# 22767 bymarkreiff on April 10, 2012, 12:36 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
FYI,
MSNBC
: For 45 years, an international treaty has barred countries from
: laying claim to the moon and other celestial bodies but some
: policy analysts say private ventures might be able to stake their
: claims, and they want Congress to create a legal framework that
: takes advantage of the "loophole."
: The concept was unveiled last week by Rand Simberg, an adjunct
: scholar at the Washington-based Competitive Enterprise Institute,
: and it aims to take advantage of the same market incentives that
: drove the settlement of the American frontier. The way Simberg sees
: it, the lack of property rights in space "partially explains why we
: have not developed the next and, in a sense, last frontier space."
: The inability to claim sovereignty over other worlds goes back to
: the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. A hundred countries, including the
: United States and all the other spacefaring nations, are parties to
: that treaty.
: Yet another treaty, drawn up in 1979, bars private ownership of
: extraterrestrial property in the solar system but that pact,
: known as the Moon Treaty, has not been ratified by any of the
: world's spacefaring nations. The differences between the two
: treaties suggest that it's possible to have private ownership
: without national sovereignty, and that's the loophole that Simberg
: wants to take advantage of.
: Multibillion-dollar incentive?
: Backers of the proposed legislation, known as the Space Settlement
: Prize Act, say it could create, "at no cost to taxpayers, a
: multibillion-dollar incentive for private companies to finance and
: build permanent settlements on the moon and/or Mars."
: The proposal would set up a process for the U.S. government to
: recognize ownership of extraterrestrial territory if a private
: venture establishes a permanently inhabited settlement on another
: world. For example, the first venture to establish a moonbase could
: lay claim to up to 600,000 square miles of the lunar surface.
: Having the first Mars base would entitle the operators to up to
: 3.6 million square miles of the Red Planet. Putting a permanent
: base on an asteroid could be rewarded by with up to 1 million
: square miles of surface area, depending on how big the asteroid was.
: The owners would have to guarantee that anyone could buy a ticket
: to travel to the territory. Each succeeding settlement group would
: be allotted 15 percent less land than their predecessor. And if two
: potential claimants couldn't resolve a land dispute, U.S. courts
: could step in.
: But doesn't that sound like sovereignty?
: "In some sense, it gives the imprimatur of the U.S. government,"
: Simberg said. "But it doesn't make it a sovereignty question. It's
: a recognition, not an appropriation." He said the first commercial
: moon colonies could well be headquartered in different countries.
: In that case, the United States would be recognizing the property
: rights of non-U.S. ventures on another world.
: What would the U.S. do?
: Simberg emphasized that the federal government wouldn't be
: obligated to take any action to defend extraterrestrial property
: owners. "How the U.S. government would respond to future claims and
: conflicts of claims on the moon would be entirely a political
: decision," he said.
: Some legal experts say the loophole doesn't really exist. They
: point to a section of the Outer Space Treaty that holds national
: governments responsible for the space settlement activities of
: their citizens, and say that would preclude any effort to uphold
: property claims.
: "Even if the United States withdrew from the treaty in order to
: implement such land grants, what would stop the Chinese from
: adopting domestic legislation that went further?" Berin Szoka and
: James Dunstan asked in an essay published by Wired. "What if the
: first time a Chinese probe lands on the moon, the moon could be
: claimed by the 'Great Wall Company,' owned by the People's
: Liberation Army? The United States would then be left to argue that
: our law should be followed, but the Chinese law shouldn't. That's
: precisely the kind of territorial jockeying the Outer Space Treaty
: was intended to prevent."
: Simberg said a lunar land grab would almost certainly not play out
: that way. If Chinese leaders really wanted to take over the moon
: a scenario that billionaire Robert Bigelow laid out last year
: all they'd have to do is withdraw from the Outer Space Treaty and
: do what they will. "They wouldn't try to play this legislative
: game," Simberg said.
