Discuss Sam Dinkin's latest - Space Property Rights?

BWhite · 2004-07-26 08:08:55

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/190/1]Article link and quote:

Right now, there is no legal authority to hold such an auction (of land on the Moon & Mars). The United States should commence international negotiations to amend the 1967 Treaty of Outer Space or withdraw from it to make such auctions possible. While property rights are valuable in and of themselves, the money raised from auctioning the real estate can be used to subsidize space efforts or defray the cost of administering the property rights and surveying the frontier.

Thoughts?

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-07-26 08:20:04

I'd say that's long over due. I would even go so far as to say we should can the space treaty in general. I'd love to see the first mission to mars (American hopefully) plant the flag and then proclaim "We claim this new new world for the old new world, we claim Mars for the USA"..../parades ensue/ lol

BWhite · 2004-07-26 08:29:39

I'd say that's long over due. I would even go so far as to say we should can the space treaty in general. I'd love to see the first mission to mars (American hopefully) plant the flag and then proclaim "We claim this new new world for the old new world, we claim Mars for the USA"..../parades ensue/ lol

Why do I think Chirac and Putin would take exception?

I am reminded of this quote from Wikipedia:

The remaining exploring nations of Europe such as France, England, and the Netherlands were explicitly refused access to the new lands, leaving them only options like piracy, unless they (as they did later) rejected the papal authority to divide undiscovered countries. The view taken by the rulers of these nations is epitomised by the quotation attributed to Francis I of France demanding to be shown the clause in Adam's will excluding his authority from the New World.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Saragossa]Link

= = =

Since (today) we cannot put a man in LEO and Russia and China can, perhaps we should be more cirumspect. . . :;):

Grypd · 2004-07-26 08:40:12

Interesting thought who owns outer space.

The outer space treaty is pretty definite in that all space belongs to and is the collective property to everybody. If the USA withdraws and starts auctioning off parts of the moon who will take those claims seriously. Interesting point is would that not be classed as theft!

What could be a way around is areas of space to be licenced to allow commercial activity. So if you are the first to be actively using an area it will allow you to use that area until you stop. If a certain area around the base you are using is also kept clear as part of this revision of the treaty then it will stop possible claim jumping tensions.

Of course the treaty could be withdrawn from so making it worthless and then it will belong to who ever can hold it so start making those space battleships.

BWhite · 2004-07-26 08:46:53

Interesting thought who owns outer space.

In my opinion, "who will own space" is a great geo-political dance that is just now beginning to twirl and which the world leaders prefer not be discussed too openly.

Palomar · 2004-07-26 10:36:38

*While I'm alive I am the Mother of the Solar System.

Get used to it.

--Cindy :;):

clark · 2004-07-26 10:55:44

Nice set of planets you got there, mother.

Aetius · 2004-07-26 11:58:48

That's one of the reasons I'm pagan. I can't accept atheism, but I can't accept Abrahamic monotheism either.

What man ever gave birth to anything? So how could an emphatically male deity create the Universe?

A Mother Goddess makes plenty of sense to me. :;):

This worldview depends on faith, of course. I know that there is no ironclad logical argument I could make for it.

Aetius · 2004-07-26 11:59:35

So Cindy, will we get to see your "planets"?

clark · 2004-07-26 12:04:42

What man ever gave birth to anything? So how could an emphatically male deity create the Universe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea-Horse] … /Sea-Horse

Maybe god is a sea-horse.

Morris · 2004-08-05 22:30:24

Er, who is Sam Dinkins?

SpaceNut · 2004-08-06 09:38:48

This was a UN treaty during the Apollo era or was it a collective super power one?

A UN treaty though has a error in that non member can chose to ignore all such items. In fact members can sort do that if it can present its side to get waivers from punishment from the others.

