I was at a panel on space law some years ago. One of the lawyers had what I thought was the right idea.

She said: Dont try to predict what law will be important or what it should be 10, 20, 30 years out. Youll almost certainly get it wrong. Make only the law that is really needed right now and allow the courts to develop case law by dealing with actual conflicts that come up not imaginary ones. This will allow the legal system to develop incrementally and with feedback (in the form of appeals and case law the legislature overturns). This approach is, in my view, much more likely to result in a useful, relevant body of law, including property rights, than imagining situations that may never occur and devising law to deal with them which, of course, will have unintended consequences we might not like.

And never forget, without government near-monopoly on force there is no private property just whomever stole it last.

No matter what laws are written on Earth, the first group of humans who are
able to cut their umbilical from planet earth will write their own laws. If
these group of humans are war mongering, like most humans are :-( they
could even threaten planet Earth.

In the immediate future, since space is inimical for biological life,
countries are more likely to put up massive robotic facilities in space or
heavenly bodies. Some of these could be put up under the UN umbrella,
others would be put up by individual nations.

Since humans are basically quarrelsome, will we see robot armies of
individual nations fight it out in space, asserting their egos and
territorial rights? Hopefully they will keep their hostilities away from
planet Earth.

(What happened to Isaac Asimov's three laws or robotics? We see popular
movies now where robots are taking pot shots at humans.)

Regards,
Selvaraj

On 7 May 2017 at 11:46, Al Globus alglobus@... [spacesettlers] <
spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> I was at a panel on space law some years ago. One of the lawyers had what
> I thought was the right idea.
>
> She said: Dont try to predict what law will be important or what it
> should be 10, 20, 30 years out. Youll almost certainly get it wrong.
> Make only the law that is really needed right now and allow the courts to
> develop case law by dealing with actual conflicts that come up not
> imaginary ones. This will allow the legal system to develop incrementally
> and with feedback (in the form of appeals and case law the legislature
> overturns). This approach is, in my view, much more likely to result in a
> useful, relevant body of law, including property rights, than imagining
> situations that may never occur and devising law to deal with them which,
> of course, will have unintended consequences we might not like.
>
> And never forget, without government near-monopoly on force there is no
> private property just whomever stole it last.
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>

In the immediate future, since space is inimical for biological life, countries are more likely to put up massive robotic facilities in space or heavenly bodies. Some of these could be put up under the UN umbrella, others would be put up by individual nations.
Since humans are basically quarrelsome, will we see robot armies of individual nations fight it out in space, asserting their egos and territorial rights? Hopefully they will keep their hostilities away from planet Earth.
(What happened to Isaac Asimov's three laws or robotics? We see popular movies now where robots are taking pot shots at humans.)
Regards,
Selvaraj
On 7 May 2017 at 11:46, Al Globus
alglobus@...
[spacesettlers]

spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
>
I was at a panel on space law some years ago. One of the lawyers had what I thought was the right idea.
She said: Dont try to predict what law will be important or what it should be 10, 20, 30 years out. Youll almost certainly get it wrong. Make only the law that is really needed right now and allow the courts to develop case law by dealing with actual conflicts that come up not imaginary ones. This will allow the legal system to develop incrementally and with feedback (in the form of appeals and case law the legislature overturns). This approach is, in my view, much more likely to result in a useful, relevant body of law, including property rights, than imagining situations that may never occur and devising law to deal with them which, of course, will have unintended consequences we might not like.
And never forget, without government near-monopoly on force there is no private property just whomever stole it last.
Yahoo Groups Links

spacesettlers/
Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
To change settings online go to:

spacesettlers/join
To change settings via email:

spacesettlers-digest@
yahoogroups.com

spacesettlers-fullfeatured@
yahoogroups.com

spacesettlers-unsubscribe@
yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:

us/yahoo/utos/terms/

Note that under the Outer Space Treaty there has been little combat in space (there has been some frequency jamming).

