18 thoughts on “The Space Property Rights Discussion Continues”

  1. I had to go back to the Bill of Rights for this one:

    It is unclear to me how a right that has not been granted can be recognized.

    I could’ve gone for “The state didn’t grant us the right to be parents, but it recognizes parental rights in court all day long.” Instead I went for state recognition of non-granted blogging rights when you sue your hosting service for breach of contract. 😀

  3. One of the main points of confusion is regarding the ‘appropriation by any other means’ language. This language is a restriction on govt. not people. Which means that people, citizens or non-citizens are free to make claims, but once they do, govt. is prohibited from taxing that property because that would be an appropriation.

  4. I want to see Rand debate this with Virgiliu Pop. That’ll lead to some real argument-sharpening.

  5. Also, why in the world are my comments being blocked by wordpress? I had to use a different email address from my main one, just to get the above comment in. The last five or so comments I have posted on this blog have just disappeared into the ether. All that has changed for me is that I moved from Alberta to South Carolina. I don’t think I’ve ever written anything here to get me on a black list. Any ideas?

    3. Sometimes they get eaten if you copy/paste out of a word processor program or off certain websites.

      Wow, from alberta to SC that is a major change in climate.

  6. Given the 9th amendment, any treaty that claims to limit the right of American citizens to own property in outer space is facially void. Governments dont grant rights, they merely recognise the powers that originate in us due to the fact of our existence as sentient beings.

  7. Mike, in the spirit of that I give you this.

    “From the commencement of our government, congress has passed acts to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indians; which treat them as nations, respect their rights, and manifest a firm purpose to afford that protection which treaties stipulate. All these acts, and especially that of 1802, which is still in force, manifestly consider the several Indian nations as distinct political communities, having territorial boundaries, within which their authority is exclusive, and having a right to all the lands within those boundaries, which is not only acknowledged, but guarantied by the United States.”–Chief Justice John Marshall, 1832 Worcester v. Georgia opinion

    Here is an acknowledgement and a guarantee by the United States of a right to lands that were not granted by the United States.

    Arguing against a Supreme Court decision is an uphill battle. Arguing in ignorance of a Supreme Court decision is folly.

    1. What Neil Armstrong should’ve done is accidentally drop the keys to his Corvette on the moon, then say that whoever finds the keys can have his car. People would’ve gone back for them.

  9. Rand, it seems to me the source of the conundrum lies in the commonplace assumption that the OST outlaws property ownership by governments. This is the one area of agreement. The disagreement regards the perceived implications of this shared premise: you and Alan argue that since private real property rights aren’t thus specifically prohibited, then they must be allowed under the OST; the Jim Dunstan’s argue that since the OST specifies that since private NGO’s are under the supervision of states parties, then since governments can’t own property, then neither can NGO’s.

    However, both interpretations stem from the commonplace assumption that land ownership by governments is equivalent to “national appropriation” which in turn is assumed to mean the same as claims of sovereign territory. But is this necessarily the case? Well, if the Supreme Court has any say, the answer is No! In several decisions known collectively as the “Insular Cases” that interpret the Property Clause of the US Constitution, the Court ruled that the US can own land, such land need not necessarily be part of the sovereign territory of the US of A. (These were originally developed for place like PI, where the worry was if PI were sovereign US territory, then it would seem they would have to grant US citizenship to all those dark-skinned Filipinos, entailing that they couldn’t be water-boarded and such…)

    Moreover, as Malinowsky, the non-American, pointed out in the comment to your article at openmarket.org, there is a similar distinction between “imperium” and “dominium”. Thus, arguably, it is claims of sovereign “imperium” that the OST prohibits. This aligns with Alan’s historical reconstruction of the OST, where LBJ and others were motivated primarily by the fear that Communists would claim the Moon as sovereign territory.

    Thus, to answer Vladislaw’s question: it sure looks like a claim of real property ownership to me. Granted, the rules are framed as “incumbent recommendations”, but NASA carries a lot of moral authority. None of the GLXP contenders will monkey with it since they are getting or hope to get NASA contracts. Similarly, neither Russia nor China will monkey with the recommendations either, since they set a useful precedent that allows them to make similar claims.

    Granted, these aren’t the Alaska-sized chunks you and Alan are striking for, but consider the fact that if you throw in the 2 km “no land” zones, each Apollo claim is close to 5 sections–well over 3,000 acres each. That’s really not too shabby…

    @ Vladislaw: it sure looks like it IMO. Granted, the rules are framed as “incumbent recommendations”

  10. Warren wrote:

    “framed as “incumbent recommendations”, but NASA carries a lot of moral authority. None of the GLXP contenders will monkey with it since they are getting or hope to get NASA contracts. Similarly, neither Russia nor China will monkey with the recommendations either, since they set a useful precedent that allows them to make similar claims.”

    I had commented a while ago ,on space politics blog, that it was odd that so many of the new Lunar arrivals were crash landing all or part of the craft, even when it didn’t really make sense.

    While rereading the Outer Space Treaty there is a small blurb about any equipment on Luna was still the property of the launching nations and the immediate area around it.

    For me it seemed like a way for every country to grab territory and call it a “park”, “landmark” or “historic site” etc.

    It now looks like NASA wants to formalize that blurb.

    I was always under the impression that the individual and corporate ownership was okay for Luna and the Moon treaty was drafted to try and correct that oversight.

    I thought it was funny that the year before President Bush announced the Vision for Space Exploration in Jan 2004, Dennis Hope was getting awards from Republcan committees:

    “In July of 2003, Dennis received information from the republican congressional committee that he had been nominated to receive, “The Gold Medal,” award. This is the highest commendation offered any citizen from the republican congressional committee. Dennis will be presented this “Gold Medal” award at a dinner at the White House in October of 2003.”

    Dennis Hope is the guy that has been selling Luna land deeds for 20 years.

  11. Does any country have the right to assert authority over any non-citizen not on their soil? Can they then violate your liberty without your consent just because they all agree to?

    This makes it obvious it’s all about force and not about legality.

Comments are closed.