Martian Republic · 2004-08-07 09:49:04

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/190/1]Article link and quote:
Right now, there is no legal authority to hold such an auction (of land on the Moon & Mars). The United States should commence international negotiations to amend the 1967 Treaty of Outer Space or withdraw from it to make such auctions possible. While property rights are valuable in and of themselves, the money raised from auctioning the real estate can be used to subsidize space efforts or defray the cost of administering the property rights and surveying the frontier.
Thoughts?

If we keep doing what we doing, probably nobody will own it, because nobody has a right to claim it.

If the United States just bail out of the treaty and goes lone wolf into taking possession of the moon, then we will probably have a colonization of the moon, mars and asteroids on more of a 17 or 18 century Imperial power rules. The strong country that have the industrial and military might take the prize and every body else get nothing.

Or we could negotiate a new treaty to develop the moon, mars and asteroids and depending on the treaty we could have some interesting variations.

Larry,

Morris · 2004-08-11 12:46:50

Interesting thought who owns outer space.
In my opinion, "who will own space" is a great geo-political dance that is just now beginning to twirl and which the world leaders prefer not be discussed too openly.

I am sure that you are right. But I wonder how many have committees somewhere who are quietly working on this issue?

The UN has its http://www.oosa.unvienna.org]Office of Outer Space Affairs working on these issues. However, it is tucked away in Vienna. On this site you can find a link to a beautiful brochure in .pdf format documenting how space activity helps the UN in a number of its tasks.

prometheusunbound · 2004-08-14 06:06:23

If the United States just bail out of the treaty and goes lone wolf into taking possession of the moon, then we will probably have a colonization of the moon, mars and asteroids on more of a 17 or 18 century Imperial power rules. The strong country that have the industrial and military might take the prize and every body else get nothing.

I agree with that, execpt for one thing; if we don't hurry up, china will do it first. And we (USA) will never make it up there without directly threatening china. Space, despite all of its size, is not the South Seas or the pacfic. Nations cannot sail space without other nations knowing-and forcing the emergant to quit.

I think the first colonizer of space will have a definate advantage in allowing what and which nations would be "permitted" to follow number 1.

Of course, sealth technology could render this entire point moot. If nations can hide their vechclies from radar, then it would be tough to find us, altough radar is still good enough to know that something is out there. China does not have sealth right now; we do.

I am going to bet that some sort of government will be established in space to force property rights. If this was left on earth, the rights might be suspect to other poltical considerations, but since it truly is in the interest of those involved to have strong rights, those involved would probably create some sort of space gov.

Martian Republic · 2004-08-14 10:16:22

If the United States just bail out of the treaty and goes lone wolf into taking possession of the moon, then we will probably have a colonization of the moon, mars and asteroids on more of a 17 or 18 century Imperial power rules. The strong country that have the industrial and military might take the prize and every body else get nothing.
I agree with that, execpt for one thing; if we don't hurry up, china will do it first. And we (USA) will never make it up there without directly threatening china. Space, despite all of its size, is not the South Seas or the pacfic. Nations cannot sail space without other nations knowing-and forcing the emergant to quit.
I think the first colonizer of space will have a definate advantage in allowing what and which nations would be "permitted" to follow number 1.
Of course, sealth technology could render this entire point moot. If nations can hide their vechclies from radar, then it would be tough to find us, altough radar is still good enough to know that something is out there. China does not have sealth right now; we do.
I am going to bet that some sort of government will be established in space to force property rights. If this was left on earth, the rights might be suspect to other poltical considerations, but since it truly is in the interest of those involved to have strong rights, those involved would probably create some sort of space gov.

Like I said, I was just throwing out the three basic choices.

whether or not the United States is going to be number One or not, is definatly open for debate or whether we will continue as number one in space flight business.

