar base would be transferable. Where's the beef?

Ok, say you've homesteaded a particular patch of the moon for yourself.  A previous survey indicates that there is a vast miniral deposit under your homestead and a government wants it.  According to the OST, you DO NOT own that particular patch of the moon and the government can come in, kick you out of a homestead that you may have taken YEARS to set up, and not pay you a dime for your trouble.  They don't even need eminent domain as an excuse, as the OST let's them get away with that.

[Warren Platts]

Heck, when I was a Kid and they were first proposing the OST, I knew right then it was a REALLY BAD idea.

Can one of the libertarians around here (and I consider myself one of them) please clearly explain why the OST was and is a REALLY BAD idea? Seems like a libertarian's wet dream to me. As described in the article, Bigelow will get his "zone of operation". The lunar base would be transferable. Where's the beef?

Ok, say you've homesteaded a particular patch of the moon for yourself.  A previous survey indicates that there is a vast miniral deposit under your homestead and a government wants it.  According to the OST, you DO NOT own that particular patch of the moon and the government can come in, kick you out of a homestead that you may have taken YEARS to set up, and not pay you a dime for your trouble.  They don't even need eminent domain as an excuse, as the OST let's them get away with that.

Well, under the scenario you describe, I would be the claim jumper, and whoever did the previous survey would have the rights to the resources, and therefore have the right to kick me out.

However, assuming I was the first "homesteader", the OST (Article IX) says that state parties shouldn't interfere with the activities of others. Studies show that landers kick up debris for distances of up to a kilometer or two, therefore, anyone landing within a couple of kilometers would be interfering with my operation.

Also, Article VIII says ownership of objects constructed in space isn't affected by the fact that the property is in space. Thus, if the US government for some weird reason wanted to take over the place, they would have to compensate the owner at fair market value.

[R7]

Why should OST say anything about intra-national ownership issues? That's for every nation and their governments to deal with independently. Mileages vary wildly, USSR didn't even recognize private ownership back then, it's so-so even modern China.

If US gov wants to evict ACME MMC latter can pursue fifth amendment for "just compensation", because it had private property (= the artificial mining installations) and that in OST's spirit also denoted first right to do mining there. If US gov would try to wiggle it's way from just compensation by some "oh but it's on the Moon so not a dime" it's not OST's place to try to correct the wrong but US supreme court's.

[Robert Thompson]

In your thesis Bigelow is solely and exclusively armwaving for press, and has not a single meritorious argument for encouraging re-evaluation of property versus capability in an era where Moore's law is hitting a very noticeable stride. In your thesis, GLPX does not exist, nor GS.

Edit: De-iPadded comment by removing unwanted periods.

[Warren Platts]

In your thesis Bigelow is solely and exclusively armwaving for press, and has not a single meritorious argument. for encouraging re-evaluation of. property. versus capability in an era where Moore's law is hitting a very noticeable stride. In your thesis, GLPX does not exist, nor GS. iPads are tiny.

Huh? Bigelow says that recognizing "zones of operations" is consistent with the OST. He likes the OST. He's afraid China will withdraw from the OST.

My advice is to be careful what you wish for, my friend. The last time the OST was revisited, the Moon Treaty was the result. Luckily, that was aborted--thanks to Ronald Reagan. If Jimmy Carter had been re-elected instead, the USA would most likely be a signatory to the Moon Treaty since Carter was a supporter of it. Hmm, I wonder what President Obama's view of the Moon Treaty would be.... 

Mr. Davis is right: there are many reasons that the Moon is not bustling with economic activity right now. The OST is not one of those reasons.

[hop]

I think the reasonable interpretation is simply that all activities conducted by non-governmental entities are by definition "national activities".

That's certainly how I (not a lawyer) read it. "National activities" has to mean something like "activities of a signatory countries nationals". That makes Article XII very straightforward: Every member country is responsible for ensuring it's nationals actions are in line with the treaty (which AFAIK is how international law normally deals with individuals.) Any more restrictive definition would leave rather strange holes in the treaty.

Mr. Davis is right: there are many reasons that the Moon is not bustling with economic activity right now. The OST is not one of those reasons.

Agreed.

