The Case for Lunar Property Rights

longacre writes "Who owns the moon? In a thought provoking piece, Instapundit blogger/law professor Glenn Reynolds gives us a brief history of earthlings' discourse on lunar property rights, a topic which has stagnated since the 1979 Moon Treaty. Is it possible to claim good title on land that is not under the dominion of a nation? He goes on to plead his case for the creation of lunar real estate legislation. From the article: 'Property rights attract private capital and, with government space programs stagnating, a lunar land rush may be just what we need to get things going again.'"

Possession is nine tenths of the law.

I think if anyone can actually get to the moon, they'll have a valid claim on it.

Re:Possession is nine tenths of the law.

Replace "Mars" with "Moon [capmag.com]

The investors laugh. This planet we will own, they ask, is it Earth? No? Well, then, how much is it worth? The investors explain to the Mars expert: Owning Mars-getting all the way to Mars and back-is getting to first base. In order to have a successful venture, a venture to invest in, the property must be valuable.

How valuable? $10 billion? Hardly. A successful, manned Mars mission, according to the most optimistic estimates, would take a minimum of 10 years from planning to completion. Venture capital firms, in order to justify their high-risk investments, seek a minimum of 10 times growth in their investment over five years. And they want to be able to "cash out"-to sell their initial investment if they want to. Assuming that the $10 billion would be spent smoothly over the 10 years (i.e., tying up the capital an average of five years), means that after the successful mission, Mars would have to be worth at least $100 billion in order to justify the investment of $10 billion. A hundred billion is almost $3 an acre.

Now, even after a successful, manned Mars mission, why would other investors pay the original venture capitalists $100 billion for Martian land? (Why would they even pay $100 million, or one million?) The land would be almost completely undeveloped. For anyone to invest in such a risky proposition, there would have to be a reasonable chance for the land to be worth at least 10 times as much five years later-one trillion dollars, 15 years after the beginning of the original project.

That's almost $30 an acre. Today, you can still buy range land in New Mexico for $40 an acre. And that is with Earth's atmosphere included, and substantially lower transportation and energy costs.

location, location, location

It's a reasonable argument, but you seem to be assuming the only purpose of land is to live on. Hardly. There's a reason that range land in NM is $40 an acre and Manhattan real estate is probably roughly a million times more. It's what you can do there that matters.

So what can you do on the Moon that would make it so fabulously valuable? Beats me. The only unique resources the Moon has (exceedingly low temperatures in the shade, unbelievably good vacuum) you can also get in orbit, where you don't have to worry about any gravity at all, and can build eight-mile wide factories out of gossamer and shoe strings, if you want.

But it could happen. Suppose it turns out 1/6 gee allows you (don't ask me how) to grow perfect crystals of membrane-bound proteins fast and easy, something nearly impossible to do on Earth. That could lead to the possibility of rational design of fantastically valuable drugs, e.g. genuine cancer cures and the like. What would that be worth? Very likely far more than $100 billion. (The cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor will have earned its inventors about $65 billion by the time its patent expires in 2010.)

Re:location, location, location

There's a reason that range land in NM is $40 an acre and Manhattan real estate is probably roughly a million times more.

Manhattan land is expensive because lots of people work nearby and so lots of people want to live there - simple supply and demand. With the New Mexico land you could at least raise cattle on it (they breathe air, remember).

It's what you can do there that matters.

Indeed, and I'm not seeing a lot that you can do on the moon. It certainly fails the comparison with Manhattan and New Mexico.

Re:location, location, location

So what can you do on the Moon that would make it so fabulously valuable? Beats me. The only unique resources the Moon has (exceedingly low temperatures in the shade, unbelievably good vacuum) you can also get in orbit, where you don't have to worry about any gravity at all, and can build eight-mile wide factories out of gossamer and shoe strings, if you want.
Helium-3. Lots on the moon, little on Earth. Can be used to build fusion reactors.

http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/041126084122.6pp9f0wx.html [spacedaily.com]

"The moon contains 10 times more energy in the form of Helium 3 than all the fossil fuels on the earth," Kalam said.

Re:location, location, location

Maybe the UN should allocate a bunch of land to each country with a reasonable claim (i.e. viable spam programme)

Greetings!

I am the son of the former Nigerian Ministry for Lunar Development and I have a large sum of money held in his locked bank account...

Re:location, location, location

Basically, it boils down to: it belongs to whomever can defend it. That's the way it works on Earth-- I don't think that'll change on the Moon, or on Mars. Lobbing rocks at Earth, anyone?

Anyone who invests in lunar real estate before any kind of lunar authority is established, backed up by force, is an idiot.

Re:Possession is nine tenths of the law.

Even if opening of private property on the moon is allowed, and it creates a rush to buy property, all that would happen is that the property speculators will buy it up cheap and sit on it until it is worth something. There is no incentive for them to do anything with it after they have brought it.

Hence your idea actually has some merit to it. If we force people to go to the moon, and "fence off" a bit of their property this could help speed up the space industry.

Re:Possession is nine tenths of the law.

Even if opening of private property on the moon is allowed, and it creates a rush to buy property, all that would happen is that the property speculators will buy it up cheap and sit on it until it is worth something. There is no incentive for them to do anything with it after they have brought it.

That's not how many purchases of state property works, it's not about a piece of paper, nor is it about putting up a fence. Developers place bids (cash and project proposals) to develop the property and written into the contract is the requirement to meet those proposals. That prevents people from buying land and sitting on it, and contractually binds them to meet the goals set out. So a developer will make a bid on land to place a shopping mall, another may want to build an amusement park, what the sale does is allow planning of how best to use the property.
Government sale of property isn't so much about raising money, it's about managing a limited resource.

10 meters of fence and the moon is mine!

