Lawyers In Space... 553
colonist writes "The Christian Science Monitor presents an interesting overview of space law. Some want space to be shared by all: 'Outer space is a province of all mankind. There is not, and should not be, any privatization of outer space. It is a common thing that should belong to all.' Some people have claimed parts of the moon or Mars. In response, a lawyer has claimed the sun, 'to show how ridiculous a property-rights system in outer space would be if it were based solely on claims unsubstantiated by any actual possession.' The Space Settlement Initiative wants official recognition of land claims made by those who establish human settlements on the moon or Mars."
I have dibs! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I have dibs! (Score:3, Funny)
Obligatory goatse link [censored]
Your Sig (Score:2, Insightful)
The first time I saw your sig, I thought, "heh - funny". But really, what does it mean? /corporate/america, or /monarchies/saudi_arabia
You want to allow Bin Laden to continue to exist. To get rid of him, 'rm' would be more appropriate.
But you want to make it so that he, his fellow Al Quaidians, and anyone in the world can run him.
If he supports options, anyone can use him against any target they deem fit, e.g.
Expect a visit from your favorite 3 letter agency shortly.
Re:Your Sig (OT) (Score:3, Informative)
Obligitory...... (Score:3, Funny)
A good start.
Re:Obligitory...... (Score:2, Funny)
A better finish.
Headline dissappointed me.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Headline dissappointed me.... (Score:5, Funny)
And about the BMWs, leave them here for me.
I'd let them increase my taxes if they got rid of the lawyers. But alas, never going to happen as the tax increasers (politicians) are lawyers.
Re:Headline dissappointed me.... (Score:2, Interesting)
I think it should be a constitutional amendment that Lawyers are not allowed to hold public office. If you pass the bar you have to sign something that says you will never be allowed to run for public office. Or at least have a restriction that you have to give up your certification for 10-20+ years.
Re:Headline dissappointed me.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, you are so right. Lawyers shouldn't be able to make laws. Anyone who has spent time studying the law, obviously knows too much to be able to write a good law. We need more amature law makers. I'm sure they would do a much better job.
You idea has so much merit that I think we should extend it further. Computers are very difficult to understand for people who know anything about how computers work. I think we need to pass a constitutional ammendment that prevents those have studied computer science or engineering from designing computers. It should make for much better computers that everyone can understand.
Perhpas we should extend this to doctors and writers as well. I don't want complex medical advice. I wouldn't want to read a book by someone who has studied writing.
Ok, enough with the sarcasm. It's just that your idea is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever had the displeasure of reading.
Re:Headline dissappointed me.... (Score:5, Informative)
I never said someone who studied law shouldn't be allowed to make it, I said someone who is/was recently a lawyer shouldn't be allowed to go into public office.
Re:Headline dissappointed me.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Law has become so complex for the good reason that the scope of human social and economic interactions has become so complex. It's the same reason why the Code of Justinian is more complex than the Code of Hammurabi.
Re:Headline dissappointed me.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, that's the problem. Most of the time, it becomes complex for very very good reasons, but neither you nor most people out there have the time to bother with those intricacies, so you don't see the reasons...
This is similar to a situation many of us as developers are familiar with -- you come into a new project, see the code, and it seems waaay too complex for what it's doing. Your initial reaction is always to junk it and rewrite everything.
Then you start looking at
Real world ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Never mind the criminals, who do you think gets the tax code rewritten regularly? Those who regularly seek out loopholes, which must then be closed (more tax law). Any simplified tax code would likely mean the top few percent would pay more than they do now
(All this should not be taken to mean I think lawyers are worthwhile, or that they should become politicians, but it does mean they don't hold full responsibility for the state of law in the U.S.)
Re:Headline dissappointed me.... (Score:5, Insightful)
This kind of thinking causes big problems!
Follow me here... Politicians are people who (a) WRITE LAWS and (b) ENFORCE LAWS. I very much like it that my legislators, who we put there to write good laws, see inconsistencies and opportunities for improvement within existing and proposed laws, and create the legal framework for our society.
