Tanja Masson-Zwaan says I don’t know what I’m talking about. No surprise there:
…as I said in the paper, any opinions expressed on this issue, whether Jim Dunstan’s, my own, or that of (for example) Tanja Masson-Zwaan, current president of the International Institute of Space Law, are simply that — opinions, and will remain nothing more than that until the matter is litigated and adjudicated.
We will agree to disagree until that happens.
[Update a few minutes later]
I did find this comment interesting:
Masson-Zwaan acknowledges that the current treaty is not perfect. “More rules are needed,” she said, “but I am also of the opinion that you do not need to create property rights.”
“More rules are needed.” We agree that the treaty is not “perfect” but I’m pretty sure that we’ll have a major disagreement on what we need to do to approach perfection.
Here’s the question, is she questioning property rights away from Earth, or is she anti-property rights everywhere?
I think its an important question to b e asked of someone who is against property rights OFF planet. Is she about Space for Science? Or is she about Socialism here and in space?
Silly me, right? Asking pointed questions about someone’s personal beliefs, before listening to their side of “X” topic.
Political relativity: You need to know their frame of reference to make proper sense of someone else’s observations.
Is she about Space for Science? Or is she about Socialism here and in space?
Really, is there truly a difference?
She’s European. Of course she’s hostile to property rights anywhere. Its just one more reason to root for the disintegration of the Eurozone.
That statement is so silly as to be borderline moronic.
We have property rights in Europe, just like you do in the US.
Ha ha ha! Thank you! You gave me the first true moment of cheer all day. You have MANY things in Europe “just like we do in the US”. Ha ha ha ha!!!!
Recognizing property rights via the UN is a non-starter because most UN member countries are so screwed up regarding property rights that their citizens can’t get legal title to their own homes and farms. Typically, attempts to get such a title can take decades and thousands of dollars in bribes. Inevitably, what the UN would set up would be an unnavigable, corrupt bureaucracy designed to inflict the maximum amount of pain and control while extracting the maximum amount of under-the-table payoff money.
Property rights are inherent when settlers outnumber those that would attempt to enforce distant claims by nebulous political bodies, just as occured in the United States. The UN may refuse to recognize land claims on Mars, but even more certain is that people on Mars would refuse to recognize UN jurisdiction, and that’s all that matters.
And of course, it’s amuzing that the UN doesn’t recognize property rights on bodies in outer space when the Earth itself happens to be a body in outer space. I guess they think we’re in a magic bubble or something.
Regarding the wording of the treaty itself, I think you are correct in pointing out that “national” in the first part leads to a loophole, and I’ll focus on what I think might be key.
Things I might choose to do in space would in no way be considered a “national activity”, so state parties to the treaty would bear no responsibility for them. Similarly, what private people do on the high seas is their own responsibility, which is why the Coast Guard arrests the person instead of, say, suing the Cuban government when they find a bunch of Cubans on a boat without enough life jackets and no fire extinguisher.
To my mind, a treaty cannot compel a government to micro-manage and control the activites of its private citizens outside that country’s borders.
Tanja Masson-Zwaan is why need US congress to pass laws that “merely reiterated” our opposition Moon Treaty.
If Moon Treaty is somehow needed in some minor way that merely reiterated, the OST then laws are needed to make clear that OST is treaty is something in America interests rather than the backward Socialistic interests.
If we start from the assumption that the humankind survive and be roughly as free as it is today [or more free] thousands years from now, and human will regress to enslaved cultures similar to present today N Korea.
Then seem better than likely that humans will living in places other than on earth. And if people are living on the Moon, we want these living in a free nation, which not ruled by a country or group countries on Earth. And preferable a territory in which self governed and democratic.
So having independent nations in space is not “if” but “when” and the more civilized countries should take step that promote such nations forming. This means we should not want begin a “failed state” type ward of the UN, but instead take steps so such nation never become “failed states”. Nimbus III should not be what is desired.