: Why go to the trouble?
: The bigger question is, why would anyone go to the trouble of
: claiming the moon, or Mars, or an asteroid? Right now, there's
: nothing out there that's worth the hundreds of billions of dollars
: it would take for a commercial venture to set up its own space
: program and establish a beachhead beyond Earth. But Simberg and his
: colleagues say that situation could change if the cost of
: spaceflight goes down and the perceived value of extraterrestrial
: resources (helium-3? rare earth elements?) goes up.
: Simberg acknowledged that he's thinking about the long-term future
: of beyond-Earth settlement rather than short-term campaign issues.
: "Nothing like this is going to pass this year," he said. What he'd
: love to see is a new international process that takes the place of
: the Outer Space Treaty and provides a jump-start for private-sector
: space colonies.
: "The treaty's outdated," he said. "It just doesn't work. I don't
: think anyone back then could conceive of a private launch system
: based on the Isle of Man, launching somebody into orbit who would
: then be transferred to L1 [an Earth-moon transfer point] on a tug
: that was run out of Dubai, and then to a lander operated by
: somebody in Australia."
Mark Reiff
# 22768 byCombs, Mike on April 10, 2012, 1:09 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
I think very highly of Rand (and am a regular follower of his blog), but Ive always looked skeptically at these kind of land grant proposals. In my view, right now the land on the moon or asteroids (to say nothing of Mars) is worthless. The economic opportunities have to come first, and then the property acquires value in consequence. The property value cant be the original economic opportunity that gets us to square one. How does everyone else view this?
Regards, Mike Combs
MSNBC
# 22769 byMichael Edward McNeil on April 10, 2012, 1:18 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
It's not a "loophole" as the U.S. conditioned its acceptance of the treaty on there being such a provision in it.
FYI,
"Could Legal 'Loophole' Lead to Land Claims on Other Worlds?"
MSNBC
: For 45 years, an international treaty has barred countries from
: laying claim to the moon and other celestial bodies but some
: policy analysts say private ventures might be able to stake their
: claims, and they want Congress to create a legal framework that
: takes advantage of the "loophole."
: The concept was unveiled last week by Rand Simberg, an adjunct
: scholar at the Washington-based Competitive Enterprise Institute,
: and it aims to take advantage of the same market incentives that
: drove the settlement of the American frontier. The way Simberg sees
: it, the lack of property rights in space "partially explains why we
: have not developed the next and, in a sense, last frontier space."
: The inability to claim sovereignty over other worlds goes back to
: the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. A hundred countries, including the
: United States and all the other spacefaring nations, are parties to
: that treaty.
: Yet another treaty, drawn up in 1979, bars private ownership of
: extraterrestrial property in the solar system but that pact,
: known as the Moon Treaty, has not been ratified by any of the
: world's spacefaring nations. The differences between the two
: treaties suggest that it's possible to have private ownership
: without national sovereignty, and that's the loophole that Simberg
: wants to take advantage of.
: Multibillion-dollar incentive?
: Backers of the proposed legislation, known as the Space Settlement
: Prize Act, say it could create, "at no cost to taxpayers, a
: multibillion-dollar incentive for private companies to finance and
: build permanent settlements on the moon and/or Mars."
: The proposal would set up a process for the U.S. government to
: recognize ownership of extraterrestrial territory if a private
: venture establishes a permanently inhabited settlement on another
: world. For example, the first venture to establish a moonbase could
: lay claim to up to 600,000 square miles of the lunar surface.
: Having the first Mars base would entitle the operators to up to
: 3.6 million square miles of the Red Planet. Putting a permanent
: base on an asteroid could be rewarded by with up to 1 million
: square miles of surface area, depending on how big the asteroid was.
: The owners would have to guarantee that anyone could buy a ticket
: to travel to the territory. Each succeeding settlement group would
: be allotted 15 percent less land than their predecessor. And if two
: potential claimants couldn't resolve a land dispute, U.S. courts
: could step in.
