You are not logged in.
If space resource use is encouraged to proceed as Marsoc members say it should, then they generally feel that there is at least an indirect avenue for global participation since the benefits would soon trickle down to all of humanity including the poor and needy of the world, thus effecting an increase of consumption in these socio-economic spheres.
It is evident, however, that the exact nature of development in the Solar System will not be dictated by the humanitarian visions of space frontierists but by the ideologically-inspired subtleties of international law. The main forum for the expression of law in space is the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, since this is the treaty signed by all space-capable nations so as to become the most officially sanctioned legal document governing space activities that there is.
The Outer Space Treaty has been in the past seen as a monumental piece of international law drafted by the superpowers of the 1960s in order to enable free and peaceful access to the bodies of the Solar System without fear of land-grabbing annexation but this is not all that the Outer Space Treaty represents. Though it prohibits the appropriation of areas upon extraterrestrial bodies it remains ambiguous with regards to materials contained within such areas. To quote the treaty itself, Article II states:
Outer space, icluding the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation.
This might seem to indicate clearly that no one is allowed to claim any particular bit of the extraterrestrial Solar System for themselves. However, many space lawyers and prospective space industrialists that hail from space-capable nations interpret the Outer Space Treaty to mean that while areas of the Solar System bodies are prohibited from being claimed, any material removed from such a body becomes the rightful property of the remover. Under such an interpretation an industrial space colony cannot own the surface upon which it settles and opens operations but as soon as it removes any material from that surface the material becomes the property of the colonial operators.
If one believes that the Free Market will then adequately disseminate these extaterrestrial materials throughout the world via the normal pricing systems then there seems no problem with this interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. However, since the operators can only get into the position of running an industrial colony on another world through massive state support and investment of public funds it seems incredible to class such extraterrestrial endeavours as operating according to Free Market principles.
When discussing participation in Solar System resource use the issue is not whether you believe in the efficiency of the Free Market versus the egalitarianism of a Planned economy. The point here is that although we all know - and admit - that getting into space is a public affair, the Outer Space Treaty allows for private appropriation once humans are there. The first or 'public' phase is cast as a glorious human pursuit that transcends inter-human and international quarrels. The second or 'private' phase is cast as the incurable and ineffable operation of the Free Market. This 'private' phase uses the smoke screen known as the Free Market and the ambiguity of the Outer Space Treaty to plan for what may as well be labled space imperialism, whereby commonly-owned resources are appropriated by technocratic imperialists.
After helping space developers to get to the Solar System bodies and construct industries there, it seems that they will be legally entitled to kick the public in the teeth and claim the resources for themselves.
Offline