Further, when we have wiener-politicians who don't understand the law either create or enforce them, they end up causing lots of problems for both the public and the courts.
So, PLEASE elect lawyers as politicians, that's one thing they're good for. Further, please elect experienced lawyers that know their way around case law so they don't have to get on-the-job experience at taxpayer expense (where expense is measured in the human terms of suffering under misworded statutes).
Of course, everyone in a legislature doesn't have to be a lawyer, just so there's enough of them there to point out when something is jurisprudentially incorrect.
Re:Headline dissappointed me.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course not. You want a person who, in addition to supporting your views, knows how to persuade when needed, to exploit when needed, and to find legal weaknesses, all to get your viewpoint across. Otherwise, your side is going to get trounced. Now, I'm not saying that lawyers are the only people who can do this, or that all lawyers can - far from it. But, the earmark of an effective lawyer is the same thing as the earmark of an effective politician.
Lawyers are pretty demonized in this country - only used car salesmen are demonized worse. But they do serve a vital role. Not every one is an "ambulence chaser" - lawyers are also the people who fight the DMCA, who fight the religious right's attempts to force prayer in public schools, the ones who fight legitimate malpractice cases, etc. They're also the people who defend the DMCA, defend the religious right, and fight bogus malpractice claims. They're people; plain and simple. You need someone digging through everything on both sides if you want even a chance, however small, of true justice being upheld.
Will it always happen? Of course not. Not all lawyers are equal, and even the best lawyers don't always manage to give a full view of both sides. Some juries and judges can be biased. But they're an important part in trying to get the truth out.
Re:Headline dissappointed me.... (Score:3, Funny)
Of course then NOTHING would ever work again, but we'd all have fun trying to figure it out!
Sheesh can you imagine the tax forms, their complicated now, can you imagine what would happen if we putt Mechanical Engineers in charge?
Re:Headline dissappointed me.... (Score:3)
not
A government over the people by the lawyers.
Re:Headline dissappointed me.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Headline dissappointed me.... (Score:4, Informative)
Hmmm...
Cleaner Water.
Clener Air.
Safer drug distibution (no more snake oil salemen)
The 40 hour work week (employment law).
Automobile and Highway safety standards.
Regulation of the Markets (The SEC is actually prosecuting Enron executives).
Banking and Finance Regulation (no more economic depressions with 25% unemployment).
Better education (well, at least the literacy rate is higher).
Longer life span (the NIH is researching cures to many diseases).
Yeah, nothing good comes out of government. Let's go back to the old days, where corruption ruled in Tammany Hall, there were "runs" on the banks, and the corporate trusts could destroy the individual.
Moon taken... Sun taken... (Score:2)
So can I sue (Score:4, Funny)
Re:So can I sue (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So can I sue (Score:3, Informative)
This is as opposed to the damage done by his rays, of course. You're legally obligated to not harm people by emissions from your property (shelling the neighbors is always considered a bad thing)
Re:So can I sue (Score:2, Interesting)
Sorry your argument doesn't hold up.
Re:So can I sue (Score:3, Insightful)
The "service" they charge you for is the privilege of their proprietary method of decoding said signals. Not unlike you buying a radio or renting a solar panel.
Re:So can I sue (Score:2, Funny)
Not only that... (Score:5, Funny)
Technology is under development that will strictly govern the ways in which you are able to use his sun's rays, and will monitor your ray use for marketing purposes and of course to ensure that you aren't pirating rays.
Any circumvention of this control on your use of rays or any unauthorized use of rays, even those that filter through your windows uninvited, will be a federal solar system offense, punishable by up to 15 years in a federal solar system prison and a 1,000,000,000 fine.
Such stiff penalties are necessary because of the vast quantities of solar radiation involved, which, if totaled, represents a truly staggering amount of currency. In fact, the sun's owner estimates that he loses over $1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
"We're working hard to ensure that everyone is complying with the law and can enjoy the sun's rays safely and legally, while still supporting the sun," says the sun's owner. Privately, though, he hints that the loss of revenue due to unpaid for photon use may eventually destroy the giant, causing it to go red and eventually fade into a much smaller, more dense star.