: But doesn't that sound like sovereignty?
: "In some sense, it gives the imprimatur of the U.S. government,"
: Simberg said. "But it doesn't make it a sovereignty question. It's
: a recognition, not an appropriation." He said the first commercial
: moon colonies could well be headquartered in different countries.
: In that case, the United States would be recognizing the property
: rights of non-U.S. ventures on another world.
: What would the U.S. do?
: Simberg emphasized that the federal government wouldn't be
: obligated to take any action to defend extraterrestrial property
: owners. "How the U.S. government would respond to future claims and
: conflicts of claims on the moon would be entirely a political
: decision," he said.
: Some legal experts say the loophole doesn't really exist. They
: point to a section of the Outer Space Treaty that holds national
: governments responsible for the space settlement activities of
: their citizens, and say that would preclude any effort to uphold
: property claims.
: "Even if the United States withdrew from the treaty in order to
: implement such land grants, what would stop the Chinese from
: adopting domestic legislation that went further?" Berin Szoka and
: James Dunstan asked in an essay published by Wired. "What if the
: first time a Chinese probe lands on the moon, the moon could be
: claimed by the 'Great Wall Company,' owned by the People's
: Liberation Army? The United States would then be left to argue that
: our law should be followed, but the Chinese law shouldn't. That's
: precisely the kind of territorial jockeying the Outer Space Treaty
: was intended to prevent."
: Simberg said a lunar land grab would almost certainly not play out
: that way. If Chinese leaders really wanted to take over the moon
: a scenario that billionaire Robert Bigelow laid out last year
: all they'd have to do is withdraw from the Outer Space Treaty and
: do what they will. "They wouldn't try to play this legislative
: game," Simberg said.
: Why go to the trouble?
: The bigger question is, why would anyone go to the trouble of
: claiming the moon, or Mars, or an asteroid? Right now, there's
: nothing out there that's worth the hundreds of billions of dollars
: it would take for a commercial venture to set up its own space
: program and establish a beachhead beyond Earth. But Simberg and his
: colleagues say that situation could change if the cost of
: spaceflight goes down and the perceived value of extraterrestrial
: resources (helium-3? rare earth elements?) goes up.
: Simberg acknowledged that he's thinking about the long-term future
: of beyond-Earth settlement rather than short-term campaign issues.
: "Nothing like this is going to pass this year," he said. What he'd
: love to see is a new international process that takes the place of
: the Outer Space Treaty and provides a jump-start for private-sector
: space colonies.
: "The treaty's outdated," he said. "It just doesn't work. I don't
: think anyone back then could conceive of a private launch system
: based on the Isle of Man, launching somebody into orbit who would
: then be transferred to L1 [an Earth-moon transfer point] on a tug
: that was run out of Dubai, and then to a lander operated by
: somebody in Australia."
Mark Reiff
# 22770 byMichael Edward McNeil on April 10, 2012, 1:20 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
Who is going to invest in exploiting extraterrestrial resources if there is no assurance of title to them?
I think very highly of Rand (and am a regular follower of his blog), but Ive always looked skeptically at these kind of land grant proposals. In my view, right now the land on the moon or asteroids (to say nothing of Mars) is worthless. The economic opportunities have to come first, and then the property acquires value in consequence. The property value cant be the original economic opportunity that gets us to square one. How does everyone else view this?
Regards, Mike Combs
"Could Legal 'Loophole' Lead to Land Claims on Other Worlds?"