> On Jun 1, 2017, at 3:57 AM, sraj sraj99@... [spacesettlers] wrote:
>
> No matter what laws are written on Earth, the first group of humans who are able to cut their umbilical from planet earth will write their own laws. If these group of humans are war mongering, like most humans are :-( they could even threaten planet Earth.
>
> In the immediate future, since space is inimical for biological life, countries are more likely to put up massive robotic facilities in space or heavenly bodies. Some of these could be put up under the UN umbrella, others would be put up by individual nations.
>
> Since humans are basically quarrelsome, will we see robot armies of individual nations fight it out in space, asserting their egos and territorial rights? Hopefully they will keep their hostilities away from planet Earth.
>
> (What happened to Isaac Asimov's three laws or robotics? We see popular movies now where robots are taking pot shots at humans.)
>
> Regards,
> Selvaraj
>
> On 7 May 2017 at 11:46, Al Globus alglobus@gmail.com [spacesettlers] > wrote:
> I was at a panel on space law some years ago. One of the lawyers had what I thought was the right idea.
>
> She said: Dont try to predict what law will be important or what it should be 10, 20, 30 years out. Youll almost certainly get it wrong. Make only the law that is really needed right now and allow the courts to develop case law by dealing with actual conflicts that come up not imaginary ones. This will allow the legal system to develop incrementally and with feedback (in the form of appeals and case law the legislature overturns). This approach is, in my view, much more likely to result in a useful, relevant body of law, including property rights, than imagining situations that may never occur and devising law to deal with them which, of course, will have unintended consequences we might not like.
>
> And never forget, without government near-monopoly on force there is no private property just whomever stole it last.
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>

On Jun 1, 2017, at 3:57 AM, sraj
sraj99@...
[spacesettlers] <
spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> wrote:
No matter what laws are written on Earth, the first group of humans who are able to cut their umbilical from planet earth will write their own laws. If these group of humans are war mongering, like most humans are :-( they could even threaten planet Earth.
In the immediate future, since space is inimical for biological life, countries are more likely to put up massive robotic facilities in space or heavenly bodies. Some of these could be put up under the UN umbrella, others would be put up by individual nations.
Since humans are basically quarrelsome, will we see robot armies of individual nations fight it out in space, asserting their egos and territorial rights? Hopefully they will keep their hostilities away from planet Earth.
(What happened to Isaac Asimov's three laws or robotics? We see popular movies now where robots are taking pot shots at humans.)
Regards,
Selvaraj
On 7 May 2017 at 11:46, Al Globus

alglobus@...

[spacesettlers]

<
spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
>

I was at a panel on space law some years ago. One of the lawyers had what I thought was the right idea.
She said: Dont try to predict what law will be important or what it should be 10, 20, 30 years out. Youll almost certainly get it wrong. Make only the law that is really needed right now and allow the courts to develop case law by dealing with actual conflicts that come up not imaginary ones. This will allow the legal system to develop incrementally and with feedback (in the form of appeals and case law the legislature overturns). This approach is, in my view, much more likely to result in a useful, relevant body of law, including property rights, than imagining situations that may never occur and devising law to deal with them which, of course, will have unintended consequences we might not like.
And never forget, without government near-monopoly on force there is no private property just whomever stole it last.
Yahoo Groups Links

spacesettlers/
Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
*> To change settings online go to:

spacesettlers/join
To change settings via email:

spacesettlers-digest@
yahoogroups.com

spacesettlers-fullfeatured@
yahoogroups.com

spacesettlers-unsubscribe@
yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:

us/yahoo/utos/terms/

Al Globus alglobus@... [spacesettlers] wrote:

> Note that under the Outer Space Treaty there has been little combat in
> space (there has been some frequency jamming).

That correlation is true, but I'm not at all convinced there is any
causation.