Re:So can I sue (Score:2)
Re:So can I sue (Score:3, Funny)
At the very least, he could probably be charged with maintaining an attractive nuisance.
Nah, he'd just have the judge declare that it didn't have jurisdiction over the Sun.
I going to sue him. (Score:2, Insightful)
Possession != Right (Score:4, Interesting)
Even actual possession does not give you a right to anything. Someone else may come along and kick your sorry ass off the land (or your space rock), as history has shown time and time again. These planets and stars have been around for billions of years, how can any Johnny-come-lately dare think any of it should belong to him?
Re:Possession != Right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Possession != Right (Score:2)
We saw how this turns out when the Vogons come through your little neck of the woods to build a space bypass.
I have cancer... (Score:2)
Re:Possession != Right (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, you have hit one what I have thought the real solution to these jokers has been all along. As soon as someone tries to make money off of any of these claims (charging NASA for "parking" on Eros, claiming trespass for missions landing on the moon or mars, etc.), we should see tax law revised to consider these rights as real property taxable in the jurisdiction in which the owner lives. Tell the guy who is trying to charge NASA for parking, sure, here's your $10,000, but we have determined the va
Re:Possession != Right (Score:5, Insightful)
10 years ago there was a real question over ownership of "cyberspace." Some of us thought it should be an apolitical place where real-world laws need not apply. Want to register the domain name McDomalds.com for yourself? Why not? Who ever said copyrights applied to the Internet? Now it's hard to remember how that made sense.
I predict that in 500 years, today's questioning whether property rights should hold in space will seem just as quaint and hard to understand. People never fail to fence things off and keep them for themselves if they can.
Re:Possession != Right (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Possession != Right (Score:2)
You've been watching too many of those BT ads featuring Jeremy Clarkson lately, mate!
Star Registry (Score:3, Interesting)
For those who want to claim the SUN and charge the rest of us an energy bill - well as long as you can build an office on the sun, you can have it
-A
Re:Star Registry (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Star Registry (Score:2)
Once commericial space... (Score:3, Insightful)
There will of course be property "law" in space. (Score:3, Insightful)
There will be war(s) in space as soon as enough people get out there to try to claim it. Whoever wins these wars will write the first chapter in the case law and/or war history of space "property rights."
No property? (Score:5, Insightful)
For the near future though, exerting property rights over anything you can not "meaningfully control" goes against all the common law up to this point.
Re:No property? (Score:2)
Force (Score:5, Insightful)
Does this situation sound familiar to any US-based people? As a hint, it sounds fairly familiar to me as a Brit.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Force (Score:2)
Too bad noone is on the moon now to bring a case before the World Court. Might be interesting to see....
Re:Force (Score:2)
Paradigm shift (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with what you're describing is you're assuming that all the space settlements will be done by terrestrial governments, causing an independence-day event, 2176.
While we had the Dutch East India Companies providing the transport, the future space model will not be the same. You won't see US Colonies, or Chinese Colonies -- the costs are too prohibitive to be justified to a terrestrial power. The paradigm is shifting to true private enterprise, and the space colonies will be a "FutureCorp" colony and a "Maximum Space Travel" colony.
You want to be a colonist? Sign up at FutureCorp's office. They'll hire a "Governor" who was a former Senator but wants to make more money (and escape sex scandals). You'll have a new allegiance, that to the company.
These ventures will still have terrestrial presences, but will paricipate on a level playing field with other nations, representing the concerns of their space-based constituency.
Re:Paradigm shift (Score:3, Interesting)
Government-based, private corporation colony-based, com
Re:Good luck enforcing Earth law against space (Score:3, Insightful)
Lawyers in DEEP space (Score:5, Funny)
- HAL?!
- Yes Dave
- Let me in, I have a case to prosecute
- I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that
"Lawyer has claimed the sun..." (Score:3, Interesting)
With ownership comes responsibility (Score:2)
Space Law (Score:2, Interesting)
Heinlein/Roddenberry Did It! (Score:4, Interesting)
Heinlein's 'The Man Who Sold the Moon' [amazon.com]
TOS' 'Court Martial' [startrek.com].
