Discuss Sam Dinkin's latest - Space Property Rights?

Martian Republic · 2004-08-15 08:10:45

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.

I have a slightly different view both of you, but similar in other was. I don't think Capitalism will work in space either, but neither will the Socialist work in space. So without setting of a third economic system that doesn't currently exist, any attempt of developing space will get toasted. But, I believe that man should be out there and that he needs to be a good steward of both the Earth and the solar system. I believe that man is part of the creative process and his purpose is to change things for the good both down here and in space. Which makes us different from the animals that can't do that.

So I see thing differently and will attack the problem from a different angle then just about everybody else does.

Larry,

Martian Republic · 2004-08-15 08:29:16

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.

Capitalism doesn't work either even down here. Take an example of the British Empire which take free trade, free enterprise and is a capitalist society. They have to send out the British Navy to enforce British rule over there colony because wreckage they cause to there colonies and the people that live in them. British Empire kind of Capitalism was actually a form of Corpratism acting like a government with either slavery or economic slavery at it lowest common denominator. Since you can't reduce the population to slavery and/or horse drawn carriages or just cotton pickers in space, Capitalism would be useless to us in space and be a completely non functional system too.

Larry,

Morris · 2004-08-15 09:47:59

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.

<bow>

Which is why I shouldn't have chimed in.

No, without people speaking out the rest of us don't have the chance of learning something.

Scott G. Beach · 2004-08-15 13:10:57

In an article titled "US public land policy and applications for the Moon and Mars", Sam Dinkin wrote, "The United States should commence international negotiations to amend the 1967 Treaty of Outer Space or withdraw from it to make such auctions possible."

The United States could withdraw from the Outer Space treaty and then assert sovereignty over Luna and adopt laws that provide for the auctioning of lunar land. However, the other nations of Earth might take exception to the United States simply taking Luna as its own territory. If the United States asserted sovereignty over Luna it would, in essence, be issuing a threat to use force against the people of other nations. I believe that it would be a mistake for the United States to make such a threat.

The Moon Treaty of 1979 provides for the establishment of an international regime to regulate the exploitation of lunar resources. The United States could become a party to the Moon Treaty and then advocate the implementation of the international regime provisions of that treaty. The international regime could be established and it could lease a portion of Luna to the United States. This would allow the United States to adopt laws that provide for the auctioning of subleases on parcels of lunar land in the area leased by the United States. When lunar civilization becomes mature, the United States could allow its lunar lease to expire. The people in that territory could then (1) become an independent nation or (2) apply to become a state of the "United States of America and Luna."

Article 1 of the Moon Treaty anticipates that "specific legal norms" may be adopted for Mars and other celestial bodies. In an essay titled "The Problem of Owning Mars", I proposed a set of legal norms for Mars. Those legal norms, in the form of a "Constitution of the Provisional Government of Mars", would allow the establishment of settlements that adopt ordinances for their governance. Such ordinances could provide for the auctioning of parcels of land within the boundaries of the settlement. My essay is posted on the web at http://www.geocities.com/scott956282743 … t956282743

Josh Cryer · 2004-08-15 14:09:01

I consider my approach something of a true individualism. Not the Ayn Randian type that really speaks for interdependency, but a truely objective, economically independent, self sufficient type of individualism.

My hab is all I need to physically survive. That's the economic question; can I afford to live? If I have a totally self contained/sufficient habitat, yes I most certainly can. If everyone does, then we're all surviving on our own, and the "socialist" aspect is sort of null and void, and would really only exist via free tech exchange (high level technology should by its very nature be easy to exchange, the cost being quite literally the energy needed to make it, which in the inner solar system is easy to come by).

By property, I speak of capitalist property; a corporation stakes claim on hundreds of asteroids, and puts turrets on them to defend them from resource gatherers. A capitalist fences off large pieces of Mars circling it with more gun turrets and sells them at some exorbant rate. We don't even need the turrets (indeed, they'd likely be susceptible to pillage), just someone willing to run around and threaten peoples livelihood. "You're trespassing on my property, look at the property line! Get off or I'll kill yer!" when the line is just a few marks on stones and "circles" a whole vally which seemed quite unhinhabited when you settled in. Indeed, that's the whole key to the definition of anarchist "property." Anarchists do not consider something property unless you're "possessing" it. That is, you're actually using it, you're living there, you're doing something with it. A capitalist, from the anarchist perspective, isn't using their property, they're exploiting others to maintain their property for them (if I'm maintaining your property, I most likely am not maintaining mine).

Morris · 2004-08-16 06:58:38

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.

I don't think that most of the Indians "owned" the land in the modern sense. They felt that certain areas were their "hunting grounds", etc. but without a legal definition of ownership and some kind of court system to decide conflicts I don't think most would call the lands "owned".

You are right that ownership issues arise when there are conflicts over the use of resources. No conflicts, no need to have a bunch of ways of determining how to resolve them. This might be the case for the first few generations of Martian settlement. On the other hand, it might not. What if, for example, it turns out that there are only a few areas where water exists in useful amounts?

But be careful that an indefinate owner ship will only lead to violence and force.

Yes.

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 would be surprised at air, but would be interested in how they approached water rights. Any especially good articles, books on this topic?

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.

If you've got an economy (even a barter economy), profit is going to occur. If the economy is as free as possible and if information relevant to trades is available to all the traders, generally both sides will profit from an exchange. If exchanges are based upon the "free, unforced judgment of the traders" then, by definition, both sides think they are benefiting. Whether this is actually true or not depends on a whole host of factors.