Best,
- Joe

> On Jun 1, 2017, at 4:01 PM, Joe Strout joe@... [spacesettlers] wrote:
>
> Al Globus alglobus@... [spacesettlers] wrote:
>
> > Note that under the Outer Space Treaty there has been little combat in
> > space (there has been some frequency jamming).
>
> That correlation is true,
>

Corellation is not always causation. However, there is an obvious way in which the OST avoids conflict by eliminating conflicting national sovernty (sp) claims a know cause of many wars.

> but I'm not at all convinced there is any
> causation.
>
> Best,
> - Joe
>

joe@strout.net
[spacesettlers] <
spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> wrote:
Al Globus

alglobus@...

[spacesettlers] wrote:
> Note that under the Outer Space Treaty there has been little combat in
> space (there has been some frequency jamming).
That correlation is true,
Corellation is not always causation. However, there is an obvious way in which the OST avoids conflict by eliminating conflicting national sovernty (sp) claims a know cause of many wars.
but I'm not at all convinced there is any

causation.
Best,
- Joe

Al Globus alglobus@... [spacesettlers] wrote:

> Corellation is not always causation. However, there is an obvious way in
> which the OST avoids conflict by eliminating conflicting national
> sovernty (sp) claims a know cause of many wars.

Yes. The trouble is, that also eliminates the incentive for investment
in space settlement.

So, another correlation is that there hasn't been any space settlement
under the OST. And I think the case for causation here is just as
strong, if not stronger, than the other one.

So what we really need is a legal framework that encourages investment
in and settlement of space, while still maintaining peace. I'd think we
could do this by providing a means of legally recognized claims, but
keeping it reasonable -- for example, you get to claim some small radius
around any continuously inhabited settlement. (If it were up to me, I
would have that radius start out quite generous, and get smaller over
time, so there is more reward for early pioneers.)

So, unlike national claims from the bad old colonial days, you don't get
to just plant a flag and claim an entire continent (or in our case,
moon/orbit/planetary body). You have to actually go and set up some
infrastructure and have people living there, and even then you don't get
the entire body/orbit, but only a reasonable radius around that.

With such a system in place, then anybody who believes such property
will have increasing value in the future will be eager to invest in
settling it. Money, infrastructure, and colonists would flow. An
exploration/settlement company who foots the original (large) bill,
makes a settlement, and is granted a few hundred square km of (say)
lunar surface around it, could cash out by dividing that up into parcels
and selling them to other investors, who could then either develop the
land or wait until its value increases and sell again (subdividing into
smaller parcels as they see fit).

It's really no different from how land development works here on Earth.
A development company studies demographic trends, decides that this
particular chunk of empty land will be desirable in the future, and buys
it from the owner(s). When demand materializes, it divides that land
into lots and builds houses on it, and then sells these at considerably
more than the price of the land plus cost of building the house. None
of this would be possible if there were a "Land Treaty" prohibiting
anyone from owning any land.

The very idea that nobody can ever claim land anywhere in the galaxy,
except right here on Earth, is ridiculous. It's obvious that property
claims *will* be made and enforced eventually, but our current
head-in-the-sand legal regime is blocking investment and settlement, and
is likely to lead to violence when it finally breaks down. OST needs to
go, and be replaced with a sensible plan for orderly, legal property claims.

My $0.02 anyway,
- Joe

> On Jun 1, 2017, at 5:08 PM, Joe Strout joe@... [spacesettlers] wrote:
>
> Al Globus alglobus@... [spacesettlers] wrote:
>
> > Corellation is not always causation. However, there is an obvious way in
> > which the OST avoids conflict by eliminating conflicting national
> > sovernty (sp) claims a know cause of many wars.
>
> Yes. The trouble is, that also eliminates the incentive for investment
> in space settlement.
>

Not really. There is the non-interference clause and there is precedent for removing material and owning it.

There are potential changes to the treaty that could improve the situation for commercial operations, but it is important to remember that if the OST is opened up for modification, the changes may not go your way. They could easily be worse than the current regime.