Pull the plug (Score:2)
Space ownership is a necessity (Score:4, Insightful)
This is completely untenable if you want development of space. Not to mention that the idea of space being a province of "mankind" is pompous; although we may be the only guys around locally, the entire universe isn't exactly our oyster.
Companies aren't going to spend the hundreds of billions needed for facility developments on the Moon, Mars, Titan, and more without having property rights and mineral rights to those location.
Keep it free, if you want -- but you'll also be keeping it bare.
Re:Space ownership is a necessity (Score:2, Insightful)
Companies aren't going to spend hundreds of billions for those developments, period.
No private enterprise has ever made an investment of anywhere near that size, especially when the payback would take decades, if ever.
Any development of outer space will be strictly on a government-subsidized pork barrel basis fo
Sent hurtling into the sun (Score:2, Funny)
Inevitable, likely already redundant, joke. (Score:2)
encryption (Score:2, Funny)
That sunburn is proof enough that you decrypted our signal without licensed tools!
Use the historic model (Score:3, Insightful)
Claiming something without the ability to take possesion is a waste of oxygen, something lawyers are good at.
Re:Use the historic model (Score:3, Informative)
Claiming something without the ability to take possesion is a waste of oxygen, something lawyers are good at.
Which is why a cursory skimming of the article will show you that the lawyer who claimed the sun did so to demonstrate that a claim without possession is stupid. This guy didn't claim the
what if we're not alone in space (Score:2)
When did the Communists take over outer space? (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine if these guys were around as the American west was being settled. Or when colonists were first ariving in the Americas.
Actually, in the latter case it was. The pilgrims initially attempted a communist-style society - from each according to his means, to each accoreding to his needs. They nearly starved to death. The next season they switched to a more capitalistic system and wound up with a surplus.
These clowns continually ignore the metaphysical truth that property rights are causal. If an individual cannot do as he chooses with the crops he grows grow, he will not willingly grow them. While you can compel an individual to grow them at the point of a gun, you cannot use the same method to get him to invent ways to harvest more efficiently. Brute force compulsion cannot inspire innovation - just manual labor at best.
Preventing private property rights in space will provide no incentive to develop it. The solution is simple - roll out like America's Western expansion. You can't claim anything until you set foot out there, and put some reasonable limit on how much land each individual can claim when there is a shortage.
Re:When did the Communists take over outer space? (Score:5, Insightful)
How about this:
1) If you land on an object <100km on its longest axis and remain for one year, it's yours in perpetuity. If you leave before then, the object becomes unowned.
2) If you land on an object >100km on its longest axis and remain for one year, a circle around your landing spot 100km in diameter is yours in perpetuity. No-one else may land in your circle during your first year for the purpose of claiming ownership (tho' they can of course visit if you let them) and if you leave, the land becomes unowned.
3) If you land on an object on which insufficient land remains for your 100km circle, and you remain for one year, you get the largest possible circle without overlapping anyone elses around your landing point. If you feel hard done by, you should've picked something else to stake your claim on.
There, property rights in space solved.
relativity (Score:3, Insightful)
Relativity effects make rules based on length of occupation difficult. If I find 10 objects that are travelling in a group at some vast speed relative to earth, I can easily stay on each of them for a year (earth time) without having to even unroll my space sleeping bag.
Of course, my claim, travelling as a radio message, may not arrive on earth for years... my lord, think of the effect on patent law! *shudder*
Re:When did the Communists take over outer space? (Score:5, Insightful)
Any reasonable scenario for inhabiting another planet will probably involve robotic fabrication long before humans show up.
Or, suppose the USA begins a 100 year extensive multi-quadrillion-dollar project to terraform Mars. Does it gain the entire planet as a result? Or can anybody land on the new paradise and stake their own claim as soon as the air is remotely breathable?