All you need is 10 meters (yards, retards) of fence. Put it up, and create a home in what others would call "outside" the fence but you call inside the fence because that is where your home is. The tiny spot is left for others.

Bert
Who'd hate to see the moon mined for He3. We're already wrecking a planet, we should have learned something from that.

Re:Possession is nine tenths of the law.

But that'd mean that the US already owns the entire moon, being the only nation to ever have set foot there (and even planted a flag). They didn't say "I claim this island (trabant) in the name of blah." but with some careful editing of the historical footage, I'm sure that could be rectified ;-)

Gravity well

Let's be real, the moon is never going to be like Florida, even if it's really sunny and the reduced gravity helps even feeble elderly people play golf (those big craters come really handy there!) Even if it could be, the powers that be cannot really allow private property in the moon, or private developments in space. Just read a bit of SF. The Earth sits in the bottom of a gravity well. It cannot allow people outside (or almost outside) of that gravity well, with the possibility of throwing down big stones, and no fear of reprisals. Only big changes in technology could change that reality.

Hill of beans

"Property rights" won't amount to a hill of beans to the first person to get up there, stand on the spot and say "this is mine".

In other words, property rights are unenforcable, and none of the existing governments on earth have any real say. What government is going to spend 10 billion on space hardware to settle a legal property ownership/squatting claim?

In yet other words, possession is 9/10 of the law. Go ahead and argue about the other 1/10, because you don't matter.

No property rights on ANY land

As a human born on planet Earth, I have a right to a plot of land for sustenance and shelter, in reasonable proximity to where I was born. This should supersede property rights of the mega-rich, even if my parents bargained away the rights. At most, the land can be loaned from humanity for an exclusive use of one person for a limited time. Lets not start the same heartless trend on Moon or even try to live there until we can behave decently on Earth.

Property is liberation

You can see the outcome of this kind of "property-is-theft" attitude in china. There land in the countryside for farming is state owned and city land is privately owned. The net result is that the poor in the cities have some hope of social mobility as there is availability of collateral to raise capital, fund enterprise and create jobs. In the country, farmers have no way to raise funds to start their own businesses or improve their farms, leaving them dependent on the state to improve their lot. Somewhat predictably the state favours uncompensated land-grabs, turning the land to more profitable (for the state) uses. All courtesy of the people.

In short, property rights are helpful for development and reducing poverty, even though it's not immediately obvious. That does depend on the value of land use being higher than the costs, something that's not true everywhere on Earth, let alone the moon.

Re:No property rights on ANY land

As a human born on planet Earth, I have a right to a plot of land for sustenance and shelter, in reasonable proximity to where I was born.

That's great if you want everybody to go back to being self sufficient farmers - unfortunately most people prefer to have a better standard of living through specialization and trade.

Re:No property rights on ANY land

As a human born on planet Earth, I have a right to a plot of land for sustenance and shelter, in reasonable proximity to where I was born.

Why?

The year was 1970...

Humiliated by the Americans beating them to the moon, the Soviets developed plans to send a massive unmanned rocket to the moon, laden with red paint. On impact, the paint would cover the entire bright side of the moon. A second, manned mission would immediately follow. The cargo - white paint, to make a bright hammer and crescent symbol against the red background.

American intelligence learned of these plans. A great opportunity arose to foil them. But instead the American President, "Tricky Dick" Nixon, demurred. "Let them go ahead and paint the moon," he said.

"But Mr. President, surely the image of the Soviet Empire covering the moon..."

"After they've painted it red," said Nixon, "we'll paint the logo of Coca Cola."

The power to tax is the power to destroy

No entity can grant property rights they cannot enforce.

Re:The power to tax is the power to destroy

Exactly. See how the Old World split America in several parts they "owned". See what happened then.

Heinlein

This is a Heinlein question--read The Man Who Sold the Moon, he has a lot of fun with it.

The moon is already being sold...

http://www.lunarrepublic.com/ [lunarrepublic.com] Or just do a google search for lunar property for a retailor in your area.

There was a show on this on the UK Channel Four a few months ago. The UN passed a resolution saying no country can stake a claim to the moon, but some joker realised it said nothing about individuals, and claimed it for himself. He has been selling lots on the moon for years, raking in millions.

They interviews people who have bought it, some of them are quite serious. One said she couldn't afford land for her kids on earth, but she got them something on the moon, for the future.

It's simple

Who owns anything? The person with the biggest stick.
 

Euoprean countries did this in North America too

They would claim vast swaths of land after just looking at it. However, whole areas frequently drifted from one country's dominion to another. What made the final difference? Force of arms.

If you want to claim the moon, you have to put a fort up there. Because who cares if Joe Shmoe in Pasadena California bought the Danjon Crater for $2,500, when the Chinese put a guy up there with bazooka? Bazooka wins, end of story.

Want to claim parts of the moon? Put force of arms up there. No other way about it. Don't like this fact? Take it up with human nature and human history. This is the only way this process has ever worked

beautiful theory....

...shame the historical facts squarely contradict it. Google "tragedy of the commons," or for a more concrete and squalid example look up the history of the Cabrini Green project in Chicago.

Fact is, ownership of land has zip to do with any kind of ethereal moral justification. People want it because it makes them feel safe. Other people allow it because experience shows that when people are allowed to own land they take care of it better, preserve its resources better for the future, are more agreeable to allowing others temporary and conditional use of it (instead of defending it fanatically), et cetera and so forth.

When land is held "in common" that just tends to mean a free for all where everyone grabs as much as he can of what's valuable about it as fast as he can before someone else beats him to it, with zero thought for the future. Sad fact o' life. All the lovely theories about how things ought to work, with, say, some other species, whose actions were driven strictly by pure logic, are quite nice -- but useless in practise.