MSNBC
# 22771 byCombs, Mike on April 10, 2012, 1:56 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
Oh no, Im not at all disputing that if theres no clear assurance of title to resources gathered, then its a non-starter. What Im questioning is if the original economic opportunity beyond the Earth can be sale of property lots. Perhaps Simbergs proposal doesnt emphasize that aspect. (Ive read about it, but havent read it.) But a few years back there was a proposal to jump-start space settlement via land grants (and that was when I formed my opinion on this subject). I think it lead to this - http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/ Regards, Mike Combs
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:09, Combs, Mike mikecombs@... wrote: I think very highly of Rand (and am a regular follower of his blog), but Ive always looked skeptically at these kind of land grant proposals. In my view, right now the land on the moon or asteroids (to say nothing of Mars) is worthless. The economic opportunities have to come first, and then the property acquires value in consequence. The property value cant be the original economic opportunity that gets us to square one. How does everyone else view this?
"Could Legal 'Loophole' Lead to Land Claims on Other Worlds?"
MSNBC
# 22772 byJoe Strout on April 10, 2012, 2:23 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
> I think very highly of Rand (and am a regular follower of his blog), but
> Ive always looked skeptically at these kind of land grant proposals. In
> my view, right now the land on the moon or asteroids (to say nothing of
> Mars) is worthless. The economic opportunities have to come first, and
> then the property acquires value in consequence. The property value
> cant be the original economic opportunity that gets us to square one.
>
> How does everyone else view this?
property ownership, that would actually create economic opportunity,
based on anticipated future demand. Sure, it would be steeply
discounted because of the uncertainty of that future demand, but when
you're talking about 600 thousand square miles (about 1.5 million km^2
for the rest of the world), even a modest value per km^2 adds up pretty
quick.
And of course we can't just let people say "I claim the Moon!" from
here. This requires an inhabited settlement first. That's very
sensible. I also like how it rewards early settlers more; they need and
deserve more, since it's always hardest to be the first.
I haven't read the draft legislation carefully yet (though I intend to
do so). But if it needs tweaking, or even substantial revision, my hope
is that it will at least start a serious conversation. And if it's
found to be incompatible with the OST -- well, maybe so much the better.
The OST needs to go.
Best,
- Joe
# 22773 byGARY ANSORGE on April 11, 2012, 7:35 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
I expect, if someone(probably a nation/state) goes to all the trouble to establish a lunar colony, THEN we'll see some serious scrabbling around in international courts to establish and define property rights in space.
...or if Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers get involved...
Gary 7
Michael McNeil
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:09, Combs, Mike mikecombs@... wrote: I think very highly of Rand (and am a regular follower of his blog), but Ive always looked skeptically at these kind of land grant proposals. In my view, right now the land on the moon or asteroids (to say nothing of Mars) is worthless. The economic opportunities have to come first, and then the property acquires value in consequence. The property value cant be the original economic opportunity that gets us to square one. How does everyone else view this?
"Could Legal 'Loophole' Lead to Land Claims on Other Worlds?"
MSNBC
# 22774 byJoe Strout on April 11, 2012, 10:22 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
> I expect, if someone(probably a nation/state) goes to all the trouble to
> establish a lunar colony, THEN we'll see some serious scrabbling around
> in international courts to establish and define property rights in space.
colony is likely to happen sooner (possibly much sooner).
We already know Elon Musk wants to go to Mars. If he knew he could
claim 9.3 million km^2 by establishing a permanent base there, and that
claim would hold up in court, I'm pretty sure he would find a way to do
it (even if it meant selling off 9 million km^2 of it as soon as the
claim was recognized).
Let's just do some quick BOEs... an acre of land in Arizona costs
somewhere around $100k. Martian land would have to be steeply
discounted, of course. Let's suppose he can sell it for just $1000 an
acre. That's $247k per km^2, or ... holy cows... $2.3 trillion for the
whole 9.3 million km^2.
And who among us wouldn't plunk down a couple $1000 for an acre of Mars,
if there were already a working permanent base there and a clear legal
claim behind it?
But the "let them build first, and THEN sort out what's legal" approach
doesn't work nearly as well. Investors loathe uncertainty, especially
legal uncertainty. So who's going to fund such a colony? Governments?
Seems unlikely to me.