I would like to see the exact wording that one would like, as in model legislation. Then that wording could be circulated and, if there is sufficient support to prevent things going south, the US could as for modifications.

In any case the first step is the exact wording desired, which anyone can do.

>
> So, another correlation is that there hasn't been any space settlement
> under the OST. And I think the case for causation here is just as
> strong, if not stronger, than the other one.
>
> So what we really need is a legal framework that encourages investment
> in and settlement of space, while still maintaining peace. I'd think we
> could do this by providing a means of legally recognized claims, but
> keeping it reasonable -- for example, you get to claim some small radius
> around any continuously inhabited settlement. (If it were up to me, I
> would have that radius start out quite generous, and get smaller over
> time, so there is more reward for early pioneers.)
>
> So, unlike national claims from the bad old colonial days, you don't get
> to just plant a flag and claim an entire continent (or in our case,
> moon/orbit/planetary body). You have to actually go and set up some
> infrastructure and have people living there, and even then you don't get
> the entire body/orbit, but only a reasonable radius around that.
>
> With such a system in place, then anybody who believes such property
> will have increasing value in the future will be eager to invest in
> settling it. Money, infrastructure, and colonists would flow. An
> exploration/settlement company who foots the original (large) bill,
> makes a settlement, and is granted a few hundred square km of (say)
> lunar surface around it, could cash out by dividing that up into parcels
> and selling them to other investors, who could then either develop the
> land or wait until its value increases and sell again (subdividing into
> smaller parcels as they see fit).
>
> It's really no different from how land development works here on Earth.
> A development company studies demographic trends, decides that this
> particular chunk of empty land will be desirable in the future, and buys
> it from the owner(s). When demand materializes, it divides that land
> into lots and builds houses on it, and then sells these at considerably
> more than the price of the land plus cost of building the house. None
> of this would be possible if there were a "Land Treaty" prohibiting
> anyone from owning any land.
>
> The very idea that nobody can ever claim land anywhere in the galaxy,
> except right here on Earth, is ridiculous. It's obvious that property
> claims *will* be made and enforced eventually, but our current
> head-in-the-sand legal regime is blocking investment and settlement, and
> is likely to lead to violence when it finally breaks down. OST needs to
> go, and be replaced with a sensible plan for orderly, legal property claims.
>
> My $0.02 anyway,
> - Joe
>

joe@strout.net
[spacesettlers] <
spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> wrote:
Al Globus

alglobus@...

[spacesettlers] wrote:
> Corellation is not always causation. However, there is an obvious way in
> which the OST avoids conflict by eliminating conflicting national
> sovernty (sp) claims a know cause of many wars.
Yes. The trouble is, that also eliminates the incentive for investment

in space settlement.
Not really. There is the non-interference clause and there is precedent for removing material and owning it.
There are potential changes to the treaty that could improve the situation for commercial operations, but it is important to remember that if the OST is opened up for modification, the changes may not go your way. They could easily be worse than the current regime.
I would like to see the exact wording that one would like, as in model legislation. Then that wording could be circulated and, if there is sufficient support to prevent things going south, the US could as for modifications.
In any case the first step is the exact wording desired, which anyone can do.
So, another correlation is that there hasn't been any space settlement

under the OST. And I think the case for causation here is just as

strong, if not stronger, than the other one.
So what we really need is a legal framework that encourages investment

in and settlement of space, while still maintaining peace. I'd think we

could do this by providing a means of legally recognized claims, but

keeping it reasonable -- for example, you get to claim some small radius

around any continuously inhabited settlement. (If it were up to me, I

would have that radius start out quite generous, and get smaller over

time, so there is more reward for early pioneers.)
So, unlike national claims from the bad old colonial days, you don't get