Larry,

Martian Republic · 2004-08-14 10:17:12

If the United States just bail out of the treaty and goes lone wolf into taking possession of the moon, then we will probably have a colonization of the moon, mars and asteroids on more of a 17 or 18 century Imperial power rules. The strong country that have the industrial and military might take the prize and every body else get nothing.
I agree with that, execpt for one thing; if we don't hurry up, china will do it first. And we (USA) will never make it up there without directly threatening china. Space, despite all of its size, is not the South Seas or the pacfic. Nations cannot sail space without other nations knowing-and forcing the emergant to quit.
I think the first colonizer of space will have a definate advantage in allowing what and which nations would be "permitted" to follow number 1.
Of course, sealth technology could render this entire point moot. If nations can hide their vechclies from radar, then it would be tough to find us, altough radar is still good enough to know that something is out there. China does not have sealth right now; we do.
I am going to bet that some sort of government will be established in space to force property rights. If this was left on earth, the rights might be suspect to other poltical considerations, but since it truly is in the interest of those involved to have strong rights, those involved would probably create some sort of space gov.

Like I said, I was just throwing out the three basic choices.

whether or not the United States is going to be number One or not, is definatly open for debate or whether we will continue as number one in space flight business.

Larry,

Palomar · 2004-08-14 12:44:04

*I don't like the concept of "property rights" in space.

And someone earlier today dropped the "e" word (exploitation). I so greatly dislike that word too.

I know, I know...we've hashed these issues out before, more than once.

The Solar System is so free and unfettered. With the exception of Earth, no one owns anything.

I've been an amateur astronomer so long and the concept of someone or some nation owning a bit of Mars or a portion of Saturn's rings or a chunk of land on Ganymede is so anathema. Incomprehensible.

The word "exploitation" especially always gets me right in the midsection. I *feel* a negative reaction to that word.

Just had to say it.

--Cindy

prometheusunbound · 2004-08-14 19:59:16

The word "exploitation" especially always gets me right in the midsection. I *feel* a negative reaction to that word.
Just had to say it.

Why?

Think about it.

Capitalism is exploitation of the willing exploitees. Exploitation is not a one way street; consider the multitude of material affects that one can own in todays world. Then consider the affects that you can make for yourself. Ever try to put a computer monitor together yourself, eh?

Of course, I do not support denying the fruits of labor to a man. Taking advantage (exploiting) of a persons willingness to work is ok, but denying/limiting him any other recourse is wrong.

Consider that if sweatshops were shut down, those familys would be denied access to most any income. Better half a loaf than none.

But slavery is wrong by virtue of no compenstation for labor. Even in the sweatshops the people earn compenstation. If they were denied this compenstation, I would support legal actions against the sweatshops.

Besides, what harm is there in exploiting material things?

*I don't like the concept of "property rights" in space.

Lets say I want to build some great thing in space. Something that would benefit all of mankind, and myself. If I build that, and if anyone can use it without my permission or without paying me, what motive do I have to build it in the first place? None. And no one benefits in that case.

My only recompense to holding my precoius "thing" would be violence.

Property rights would help ensure civil relations in space, and protect economic expansion.

The Solar System is so free and unfettered. With the exception of Earth, no one owns anything.

Why should it stay that way? Why not harness it to our own good? What good is it to leave it free and unfettered? What is desirable about a free and unfettered solar system?

There is a certain value in conservation; perhaps things like the Mariener Valley on Mars would be off limits. But to put the solar system outside the reach of man is almost like locking man out of a continent.

Palomar · 2004-08-14 20:15:20

There is a certain value in conservation; perhaps things like the Mariener Valley on Mars would be off limits. But to put the solar system outside the reach of man is almost like locking man out of a continent.

*Oh, I -want- manned exploration and colonization. No doubt about that. I'm -not- calling for putting the Solar System outside our reach.

But I don't like the concepts of property and exploitation.

::shrugs::

It's a complex issue for me. I know property and a level of exploitation are unavoidable with the movement of humans into the Solar System...but still, it's a bit of a dilemma for me. I don't expect anyone to understand. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it. :-\

--Cindy

Morris · 2004-08-14 21:58:09

Capitalism is exploitation of the willing exploitees.