# 22775 bydougprentice3.1416 on April 11, 2012, 8 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
Hi Everyone,
Given that any off planet colony will only be viable if it can extract material from its immediate environment, perhaps some sort of a 3-D homestead rule would be best. EG. any off planet colony would be granted all volume within 5000 meters of established, permanent shirtsleeve environment with a carrying capacity of 10 people, title to lapse to the public domain, if environment not maintained. I know, as a potential colonist, I would not want to be more than 5000 m from maintained pressure, liquid water, food supplies, and a comfortable temperature, no matter how good my space suit.
on second thought, 5000m may be too much. How far would YOU want to have to go, if your space suit sprang a leak? Maybe 500 meters?
Nice thing about such a proposal, is it would tie property rights to colonist worker safety, and, god knows, something like that will be required, if colonization is to be viable. And it would establish the precedent that Human beings must be able to survive anywhere that is to be claimed as human property; a precedent that would prevent many abuses.
How about we even add that to all private property claims here on Earth, and start re-connecting duty and responsibility to property rights? It would be simple on Earth. Just build and maintain a hut with emergency rations, and a water tank, every km across a land holding, and every km along any mine tunnel, with emergency air tanks, in case of tunnel collapse. Surely this represents the minimum standard of care for public safety that we should expect of any land owner? Note: the survival services don't have to be provided for free. I expect all space colonists will have to pay, somehow, for the air they breathe, the water they drink, and the food they eat. I would only insist that the land owner make minimal survival provisions for anyone in his volume. Accidental trespass happens. we just don't want anyone to die from it.
Two very good modellings of workable socio-ecomomic customs, for solar system colonization, can be found in the Robert A Heinlein Novels, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", and "The Cat who Walks through Walls."
If we can't invent laws and customs for space colonists AT LEAST as well thought out as the ones in those stories, I fear our off-planet colonization attempts will be as messy as the history of earth colonization by Europo-American people was. We commit enough atrocity at home. Let's take our best nature into space, not our worst.
All the Best
Doug
# 22776 byGARY ANSORGE on April 12, 2012, 10:28 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
I worked for ARAMCo in the '70s to '80s. ARAMCO (and Saudi Arabia in general) had certain rules in place to protect workers (it was the only way they could get people to commit to working in such a barren environment). One of those was that the worker would be given free airfare to their point of hire, should they depart employment for any reason.
If I was employed on the moon, I'd want my air, water, food, shelter and basic medical care included, as part of my compensation(water, food, shelter and med care WAS a part of the ARAMCO contract, at least when I worked in the desert). I would also want free transport back to my point of hire.
This might evolve into a state sponsored edict, that ANYONE living in space be a recipient of this largess. A form of minimalist socialism might thus be the best way to ensure the survival of humans in space.
If national governments don't have jurisdiction, couldn't an agency to handle off-planet property rights be set up through the U.N.? Such an agency could draft rules that would avoid appearances of bias between claims, and nations, and an additional branch of the international court of justice at The Hague could be established to adjudicate disputes.
Given that any off planet colony will only be viable if it can extract material from its immediate environment, perhaps some sort of a 3-D homestead rule would be best. EG. any off planet colony would be granted all volume within 5000 meters of established, permanent shirtsleeve environment with a carrying capacity of 10 people, title to lapse to the public domain, if environment not maintained. I know, as a potential colonist, I would not want to be more than 5000 m from maintained pressure, liquid water, food supplies, and a comfortable temperature, no matter how good my space suit.
on second thought, 5000m may be too much. How far would YOU want to have to go, if your space suit sprang a leak? Maybe 500 meters?
Nice thing about such a proposal, is it would tie property rights to colonist worker safety, and, god knows, something like that will be required, if colonization is to be viable. And it would establish the precedent that Human beings must be able to survive anywhere that is to be claimed as human property; a precedent that would prevent many abuses.