to just plant a flag and claim an entire continent (or in our case,

moon/orbit/planetary body). You have to actually go and set up some

infrastructure and have people living there, and even then you don't get

the entire body/orbit, but only a reasonable radius around that.
With such a system in place, then anybody who believes such property

will have increasing value in the future will be eager to invest in

settling it. Money, infrastructure, and colonists would flow. An

exploration/settlement company who foots the original (large) bill,

makes a settlement, and is granted a few hundred square km of (say)

lunar surface around it, could cash out by dividing that up into parcels

and selling them to other investors, who could then either develop the

land or wait until its value increases and sell again (subdividing into

smaller parcels as they see fit).
It's really no different from how land development works here on Earth.

A development company studies demographic trends, decides that this

particular chunk of empty land will be desirable in the future, and buys

it from the owner(s). When demand materializes, it divides that land

into lots and builds houses on it, and then sells these at considerably

more than the price of the land plus cost of building the house. None

of this would be possible if there were a "Land Treaty" prohibiting

anyone from owning any land.
The very idea that nobody can ever claim land anywhere in the galaxy,

except right here on Earth, is ridiculous. It's obvious that property

claims *will* be made and enforced eventually, but our current

head-in-the-sand legal regime is blocking investment and settlement, and

is likely to lead to violence when it finally breaks down. OST needs to

go, and be replaced with a sensible plan for orderly, legal property claims.
My $0.02 anyway,
- Joe

Al Globus alglobus@... [spacesettlers] wrote:

>> Yes. The trouble is, that also eliminates the incentive for investment
>> in space settlement.
>
> Not really. There is the non-interference clause and there is precedent
> for removing material and owning it.

That's not enough, and I explained why in some detail -- but you
apparently ignored it.

I'm really surprised there is any argument here. This is the space
*settlement* group. It's not the space resource-extracting group. The
OST essentially precludes settlement as it is (and certainly prevents
investment in settlement, without which, the theoretical possibility of
settlement will remain theoretical for a much longer time).

> I would like to see the exact wording that one would like, as in model
> legislation. Then that wording could be circulated and, if there is
> sufficient support to prevent things going south, the US could as for
> modifications.

I'd like to see that, too. I already sketched out what I think it
should look like.

> In any case the first step is the exact wording desired, which anyone
> can do.

Not really anyone -- it requires a lawyer to make it precise, I think.

Best,
- Joe

> On Jun 2, 2017, at 1:51 PM, Joe Strout joe@... [spacesettlers] wrote:
>
> > In any case the first step is the exact wording desired, which anyone
> > can do.
>
> Not really anyone -- it requires a lawyer to make it precise, I think.

Ive written model legislation. Being a lawyer can help, but is not required.
joe@strout.net
[spacesettlers] <
spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> wrote:
> In any case the first step is the exact wording desired, which anyone
> can do.
Not really anyone -- it requires a lawyer to make it precise, I think.
Ive written model legislation. Being a lawyer can help, but is not required.

If youd like to get out of theory and into the real world, there is legislation pending in Congress to address OST commercialization issues:

https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/2017%2006%2001%20232%20Free%20Enterprise%20Act%20HR%20Blank.pdf

> On Jun 3, 2017, at 6:40 AM, andynimmo@... [spacesettlers] wrote:
>
> I think what we need is a new UN space law granting any group of settlers numbering 100 or more on any extraterrestrial body the right to form their own governments, laws and ownership for whatever territory around their settlment they believe they can reasonably defend against others irrespective of all terrestrial laws.
>

https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/2017%2006%2001%20232%20Free%20Enterprise%20Act%20HR%20Blank.pdf
On Jun 3, 2017, at 6:40 AM,
andynimmo@...
[spacesettlers] <
spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> wrote:
I think what we need is a new UN space law granting any group of settlers numbering 100 or more on any extraterrestrial body the right to form their own governments, laws and ownership for whatever territory around their settlment they believe they can reasonably defend against others irrespective of all terrestrial laws.