One sign that I am hanging out (though mostly in listening mode) at the right blog is that the “More rules are needed.” statement really jumped out at me. I can’t think of anything that might kill future space exploitation faster than the idea of some international group of busy-bodies trying to regulate it to death.
Masson-Zwaan acknowledges that the current treaty is not perfect. “More rules are needed,” she said, “but I am also of the opinion that you do not need to create property rights.”
This is the whole article in a nutshell. Do not let this person handle sharp objects. But most important, do not let this argument interfere with rational actions.
If I’m not mistaken, the Moon Treaty is a retread of the Antarctic treaty which prohibits commercial development and property claims, to prevent the continent from becoming an area of conflict and exploitation. The Antarctic treaty has been successful in that regard, but has also made an entire continent off-limits to beneficial human use. Any tiny, barely habited island or random offshore oil rig contributes more to humanity than a vast continent entirely controlled by international treaty.
Feature?/bug? Why quibble?
This is just another example of people twisting reality into their own Gordian knots. Property rights are natural rights. The first piece of property you own is your body and your thoughts. Beyond that is what you claim. Purchasing is a form of claiming. When there’s nobody to purchase from (because nobody has made a prior claim) then you claim by possession.
====== Let the above sink in before continuing ======
“3.141529… is so messy. Let’s all just agree to call it 3. That’ll fix the problem.”
The second part: defending your claim. This is what all the fuss is about and as pointed out above, some people can not be reasoned with because they don’t think anybody should own anything. You have to wonder if these people get enough oxygen to their brains.
Some laws need to be ignored. Even if the OST said flat out nobody can own anything that would certainly be a case where it should be ignored.
People are going to fight over property no matter what they agree to. Human laws do not need to be universal. Get enough people to agree to an orderly plan and you’ve done the best you can. You’re never going to get a worldwide agreement than every nation will stick to. They lie.
Besides, our alien overlords are just laughing their excrement expulsion units off at us.
Ken,
we’ve got a huge problem in that people like this loony woman, and the worlds Left in general don’t believe in basic rights. They undermine our rights to property and undermine our rights to the firearms that help us protect our property.
What’s ‘odd’ is that if left to get or take power, Leftists / Socialists / Communists all immediately start taking the best property for themselves. So the easy question is, who has the better system?
Is it the evil capitalists who simply place a price on goods and who will allow anyone with enough coins to acquire said property?
Or is it the benevolent Democratic People’s Co-Operatives and Socialists Paradise Committees, who take everything from the owners, (often after killing or imprisoning the owners) place it in a pile, (skim off the best for themselves) and dole out what they have in the pile to who they want to get it?
I’ll take the evil capitalists.
Simple solution: we don’t take these loony tunes to mars.
We establish a form of govt/law with a settlement charter which all members enforce. We don’t have to tell anybody where doing this. We just do it. Let them figure it out a hundred years from now when there are millions living BEO.
Also, just found a great website to counter that “you need to build nuclear subs on mars” argument.
Simple solution: we don’t take these loony tunes to mars.
Or, should some of them show up and start trying to tell everyone else what to do, just throw them out the nearest airlock. They’re a waste of breath anyway. For many years, any Mars colony is going to have little need of bureaucrats. Resources are likely to be limited and only those who have skills that can contribute to the survival and growth of the colony will be allowed to live there.
That’s why we set the tone from the start of absolute and total property rights. Somebody whines about a public service… they can go ahead and do it, with their own money, not property taxes.
If the words “common heritage” escape their lips, it’s airlock time.
“Don’t Californicate Mars!” or the moon.
The reality is, IMO, that any space settlement will have to have pretty strict immigration control. They won’t have sufficient resources for unproductive people. Even if you have the money to buy a ticket, if you don’t bring in the skills they need, you won’t be allowed to live there. Social parasites like bureaucrats, “women’s studies” majors and politicians won’t be allowed in.
You know the expression, a conservative is a liberal that’s been mugged?