How about we even add that to all private property claims here on Earth, and start re-connecting duty and responsibility to property rights? It would be simple on Earth. Just build and maintain a hut with emergency rations, and a water tank, every km across a land holding, and every km along any mine tunnel, with emergency air tanks, in case of tunnel collapse. Surely this represents the minimum standard of care for public safety that we should expect of any land owner? Note: the survival services don't have to be provided for free. I expect all space colonists will have to pay, somehow, for the air they breathe, the water they drink, and the food they eat. I would only insist that the land owner make minimal survival provisions for anyone in his volume. Accidental trespass happens. we just don't want anyone to die from it.
Two very good modellings of workable socio-ecomomic customs, for solar system colonization, can be found in the Robert A Heinlein Novels, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", and "The Cat who Walks through Walls."
If we can't invent laws and customs for space colonists AT LEAST as well thought out as the ones in those stories, I fear our off-planet colonization attempts will be as messy as the history of earth colonization by Europo-American people was. We commit enough atrocity at home. Let's take our best nature into space, not our worst.
All the Best
Doug
>
> > I expect, if someone(probably a nation/state) goes to all the trouble to
> > establish a lunar colony, THEN we'll see some serious scrabbling around
> > in international courts to establish and define property rights in space.
>
> No doubt, but if we could get some legal clarity beforehand, then such a
> colony is likely to happen sooner (possibly much sooner).
>
> We already know Elon Musk wants to go to Mars. If he knew he could
> claim 9.3 million km^2 by establishing a permanent base there, and that
> claim would hold up in court, I'm pretty sure he would find a way to do
> it (even if it meant selling off 9 million km^2 of it as soon as the
> claim was recognized).
>
> Let's just do some quick BOEs... an acre of land in Arizona costs
> somewhere around $100k. Martian land would have to be steeply
> discounted, of course. Let's suppose he can sell it for just $1000 an
> acre. That's $247k per km^2, or ... holy cows... $2.3 trillion for the
> whole 9.3 million km^2.
>
> And who among us wouldn't plunk down a couple $1000 for an acre of Mars,
> if there were already a working permanent base there and a clear legal
> claim behind it?
>
> But the "let them build first, and THEN sort out what's legal" approach
> doesn't work nearly as well. Investors loathe uncertainty, especially
> legal uncertainty. So who's going to fund such a colony? Governments?
> Seems unlikely to me.
>
Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
To change settings online go to:
To change settings via email:
ssi_list-digest@...
ssi_list-fullfeatured@...
# 22777 byDavid Mathes on April 12, 2012, 10:29 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
Hello
Part of the assumption here is that present systems work well for space. They don't.
If the national govs dont have jurisdiction then the UN would not either. Mutual agreements at the national level seem to work a whole lot better whether it be between two nations or two worlds.
The Hague court is limited to International relations on earth and directly affecting earth to at least LEO and possibly GEO. Beyond that, the rules of nature change significantly from the the normal court dealings with thata Court for Space would be needed. That court should be *in space*. One requirement to be a judge is usually a residence of some sort. Another is that the plantiff and defendant show up in court. This would be an expensive proposition for earth bound judges adjudicating an issue in space.
Earth-based Space Law is based on the Law of the Sea. So making claims at-a-distance will be difficult. Planting a flag and having a military army and fleet to defend any land claims usually helps. Under English Law possession dominates. Sharia law in space might be interesting...
Usually, the first step is that land is seized or purchased by a government. Then the land is parceled out in land grants to colonists (Oklahoma) or annexed (various European countries). Keep in mind that even with a land grant, the government can still seize land from citizens, usually legally.
Space colonization will reach a point where self-governance - independant of earth - will be required. Whether that occurs during the Wild West period of expansion across the Solar System or when there are a million or billion colonists off planet is problematic.
Colonization usually involves a parade of folks from the colonists with hired protection to the military outpost to the local sheriff. Then the government really moves in with police and finally with agencies.