In many posts there seems to be a confusion in the meaning of "capitalism". Sometimes it is correctly used to refer to an economic philosopy. At other times it seems to be used to refer to economic laws. Economic laws are going to apply regardless of the political system. It just happens that when "free trade" assumptions are met it can be mathematically demonstrated that at equilibrium you are going to have the most efficient use of resources possible within that environment. As Bill has pointed out in other forums/threads we can keep inventing ways to use resources more efficiently. This is a major reason why a "free-trade" economy is typically not a zero-sum game and why there is constant pressure for technological development.

When "free trade" assumptions are not met, then you have distortions in the economy which result in less efficient use of resources and an economy which is "poorer" than a "free trade" one. An excellent book showing in detail how these laws apply to common issues in our own society such as the minimum wage, rent control in some cities, and farm price supports can be found in Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics. A wider-ranging discussion of these issues is contained in Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression by Mary Ruwart.

Scott G. Beach · 2004-08-16 12:29:16

Morris:

You wrote that sometimes capitalism "is correctly used to refer to an economic philosophy." Yes, putting an "ism" on the end of "capital" is a way to refer to an economic philosophy known as capitalism. However, the term capitalism is usually used to refer to an economic system characterized by the private ownership of capital goods (accumulated goods devoted to the production of other goods).

You also wrote, "At other times it [capitalism] seems to be used to refer to economic laws. Economic laws are going to apply regardless of the political system." At the most fundamental level of analysis, economic laws describe the flow of energy through an ecosystem. However, it should be noted that in a human society legislated laws can significantly alter energy flows. In other words, economic laws can be changed politically. The law of the jungle can be domesticated.

Prometheusunbound wrote "Historically, collective ownership has not succeeded in bringing much benefit to the 'owners' beyond mere survival." The Hutterites are an example of people who practice collective ownership and who have high standards of living (low infant mortality rates, good diets, and long lifespans). Capitalists and other people who advocate the private ownership of land and capital goods should study the Hutterites. In doing so, they will gain a deeper understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of capitalism.

The Moon Treaty of 1979 provides for the establishment of an international regime to govern the exploitation of lunar resources. That international regime has not yet been established so there is not currently an internationally recognized means of acquiring title to lunar land. But we could ask the parties to that treaty to establish an international regime that could allow the issuance of titles to lunar land. We could propose a set of model land tenure laws that the international regime could adopt. We could help to fashion an international regime that will promote the settlement of Luna and thereby speed the development of technologies and social institutions that can be applied to the settlement of Mars.

Josh Cryer · 2004-08-17 02:10:43

If you've got an economy (even a barter economy), profit is going to occur.

That's why I said "capitalist profit." I understand that exchanges can and will result in a net gain (even if we're giving stuff away for almost nothing; things like open source can result in profit, for example). I just think it unlikely that those with capital are going to have any advantage here, and that really, capital would tend to be this archaic concept that most would scoff at.

Oh yeah, you have a closed ecosystem life support system and some harvesting robots? So do I, dang. Guess we're on the same level. Now are we going to go about turning Mars into this despotic robot filled harvesting planet or are we going to be civilized and just use what we need and get along with one another (because if we decide to do the former thing, we'd likely start fighting once disbutes about resources inevitably began)?

This is what the prospect of higher level technology brings us.

In many posts there seems to be a confusion in the meaning of "capitalism".

I refer to the dictionary definition, nothing else. Capitalists are purveyors of capital; capital is a silly concept when value of goods is irrelevant. And the value of most things becomes quite worthless once we can make anything (or most anything) with a few pieces of high level technology. Especially in a place like Mars where the culture would have people who don't care about things which to people on Earth would consider of great value or use (mahogany tables, fine wines, and a fun one for clark which I think he finally understands, toilet paper, etc).

The culture would be different, and the economic expectations would be different because high level technology would demand it.

As Bill has pointed out in other forums/threads we can keep inventing ways to use resources more efficiently.

Well, though at the momment I think this is true, it can't go on forever, and indeed, we will eventually figure out the physically best way to avhieve some goal under whatever constraints.

BWhite · 2004-08-17 08:51:53

Well, though at the momment I think this is true, it can't go on forever, and indeed, we will eventually figure out the physically best way to avhieve some goal under whatever constraints.

Josh, this statement undermines (IMHO) the rest of your position. Goods cannot have zero value without infinite supply.

Are there limits to efficiency? Are there limits to information density? The more I ponder this the more I find myself staring at a funny Greek dude named Zeno.

BWhite · 2004-08-17 08:54:56

Prometheusunbound wrote "Historically, collective ownership has not succeeded in bringing much benefit to the 'owners' beyond mere survival."

Dude, Texaco and Bechtel are examples of the collective ownership of property. Should we outlaw corporations?

Josh Cryer · 2004-08-17 16:43:16

Josh, this statement undermines (IMHO) the rest of your position. Goods cannot have zero value without infinite supply.

You don't need (literally) infinite supply if you have finite ammount of humans.

Goods would just be at equllibrium with the populas.

The way capitalists would have to introduce non-"infinite" supply is to control a given resource; take over a whole planet and force everyone to pay into the capital that they've "earned" or whatever. This is what we currently have in several capitalist industries, I've said it before; for example, DeBeers owns all the worlds diamonds, and only lets so many out a year to keep their value high.

And we don't have to outlaw crap, just get pissed off when corporations start mowing down the land and claiming it as their own; especially when we're already living on it.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-08-15 08:10:45

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

#27 2004-08-15 08:29:16

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

#28 2004-08-15 09:47:59

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

#29 2004-08-15 13:10:57

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

#30 2004-08-15 14:09:01

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

#31 2004-08-16 06:58:38

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

#32 2004-08-16 12:29:16

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

#33 2004-08-17 02:10:43

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

#34 2004-08-17 08:51:53

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

#35 2004-08-17 08:54:56

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

#36 2004-08-17 16:43:16

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

Board footer