Mars will need lots of warm bodies for labor. I suspect living on mars will tend to fix social parasites. So let them in. Resistance is futile.
we don’t take these loony tunes to mars
(just noticed Ken’s logo)
Just?
In the end, property rights are decided by whoever is more willing and able to employ aggressive force. If enough of the major players agree on the base rules, less actual shooting is needed to resolve those property rights. Absent rules, any settlers will face a wild west situation where whoever has a bigger gun can run them off their land. Or a squatter could move in while they went into town for the day.
I agree Peter. The problem is we already see that ‘major players’ are not going to agree. The rules need to be created and enforced by the settlers themselves.
And that’s why the ‘settlers’ have driven up the price of guns and ammunition in a buying frenzy since January of 2008. They fear the squatters who work in, or work for, the whitest house in the country.
Not trusting govt. is the healthy idea that lead to a country we used to call America. (I think they spell it differently now.)
It seems you got plenty of international law experts here 🙂
Its hard to disagree some EU countries or China will either ignore the US “claims” or enact their own regime conflicting with any previous US claims – just as soon as anyone proves that commercial exploitation of moon etc can be profitable (If).
The value of having legal recognition of my claim (at least in my own national legal system) is that it is undisputed. What is the value of a claim if the rest of humanity ignores it? Than I got only as much property as my personal ammunition to defend it. I wouldn’t call this a good climate for doing business (as we know it).
The rest of the world will never accept US authorities (be it courts or anyone) unilaterally dictating who can exploit a celestial body and who can’t. Is it so strange?
What is the value of a claim if the rest of humanity ignores it?
What is the value of anything you own if others ignore it? You don’t need others approval to own something. But with a community of people putting value in something make it more than self delusion.
It only matters if they try to take it away from you and for that a community can be your best defense.
Heh, Mrs Masson-Zwaan works about a hundred meters from where I live. If you want me to I can have a stern word with her. 🙂 She works in the old Kamerlingh Onnes lab building (the new one is next to my office), where Einstein once taught and where I took Electromagnetism 1. Sadly not from Einstein, but still.
Who the hell is this hypenated person and who let her run a foundation? I imagine that her group is one of her own design to build her own sense of self importance.
The hyphenated bit probably just comes from the fact that she is married… 😉
MPM,
my wife and I are married, for 38 years now, we have no hyphen.
Likewise our parents were married, for 53 and 48 years, no hyphen.
My brothers are married, no hyphen.
Both my sons are married, guess what? No-hyphen.
My wife’s siblings are married, they have children who are married sans HYPHEN.
It’s NOT just being married that ‘creates’ the hyphen.
It’s being married in a liberal, touchy feely, can’t we all get along, bumper sticker “COEXIST” , from the wealthy to the needy via redistribution, kumbaya, sort of way.
I’m certain that the hyphen keeps them from fighting, disagreeing, over eating, spanking their kids and cheating on each other, because they are both invested in their hyphenated marriage more than people who aren’t hyphen invested.
(uh huh, what a crock of sh – it!)
If a woman insists on a HYPHEN upon marriage, then it’s DTB time.
If you want to see how high up an incompetant can go, look no further than this story in The Hill.
The Administration is desperate to stop fracking because it’s invested billions in dubious wind and solar schemes that can’t possibly compete with conventional turbine plants running on cheap natural gas, and those dubious projects are a great source of paybacks and kickbacks to people close to Obama.
But it gets worse.
You might think this Heather Zichal, who has been put in charge, must be a very high-level policy guru with vast experience in the field, either with industry or utilities or with the EPA, with degrees in physics, engineering, or geology, with special emphasis on geochemistry or pollutant biology. She must have a vast resume of experience to bring to the table, a doctorate and a host of academic awards, voluminous publications, serving on numerous panels, boards, and chairing countless conferences. Sadly, that Heather only lives in the other universe.