Space colonization will be truly unforgiving. Just getting to the next planet takes major planning with a tremendous amount of support. The earth based support requirements will decline over time and hopefully a colony will grow to self-sufficiency.
The limits of space justice will probably be based on the time to communicate and the distance traveled as well as the cost of entering or leaving a particular gravity well. The speed of light and the associated communication delay might define a virtual courtroom to a short delay measured in seconds.
The next 100 years will prove to be interesting times.
David
Human nature has not changed in the thousands or tens of thousands of years. Not likely to change anytime soon either. We can hope for the best, but probably should plan for the worst as well.
If national governments don't have jurisdiction, couldn't an agency to handle off-planet property rights be set up through the U.N.? Such an agency could draft rules that would avoid appearances of bias between claims, and nations, and an additional branch of the international court of justice at The Hague could be established to adjudicate disputes.
Given that any off planet colony will only be viable if it can extract material from its immediate environment, perhaps some sort of a 3-D homestead rule would be best. EG. any off planet colony would be granted all volume within 5000 meters of established, permanent shirtsleeve environment with a carrying capacity of 10 people, title to lapse to the public domain, if environment not maintained. I know, as a potential colonist, I would not want to be more than 5000 m from maintained pressure, liquid water, food supplies, and a comfortable temperature, no matter how good my space suit.
on second thought, 5000m may be too much. How far would YOU want to have to go, if your space suit sprang a leak? Maybe 500 meters?
Nice thing about such a proposal, is it would tie property rights to colonist worker safety, and, god knows, something like that will be required, if colonization is to be viable. And it would establish the precedent that Human beings must be able to survive anywhere that is to be claimed as human property; a precedent that would prevent many abuses.
How about we even add that to all private property claims here on Earth, and start re-connecting duty and responsibility to property rights? It would be simple on Earth. Just build and maintain a hut with emergency rations, and a water tank, every km across a land holding, and every km along any mine tunnel, with emergency air tanks, in case of tunnel collapse. Surely this represents the minimum standard of care for public safety that we should expect of any land owner? Note: the survival services don't have to be provided for free. I expect all space colonists will have to pay, somehow, for the air they breathe, the water they drink, and the food they eat. I would only insist that the land owner make minimal survival provisions for anyone in his volume. Accidental trespass happens. we just don't want anyone to die from it.
Two very good modellings of workable socio-ecomomic customs, for solar system colonization, can be found in the Robert A Heinlein Novels, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", and "The Cat who Walks through Walls."
If we can't invent laws and customs for space colonists AT LEAST as well thought out as the ones in those stories, I fear our off-planet colonization attempts will be as messy as the history of earth colonization by Europo-American people was. We commit enough atrocity at home. Let's take our best nature into space, not our worst.
All the Best
Doug
# 22778 byGARY ANSORGE on April 12, 2012, 10:41 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
Perhaps we'll end up with a traveling court, going into orbit around Mars, or Europa or Luna and holding court via tele presence. (There's a SciFi story here). Such a court would likely be a self contained, mobile colony of lawyers and judges. How they would enforce their judgements is quite another matter...
Part of the assumption here is that present systems work well for space. They don't.
If the national govs dont have jurisdiction then the UN would not either. Mutual agreements at the national level seem to work a whole lot better whether it be between two nations or two worlds.
The Hague court is limited to International relations on earth and directly affecting earth to at least LEO and possibly GEO. Beyond that, the rules of nature change significantly from the the normal court dealings with thata Court for Space would be needed. That court should be *in space*. One requirement to be a judge is usually a residence of some sort. Another is that the plantiff and defendant show up in court. This would be an expensive proposition for earth bound judges adjudicating an issue in space.
Earth-based Space Law is based on the Law of the Sea. So making claims at-a-distance will be difficult. Planting a flag and having a military army and fleet to defend any land claims usually helps. Under English Law possession dominates. Sharia law in space might be interesting...