In terms of the most common meaning of exploitation, "willing exploitees" is an oxymoron. Why use it when so many other, less emotionally loaded, ways of saying the same thing are available.?

Morris · 2004-08-14 22:20:24

My only recompense to holding my precoius "thing" would be violence.
Property rights would help ensure civil relations in space, and protect economic expansion.
The Solar System is so free and unfettered. With the exception of Earth, no one owns anything.
Why should it stay that way? Why not harness it to our own good? What good is it to leave it free and unfettered? What is desirable about a free and unfettered solar system?
There is a certain value in conservation; perhaps things like the Mariener Valley on Mars would be off limits. But to put the solar system outside the reach of man is almost like locking man out of a continent.

Lets say I want to build some great thing in space. Something that would benefit all of mankind, and myself. If I build that, and if anyone can use it without my permission or without paying me, what motive do I have to build it in the first place? None. And no one benefits in that case.

You seem to be implying that a thing can't be used without being owned. Air and water would seem to be two examples of things that can be used without being owned. And how about books, or records? Of course the type of society makes a difference. Land can be used without being owned in a hunter-gatherer society, but it's much harder in a society which has achieved agriculture and a settled existence.

However, this fact should not be used to obscure the economic and social advantages of ownership, as in your original example. I would suggest to Cindy that ownership, has, on the whole, been very much a positive social arrangement, especially when the U.S. came along and individual ownership of small pieces of land became the norm. A man could use his property as he saw fit, rather than being the equivalent of a "sharecropper" all his life. He could do thiswith the reasonable assurance that it could not be taken from him without "due process of law" and "just compensation".

These days "due process" has become insufficient protection and "just compensation" a laugh so the issue needs to be looked at again, but that's another, but related, story.

Palomar · 2004-08-14 22:58:46

I would suggest to Cindy that ownership, has, on the whole, been very much a positive social arrangement, especially when the U.S. came along and individual ownership of small pieces of land became the norm. A man could use his property as he saw fit, rather than being the equivalent of a "sharecropper" all his life. He could do thiswith the reasonable assurance that it could not be taken from him without "due process of law" and "just compensation".
These days "due process" has become insufficient protection and "just compensation" a laugh so the issue needs to be looked at again, but that's another, but related, story.

*Hi Morris: I see the points you are making.

However, as you're not a woman I'm doubtful you'd understand. This is tied into my maternal instincts. Yes, believe it or not. I feel protective of the Solar System in that way.

That's the crux of my dilemma here.

But it's all highly personal and the maternal instinct is a very intense thing. I couldn't hope to try and explain even if I wanted to. Which is why I shouldn't have chimed in.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2004-08-15 00:29:03

I've always maintained that "capitalist profit" is not going to occur in space due to the technology required to exist in space, so really, I probably stand with Cindy on this issue. Not for the same reasons, sure, but the results are the same. Cindy doesn't want the solar system to turn into this highly disputed resource gathering expose, and I neither do I. But I don't want that simply because I think it's highly inefficienct and unnecessary once high level technology is taken into consideration.

This opens up a deeper discussion of "ownership" though; I think that the anarchist definition of "property" is much more appropriate here. We're not talking about people collectively owning everything, we're talking about people lacking the need to continue to increasingly exploit resources.

prometheusunbound · 2004-08-15 08:09:32

You seem to be implying that a thing can't be used without being owned. Air and water would seem to be two examples of things that can be used without being owned. And how about books, or records? Of course the type of society makes a difference. Land can be used without being owned in a hunter-gatherer society, but it's much harder in a society which has achieved agriculture and a settled existence.

Historically, collective ownership has not succeeded in bringing much benefit to the "owners" beyond mere survival. Consider that indian tribes meet the definition of collective ownership rather nicely. Then consider the vicous, interneccine wars between the tribes which occured with rather alarming frequency.

Why did they fight so much? Over territory to hunt and live on.

