The Case for Lunar Property Rights 387
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.'"
Re:Possession is nine tenths of the law. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)
The moon is already being sold... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Property is liberation (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Possession is nine tenths of the law. (Score:5, Interesting)
Government sale of property isn't so much about raising money, it's about managing a limited resource.
beautiful theory.... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:No property rights on ANY land (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hill of beans (Score:3, Interesting)
Any offworld settlement had better be self-sufficient, or you have much bigger problems than local authorities at your supply depot. And if it's self sufficient, who cares about some local authority hundreds of thousands of miles (and billions of dollars) away?
location, location, location (Score:5, Interesting)
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.)
The Man Who Sold The Moon (Score:1, Interesting)
[I think all those airlines who had to pay indemnities for flying over settlements etc. were done in by this very logic ]
From the Man Who Sold The Moon ( Heinlein )
Re:location, location, location (Score:5, Interesting)
You want to play the analogy game? (Score:3, Interesting)
In short, Christianity has clearly failed even though it's not immediately obvious.
You can come up with irrelevant analogies all you like, that does nothing to prove that people do not have a HUMAN RIGHT to a home. This is a simple biological fact. Human beings, with the exception of perhaps Ron Jeremy do not have a furry exterior coat to protect them from the elements. Even if they did have fur to protect them, it is clear from observations of the natural world that even furry animals typically require a burrow to sustain their lives. Making creative analogies does not change that FACT.
A slight spoke in the wheels (Score:2, Interesting)
1. Some unique characteristics of each plot of land that relate to specific advantages of that land (so people will bid for the land, with the hopes of future returns to compensate for that bid, future returns being realised through an investment strategy)
2. Someone previously owning the land (so a price is set at what the bidder will pay the seller)
In this case, what form of propety allocation system would they use?
- Whoever stakes a claim owns it? In that case, use a robotic buggy to drive all over the moon and "claim" in a ten mile diameter every morning. Not workable.
- You own precisely the pieces of land that is below what you have built on the moon? In that case the right to this propety is completely irrelevant, because for the forseeable future the amount of building will never come close to covering the moon's surface. This means that the "right to own" becomes an irrelevance in the consideration of whether to go to the moon or not, because there's no "early bird" reward and no penalty for being late.
- Some form of authority auctions out plots of land? Obviously meaningless, because no plot of land is any better than any other, so there's no incentive to bid more than the minimum price on every piece of the moon and pull the remaining bids as soon as you win one.
- Some form of authority gives a set price for plots of land? Will lead to a lot of mess and throwing of shit, because there will always be people going "it's too cheap". Besides, this require the deeding of the moon to this authority in the first place. If you don't trust, say, the UN Security Council, then why would you as a country on earth agree that the prime real estate above your head is auctioned off for their benefit?
Re:The moon is already being sold... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:beautiful theory.... (Score:2, Interesting)
The majority of humans seem to be completely at odds with humanity in general & the environment in which they exist - Seems like the vast majority lost something around 500BC that we never got back - the ability to share and live within our surrounds.
Re:Euoprean countries did this in North America to (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:beautiful theory.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:No property rights on ANY land (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, one other thing: I want a pony, and I want it now.
Re:No property rights on ANY land (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, let's imagine the locale where you were born.
You get 1000 sqm, as does everyone else in the region.
You each have a child...whups - now your plots are each 500 sqm, as each child is now 'entitled' to their 'fair share', right?
Oh, and the people on either side of you decided that they are going to each have 9 kids.
Since your utopian idea requires that it be reasonably close to where you were born, suddenly your plot of land is now 150 sqm. Gee, too bad if you built a house on one of those portions that isn't yours anymore. Your child decides to a have some kids, so he or she is faced with everyone's share dropping to 140 sqm, or killing you so it all stays even.
So your utopian fantasy requires state control over who can reproduce and how many children they can have? Sounds a lot like a police state to me.
Re:No property rights on ANY land (Score:2, Interesting)
Because food is so cheap... (Score:3, Interesting)
Organic is based on the fact that if an "Average American" spends 10% of their income on food, then the yuppies with 4x that income could either spend 2.5% of their income on food, or pay twice as much for "organic" and still only be spending 5% of their income on food.
That said, we have some organic produce in my house... for certain vegetables, they are simply much more flavorful than the regular produce... not because of organic magic, but because the produce doesn't have to be picked as early to be shipped by agribusiness, and therefore is fresher. However, you can't demonstrate "fresher" in the commodity market, but you can demonstrate organic.
But it's definitely WAY less productive... but it's an affordable luxury to an increasingly affluent American upper middle class.