There are going to be a number of murky issues for some time to come. Things like this used to be settled via might-makes-right - but they didn't have nuclear weapons back then. Going all out at war over ownership of a big piece of land used to be commonplace - now it would just kill off the entire human race.
The problem is that settling an asteroid or planet could be very expensive. If there is no ownership incentive, then it won't be tried - except by isolated research teams. The most effective way to inhabit a planet like Mars is probably full-scale terraforming. It would probably be the cheapest solution on a planetwide scale, but of course it would cost a fortune. Unless you end up with a single Earth governemnt which can just tax the entire human race to pay for it, how do you reward the people who come up with the funds?
Re:When did the Communists take over outer space? (Score:3, Informative)
Hmm...perusing the manifests of the ships does betray a lot of long range thinking such as 'How am I going to survive through the winter on several pairs of shoes'. The Pilgrims were overconfident and failed to bring goods enough to survive. Later they achiev
Bury my heart at wounded knee (Score:2)
"May 06, 2002" ?!?!?! (Score:3, Informative)
Lawyer Wars (Score:2)
There was a gigantic court room, called the SCOstar, was set up in space, threatening those who live in peace on the planets below. The court room, and all space around it are owned by a group of people called, "The Lawyers", and their enigmatic leader, Darth McBride.
However, in a small planet, a new rebel leader was born, his name was Linus Tuxwalker, and he had the power of source.
After much training he joined a rebel force who found a weakness in the
important... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:important... (Score:4, Insightful)
Presence is not enough to claim anything when someone greedier and with bigger/better weapons comes along. Based on a lot of our history we really can have no complains if an advanced alien race comes along and says 'oh look a nice shiny blue/green planet, we'll have that for the kids to play on, just kill those pesky humans first so the kids dont pick up any germs'.
Planetary settlements probably never happen (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not iron-clad in my mind, but it's my gut feeling.
Besides, except for a few wackos, I really doubt that many people will want to live there. Mars is a big freakin' rock! Sure, some sci-fi geeks /think/ they want to go, but generally people need some green.
The future of space settlements is in manufactured settlements with earth-like environments (and spin-gravity), not planetary settlements.
A la Kubrick (Score:2, Interesting)
Space and commerce (Score:5, Interesting)
Until and unless a legal framework for ownership of assets (perhaps by being the first to land on them and remain for a period of time) exists, space will remain the preserve of a self-perpetuating government-academic elite and a dream for the common man - but that common man's taxes are what'll pay for it all still. Once space is opened up to industry, then ordinary people can move there, and only then.
Space Monopoly (Score:2)
Hitchhikers Guide? (Score:2, Funny)
Sounds like something that Douglas Adams would write about, earthlings trying to own ev
Be there to build there (Score:5, Insightful)
This does not mean the entire planet is theirs.
The sun cannot be 'owned' by anyone (that's 1 helluva Nomex suit if someone can land on the Sun).
One the other hand, if there are indigenous inhabitants (future-speak) found on a planet, they trump the visitors.
I see you land claim and raise you (Score:2)
Property rights in space (Score:2, Interesting)
a)Either humanity gets their asses kicked and the laws and laywers go down with the rest of the system
b) humanity adapts to the race and therefore stops landgrabbing, there goes capitalism as well in the long term These kind of things only can be applied as long as we r
Reminds me of Antarctica... (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, the treaties around Antarctica would all go to pot if say, something like massive deposits of fuel oil or some other extremely profitable venture were discovered there...
It's safe to say the same about space, too.
Government: Reinsurer of Last Resort (Score:3, Interesting)
People get all confused about the role of property rights and governments because the tax base has shifted from assets to income.
If the tax base were on assets, where it belongs, it would be much more intuitive to people that government, when functional, provides an insurance service: it insures that property rights are protected.
The simplest way of envisioning this is to imagine a reinsurance network where the reinsurer of last resort is what we call "the government". Where "citizen franchise" comes in is in the fact that during times of emergency, "governments" have historically conscripted able-bodied men (and to some degree and in some roles women) to enforce the property rights insured by the government. This citizen franchise is in the form of votes on things relating to the conscription of citizens but it also is in the form of exemption from certain other duties or taxes -- which would otherwise be paid in the form of insurance premiums.