Since we are at the beginning of space ventures perhaps we need strict laws
relating to near Earth activities.

As to the rest of the solar system there can be a 50 year holiday, where
nations can do what they like provided they do not trespass on others. At
the end of 50 years rights can be formalised based on the level of 'genuine
activity'.

This law must also protect scarce resources. It is a puzzle that we still
don't have a clear idea of the amount of water available on the Moon. If
this is a scarce resource, evidently it will be better to leave it alone
till we can collectively decide whether this resource should be exploited.

Regards,
Selvaraj

On 3 June 2017 at 22:39, Al Globus alglobus@... [spacesettlers] <
spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>
> If youd like to get out of theory and into the real world, there is
> legislation pending in Congress to address OST commercialization issues:
>
> https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.
> house.gov/files/documents/2017%2006%2001%20232%20Free%
> 20Enterprise%20Act%20HR%20Blank.pdf
>
> spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> I think what we need is a new UN space law granting any group of settlers
> numbering 100 or more on any extraterrestrial body the right to form their
> own governments, laws and ownership for whatever territory around their
> settlment they believe they can reasonably defend against others
> irrespective of all terrestrial laws.
>

As to the rest of the solar system there can be a 50 year holiday, where nations can do what they like provided they do not trespass on others. At the end of 50 years rights can be formalised based on the level of 'genuine activity'.
This law must also protect scarce resources. It is a puzzle that we still don't have a clear idea of the amount of water available on the Moon. If this is a scarce resource, evidently it will be better to leave it alone till we can collectively decide whether this resource should be exploited.
Regards,
Selvaraj
On 3 June 2017 at 22:39, Al Globus
alglobus@...
[spacesettlers]
<
spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
>

If youd like to get out of theory and into the real world, there is legislation pending in Congress to address OST commercialization issues:
https://science.house.gov/
sites/republicans.science.
house.gov/files/documents/
2017%2006%2001%20232%20Free%
20Enterprise%20Act%20HR%
20Blank.pdf
On Jun 3, 2017, at 6:40 AM,
andynimmo@...
[spacesettlers] <
spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> wrote:
I think what we need is a new UN space law granting any group of settlers numbering 100 or more on any extraterrestrial body the right to form their own governments, laws and ownership for whatever territory around their settlment they believe they can reasonably defend against others irrespective of all terrestrial laws.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3256/1

some comments on OST

servus

markus

Am 05.06.2017 um 10:31 schrieb sraj sraj99@... [spacesettlers]:
> Since we are at the beginning of space ventures perhaps we need strict
> laws relating to near Earth activities.
>
> As to the rest of the solar system there can be a 50 year holiday, where
> nations can do what they like provided they do not trespass on others.
> At the end of 50 years rights can be formalised based on the level of
> 'genuine activity'.
>
> This law must also protect scarce resources. It is a puzzle that we
> still don't have a clear idea of the amount of water available on the
> Moon. If this is a scarce resource, evidently it will be better to leave
> it alone till we can collectively decide whether this resource should be
> exploited.
>
> Regards,
> Selvaraj
>
> On 3 June 2017 at 22:39, Al Globus alglobus@...
> [spacesettlers]
> >
> wrote:
>
> __
>
> If youd like to get out of theory and into the real world, there is
> legislation pending in Congress to address OST commercialization issues:
>
> https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/2017%2006%2001%20232%20Free%20Enterprise%20Act%20HR%20Blank.pdf
>
>> On Jun 3, 2017, at 6:40 AM, andynimmo@...
>> [spacesettlers]
>>>> > wrote:
>>
>> I think what we need is a new UN space law granting any group of
>> settlers numbering 100 or more on any extraterrestrial body the
>> right to form their own governments, laws and ownership for
>> whatever territory around their settlment they believe they can
>> reasonably defend against others irrespective of all terrestrial laws.

--
Email from my mobile connection.