The Heather we got is only 36, graduated from Cook College in 1999 with a degree in environmental policy (one of those useless “studies” majors that state field level environment workers laugh at), and interned with her state Sierra Club chapter while still in school.
From there she immediately got picked up as a legislative advisor to a couple of obscure House Democrats, then advised John Kerry in the Senate, and then worked her way up to Obama.
She’s never worked a day outside DC. The only real-world experience she’s had with the environment is that pigeons shit on her car. The only experience she’s had with power systems is that her iPhone runs down when she plays Angry Birds too long.
She’s now in charge of deciding whether to shut down US natural gas production.
Gobmacked at why Obama would appoint someone so obviously incompetent to such a high position, aside from strange sexual perversions and an ability to keep her mouth shut, I googled up this Politico story about Congressional hearings into Solyndra.
She’s the only one whose testimony wouldn’t produce a transcript. Interesting. She knows where the bodies are buried, and on top of that, is deeply, deeply involved with those whose wildly questionable schemes are going to go belly up because of cheap natural gas powerplants, and whose deals with the administration would prove catastrophically embarassing.
So her staggering ineptitude that resulted in billion dollar boondoggles that could bring down her superiors, and her intimate knowledge of the details of such deals gave her even more power. That power is to be used to prevent further bankruptcies from splashing across the front pages, and the way to do that is to hamstring natural gas production to keep energy prices high.
What’s going on here, with this woman, sets off so many red flags and alarm bells that any reporter who refuses to see it would’ve slept through teapot dome and Watergate.
Not to worry George, Romney will save us. /sarc.
Seems like it’s always “amateur night” at the Obama Club…
The problem is what they are highly professional at is being moles.
Looking at this international institute of space laws board of directors, it becomes clear that 90%+ of the directors of this group are from countries that never put anybody in space by themselves: http://iislweb.org/board.html It is no wonder it is against private property in space.
I think they’re more focussed on unmanned activities, which would make sense, both given the nationalities and the fact they are lawyers.
They fall into a category of “we can’t do it but we get to dictate what you can do.” In other words, they want to give themselves the authority to dictate (and I use that word deliberately) human activities in space even though they have no ability to send people there themselves. They can go pound sand.
No, this is about satellites and stuff, a multi-billion dollar industry, which is why lawyers and corporations are interested in it. And Europe is very active in that field.
If their business is satellites, then space settlement is none of their business.
It’s an institute at a law department, they don’t write the law, they study it. Just like an institute on marine law.
I see 3 options with different levels of probability:
1) multilateral delimitation agreements between entities possessing fragments of surface of a celestial body. These would create obligation relationship and not any “in rem” rights and would be guaranteed by contractual penalties. The drawback is that these would not automatically apply to newcomers.
2) new sovereign state based on a celestial body, enforcing its own real property regime: would require a significant number of settlers owning their habitats, ISRU facilities and quite independent from the corporate/govt entities that brought them there (might take some time for such a community to form);
3) a new treaty, creating a supranational body granting exploitation or property rights to private entities. This one is the most probable, and just requires the international community to see the purpose. The good example of an *almost* universal regime is this organization:
http://www.isa.org.jm/en/about/members/states
At some point we get the Belters. They wouldn’t seem to have any need of any govt. at all. What they do need is trade.
I say we quit the treaty like we did the ABM treaty. It’s not going to be any sort of end of the world to do so, no matter what all the peacenikians say.
Read carefully what she said, and then go and do it. she said, “but I am also of the opinion that you do not need to create property rights.”
She is right. Pre-existing natural rights do not need to be created. They just need to be enforced. 🙂 So, get out there and stake some claims.
+1 Exactly!
Indeed. It’s not like King Obama can send a fleet to install Viceroy Axelrod…
Is taking that jab at Tanja really necessary Rand? In your interviews about your presentation, you noted how this facilitates discussion yet you take a pot shot at her in title of your post. I’m not impressed.
I’m sorry, Michael. To what post are you referring?