Imagine a situation in which if you declare something to be insurable, you do nothing more than pay your insurance premiums and that's the end of your tax liability. Certainly, the guys who run around the globe tormenting Muslims wouldn't like this -- since they would have to actually end up paying for the risks they bring upon themselves and others in places like the US, but really -- do the rest of us need atavisms like the World Trade Center that much?
similar scenario in Antarctica (Score:4, Interesting)
From an antarctic website:
In 1961, the Antarctic Treaty took effect with signatures from the twelve countries who participated in the IGY. The treaty is a surprisingly short and simple document, but it is one of the most successful international agreements ever made. It deals with issues regarding the future of Antarctica and recognizes that:
The Antarctic Treaty guarantees four things: "Antarctica will remain open for scientific research to nations who agree to the treaty. No military bases can be built on the continent. There will be no testing of nuclear weapons or dumping of nuclear waste in Antarctica. No claims of ownership are recognized or denied, and no new claims of ownership can be made. Since the treaty took effect several additional countries have signed on and members have added laws to protect Antarctic plants and animals. In 1991, the treaty was further strengthened by the Protocol on Environmental Protection which defines Antarctica as a "natural reserve devoted to peace and science." Today, scientists maintain year-round research stations throughout Antarctica but it remains an untamed wilderness.
Re:similar scenario in Antarctica (Score:5, Insightful)
a) there is a strong presence of governments on earth that have signed on to the Antarctic treaty, while in outer space there is not. As a consequence, someone colonising a small part of a planet would likely be able to maintain effective possession of a land area there, and the longer they hold it the less likely it would be that it would be tolerable for many countries to try to remove them by force.
b) Most of Antarctica has been claimed by one ore more states. If one were to ignore the antarctic treaty, there would be minimal basis for anyone else but some subset/intersection of the countries who have claims and the countries who maintain current scientific missions to Antarctica. As a result there is little possibility for a claim to have any shred of legal backing unless they get the support of one of the stronger claimaints. This could very well happen, but still presents an obstacle that's not present for outer space.
I think you'll see property claims for outer space upheld eventually, but only once they can be defended by actual possession over a period of time.
The current treaties aren't signed by nearly all nations, and they're furthermore written from a standpoint of the signatories and/or UN representing all of mankind and mankind having rights to pass laws for the entire universe. This again breaks down the moment there are practical means for someone to colonise outer space but not practical means to mount military operations to stop them. (Not to mention if there turns out to be life on other planets)
Ownership only by defense (Score:3, Insightful)
The USA is only owned by its people because we came together to claim such ownership and we have defended that ownership, even to the exent of war.
Everything that a person owns in this country or in this world he or she only posseses by virutue of the law. It is our laws and law enforcement which defend your right to keep your property.
So my point is, when it comes to claiming property on any unclaimed piece of land, on Earth or in Space, your right to that land can only be acheived by virtue of the law which is to say that the virtue of the people is what lets you claim land or property. If the people don't agree that the property is yours, your right to that property is forfeit unless you plan on defending your right to that property, which usually means either a lot of time in some sort of high court, or more probable: war. Let us not forget that the main reason war exists is because of the notion of property.
There will be war in space, its not a matter of if, but a matter of when.
I hate those "Buy Land On Io!" Places... (Score:3, Insightful)
The Treaty [unvienna.org] states:
"States bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, whether carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried on in conformity with the principles set forth in the present Declaration. The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the State concerned..."
Which basically means you can claim some land somewhere, but there's no way you can "back it up," so to speak. So what good does that do? That's the whole point of a government/nation... to protect your land and private interests.
Also:
"Outer space and celestial bodies are not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."
Notice how the used the term "nation" here, not government. This allows any group to be affected by this clause. For instance, the "Lunar Embassy" crack pot that sells land on other celestial bodies is concidered a nation (a relatively large grouping of people... grows with each idiot that buys land from them), and thus falls under this clause. Even if it were necessary for a group to be a government for this to apply, going by the definition of a government, this "company" would be catagorized as such.