They had to fight to keep their "property". Take away property rights and the only recourse is violence. Not having property rights in space garantees that war will break out.

On the other hand, today we have another form of collective ownership; Corporations. Stockholders own definate, personal peices of a whole that BELONG to them. The indians did not have any definate peices of the whole that BELONGED to individuals. Now, with a definate standard of private property, the collective ownership works. But be careful that an indefinate owner ship will only lead to violence and force.

As for air and water, I think there are some rather good legal briefs from the California Gold Rush that define who owns that stuff.

I've always maintained that "capitalist profit" is not going to occur in space due to the technology required to exist in space, so really, I probably stand with Cindy on this issue. Not for the same reasons, sure, but the results are the same. Cindy doesn't want the solar system to turn into this highly disputed resource gathering expose, and I neither do I. But I don't want that simply because I think it's highly inefficienct and unnecessary once high level technology is taken into consideration.

Technology hardly stands still at any given time. So, based on todays considerations, the solution is not to condemn from ever happening, but to leave it to our children. It is not neccessary for us to do everything our parents could not do. We all can do something, but we cannot do all.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-07-26 08:08:55

Re: Discuss Sam Dinkin's latest - Space Property Rights?

#2 2004-07-26 08:20:04

Re: Discuss Sam Dinkin's latest - Space Property Rights?

#3 2004-07-26 08:29:39

Re: Discuss Sam Dinkin's latest - Space Property Rights?

#4 2004-07-26 08:40:12

Re: Discuss Sam Dinkin's latest - Space Property Rights?

#5 2004-07-26 08:46:53

Re: Discuss Sam Dinkin's latest - Space Property Rights?

#6 2004-07-26 10:36:38

Re: Discuss Sam Dinkin's latest - Space Property Rights?

#7 2004-07-26 10:55:44

Re: Discuss Sam Dinkin's latest - Space Property Rights?

#8 2004-07-26 11:58:48

Re: Discuss Sam Dinkin's latest - Space Property Rights?

#9 2004-07-26 11:59:35

Re: Discuss Sam Dinkin's latest - Space Property Rights?

#10 2004-07-26 12:04:42

Re: Discuss Sam Dinkin's latest - Space Property Rights?

#11 2004-08-05 22:30:24

Re: Discuss Sam Dinkin's latest - Space Property Rights?

#12 2004-08-06 09:38:48

Re: Discuss Sam Dinkin's latest - Space Property Rights?

#13 2004-08-07 09:49:04

Re: Discuss Sam Dinkin's latest - Space Property Rights?

#14 2004-08-11 12:46:50

Re: Discuss Sam Dinkin's latest - Space Property Rights?

#15 2004-08-14 06:06:23

Re: Discuss Sam Dinkin's latest - Space Property Rights?

#16 2004-08-14 10:16:22

Re: Discuss Sam Dinkin's latest - Space Property Rights?

#17 2004-08-14 10:17:12

Re: Discuss Sam Dinkin's latest - Space Property Rights?

#18 2004-08-14 12:44:04

Re: Discuss Sam Dinkin's latest - Space Property Rights?

#19 2004-08-14 19:59:16

Re: Discuss Sam Dinkin's latest - Space Property Rights?

#20 2004-08-14 20:15:20

Re: Discuss Sam Dinkin's latest - Space Property Rights?

#21 2004-08-14 21:58:09

Re: Discuss Sam Dinkin's latest - Space Property Rights?

#22 2004-08-14 22:20:24

Re: Discuss Sam Dinkin's latest - Space Property Rights?

#23 2004-08-14 22:58:46

Re: Discuss Sam Dinkin's latest - Space Property Rights?

#24 2004-08-15 00:29:03

Re: Discuss Sam Dinkin's latest - Space Property Rights?

#25 2004-08-15 08:09:32

Re: Discuss Sam Dinkin's latest - Space Property Rights?

Board footer