[yg1968]

In your thesis Bigelow is solely and exclusively armwaving for press, and has not a single meritorious argument. for encouraging re-evaluation of. property. versus capability in an era where Moore's law is hitting a very noticeable stride. In your thesis, GLPX does not exist, nor GS. iPads are tiny.

Huh? Bigelow says that recognizing "zones of operations" is consistent with the OST. He likes the OST. He's afraid China will withdraw from the OST.

My advice is to be careful what you wish for, my friend. The last time the OST was revisited, the Moon Treaty was the result. Luckily, that was aborted--thanks to Ronald Reagan. If Jimmy Carter had been re-elected instead, the USA would most likely be a signatory to the Moon Treaty since Carter was a supporter of it. Hmm, I wonder what President Obama's view of the Moon Treaty would be.... 

Mr. Davis is right: there are many reasons that the Moon is not bustling with economic activity right now. The OST is not one of those reasons.

Carter approved it but the Senate refused to ratify it.

[Warren Platts]

Thanks largely to a huge lobbying effort by the old L5 Society. After the Repubs took over the Senate on the coattails of Ronny, the Moon Treaty never had a chance.

[docmordrid]

Thanks largely to a huge lobbying effort by the old L5 Society. After the Repubs took over the Senate on the coattails of Ronny, the Moon Treaty never had a chance.

More a matter of a lack of Democrat support.

Moon Treaty vote: 49-35 (7 short)

For: 28 Republicans, 21 Democrats
Against: 23 Democrats, 12 Republicans

The rest didn't vote.

[Warren Platts]

More a matter of a lack of Democrat support.

Moon Treaty vote: 49-35 (7 short)

For: 28 Republicans, 21 Democrats
Against: 23 Democrats, 12 Republicans

The rest didn't vote.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you mean Against: 28 Republicans, 21 Democrats

Interesting. Thin Democrat support, but still a majority. Surprised that 12 Republicans actually voted for it. Goes to my earlier point that if it were brought up again, it might actually pass! Better to leave well enough alone IMHO.

[ChefPat]

Here's a rather interesting editorial on the topic.
The dark side of space: how capitalism poses a threat beyond Earth

[QuantumG]

Here's a rather interesting editorial on the topic.
The dark side of space: how capitalism poses a threat beyond Earth

Izabella Kaminska, nuff said.

[ChefPat]

Here's a rather interesting editorial on the topic.
The dark side of space: how capitalism poses a threat beyond Earth

Izabella Kaminska, nuff said.

I guess you're one up on me. I took a quick look & could'nt find a bio on the author. Can you provide a little background on her?

[docmordrid]

Gadfly writer for the UK's Financial Times Alphaville section. FT itself lately trends to the left and Keynesian economics. Bio,

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/meet-the-team/izabella-kaminska/

[llanitedave]

OK, so you don't like the author.  What about the arguments?

[Robotbeat]

Right-wingers are plenty Keynesian when you talk about spending for the military. Just saying. Being Keynesian doesn't mean you're left-wing.

[go4mars]

OK, so you don't like the author.  What about the arguments?

What arguments?  I read it and was left unsatiated by a lack of meaningful points or new thoughts.

[Mader Levap]

Nonsensical line "The point when a power-hungry billionaire could find a legal path to building his own Death Star." did it to me. I cannot take this article seriously.

[A_M_Swallow]

Nonsensical line "The point when a power-hungry billionaire could find a legal path to building his own Death Star." did it to me. I cannot take this article seriously.

The power hungry billionaire would hit Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty.

Article VIII
 
A State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body.{snip}

His outer space Death Star would be full of parts and people on the registry of the country that launched them.  So he would have to obey say US Federal Law.

[RonM]

Official White House Response to Secure resources and funding, and begin construction of a Death Star by 2016.

This Isn't the Petition Response You're Looking For

By Paul Shawcross

The Administration shares your desire for job creation and a strong national defense, but a Death Star isn't on the horizon. Here are a few reasons:

    * The construction of the Death Star has been estimated to cost more than $850,000,000,000,000,000. We're working hard to reduce the deficit, not expand it.
    * The Administration does not support blowing up planets.
    * Why would we spend countless taxpayer dollars on a Death Star with a fundamental flaw that can be exploited by a one-man starship?

Sorry, it is already US policy not to build a Death Star. 

Now weren't we talking about property rights on the Moon?