I'm with the Christian Scientists on this one...
Science Fiction anticipates... (Score:4, Informative)
Claiming bodies in space.
Claiming space, itself. (sans bodies)
First, a relevant boot was (ISTR) "Inherit the Stars" by Po?l, (Poul Anderson for Frederick Pohl) about the crew of the first (generation-style) starship trying to write a history for their future children, to understand their roots. The rest of the book was a series of vignettes in that frame. Many had legal ramificatons, one in particular was appropriate.
It was about Earth, the Asteroid Republic, and the inhabitants of Vesta. The folks on Vesta felt like members of the Asteroid Republic, and acted that way. But technically, the (leading?) Trojans belonged to Earth, and Vesta was part of that group. So Earth wanted to 'enforce it's rights' and the Vestans weren't happy.
*SPOILER*
They got Earth to see how much easier it would be to ship raw materials off Vesta if it was outside the Trojan's gravity well. So they built a mass engine to change the asteroid's orbit, slightly. As soon as the orbit changed, they were no longer in the Trojans, so no longer part of Earth. Their application to join the Asteroid Republic had already been prepared and submitted, and was quickly granted.
This particular asteroid, being part of the Trojans, was defined by its orbit. Change the orbit, change the asteroid, effectively.
To a more real case - Arthur C. Clarke.
He figured out the concept of geosynchronous orbit. In these days, he could/would have patented it. Perhaps in past/future days he would have claimed it, and tried to rent it out.
IMHO, some form of property rights are necessary in order to move into space. It does no good to do the hard work of improving a place, or even access to that particular space, only to have someone else jump in, claiming 'no property rights in space!' Reward for effort and investment is deserved. Mere gatekeepers are not. Sounds like IP Law.
I have little confidence in Space Property Rights being developed with any more sanity that IP Law.
Tragedy of the commons (Score:3)
Property Taxes??? (Score:4, Interesting)
If these people say they own the sun / moon / other celestial objects.
Let's start charging them property taxes.
Sun Example:
6069871166000.84 square kilometers of surface (Approx)
x $200 / square kilometer
= $ 1,214,000,000,000,000 (Approx)
+ Processing Fees (Lawyers love them.. so they would be happy to pay them.).
Of course the fees would be charged yearly... And interest would be charged on missed payments!
After something like this, lets see how fast they give up these celestial objects!
The Little Prince (Score:3)
"How is it possible for one to own the stars?"
"To whom do they belong?" the businessman retorted, peevishly.
"I don't know. To nobody."
"Then they belong to me, because I was the first person to think of it."
=====
Full text of the chapter: http://www.angelfire.com/hi/littleprince/framecha
B Ark (Score:3)
We DO own the space. (Score:3, Funny)
Total Bullshit. Ownership of the space and all contained within a sphere from the Sun to the Ort cloud is the NATURAL RIGHT of the original inhabitants of this solar system: Us. If any deliquent ET tries to slip in through a wormhole in the middle of the night while we're sleeping we have every right to BLAST it!
This is just a logical extension of the Monroe Doctrine: The Io333 Doctrine.
How many cubic light years do you need? (Score:3, Informative)
Excuse me, but isn't there enough [hubblesite.org] for everybody?
(All of this is pie in the sky anyway until we have better space transportation.)
Squatter's Rights (Score:3, Funny)
My question is, how did we go from nomadic tribesmen to our current property based system? Perhaps that would be instructive for future outer space explorers, realters and land speculators.
the origin of property ownership (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think the concept of property ownership or "common rights of humanity" will really mean much of anything unless and until we actually have people up there representing themselves or a government to assert a property claim.
I prefer private ownership, nobody is going to put their own investment into a piece of property they do not have a legal right to, and if there is no private investment, there is no space colonization or industrialization.
As to why this issue is likely to become a "live" one long before the lawyers expect it to, follow the link in my sig.
Re:So if a lawyer owns the Sun... (Score:2)