Usually, the first step is that land is seized or purchased by a government. Then the land is parceled out in land grants to colonists (Oklahoma) or annexed (various European countries). Keep in mind that even with a land grant, the government can still seize land from citizens, usually legally.
Space colonization will reach a point where self-governance - independant of earth - will be required. Whether that occurs during the Wild West period of expansion across the Solar System or when there are a million or billion colonists off planet is problematic.
Colonization usually involves a parade of folks from the colonists with hired protection to the military outpost to the local sheriff. Then the government really moves in with police and finally with agencies.
Space colonization will be truly unforgiving. Just getting to the next planet takes major planning with a tremendous amount of support. The earth based support requirements will decline over time and hopefully a colony will grow to self-sufficiency.
The limits of space justice will probably be based on the time to communicate and the distance traveled as well as the cost of entering or leaving a particular gravity well. The speed of light and the associated communication delay might define a virtual courtroom to a short delay measured in seconds.
The next 100 years will prove to be interesting times.
David
Human nature has not changed in the thousands or tens of thousands of years. Not likely to change anytime soon either. We can hope for the best, but probably should plan for the worst as well.
Hi Everyone,
If national governments don't have jurisdiction, couldn't an agency to handle off-planet property rights be set up through the U.N.? Such an agency could draft rules that would avoid appearances of bias between claims, and nations, and an additional branch of the international court of justice at The Hague could be established to adjudicate disputes.
Given that any off planet colony will only be viable if it can extract material from its immediate environment, perhaps some sort of a 3-D homestead rule would be best. EG. any off planet colony would be granted all volume within 5000 meters of established, permanent shirtsleeve environment with a carrying capacity of 10 people, title to lapse to the public domain, if environment not maintained. I know, as a potential colonist, I would not want to be more than 5000 m from maintained pressure, liquid water, food supplies, and a comfortable temperature, no matter how good my space suit.
on second thought, 5000m may be too much. How far would YOU want to have to go, if your space suit sprang a leak? Maybe 500 meters?
Nice thing about such a proposal, is it would tie property rights to colonist worker safety, and, god knows, something like that will be required, if colonization is to be viable. And it would establish the precedent that Human beings must be able to survive anywhere that is to be claimed as human property; a precedent that would prevent many abuses.
How about we even add that to all private property claims here on Earth, and start re-connecting duty and responsibility to property rights? It would be simple on Earth. Just build and maintain a hut with emergency rations, and a water tank, every km across a land holding, and every km along any mine tunnel, with emergency air tanks, in case of tunnel collapse. Surely this represents the minimum standard of care for public safety that we should expect of any land owner? Note: the survival services don't have to be provided for free. I expect all space colonists will have to pay, somehow, for the air they breathe, the water they drink, and the food they eat. I would only insist that the land owner make minimal survival provisions for anyone in his volume. Accidental trespass happens. we just don't want anyone to die from it.
Two very good modellings of workable socio-ecomomic customs, for solar system colonization, can be found in the Robert A Heinlein Novels, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", and "The Cat who Walks through Walls."
If we can't invent laws and customs for space colonists AT LEAST as well thought out as the ones in those stories, I fear our off-planet colonization attempts will be as messy as the history of earth colonization by Europo-American people was. We commit enough atrocity at home. Let's take our best nature into space, not our worst.
All the Best
Doug
# 22779 byDavid Mathes on April 12, 2012, 11:04 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
A few more notes...Under an earth-bound justice system ajury of your peers might prove difficult to assemble for an accused person in space.
Given human nature I suspect there will be a Space Press that will try cases in the virtual newspapers. Information - good or bad - may become so prevalent and ubiquitous that getting a fair trial on earth or anywhere in the solar system may prove difficult.
There is also the concern that posses turn into hanging parties. This is democracy at it's worst where everyone votes to hang someone.
Self-defense arguments in space could be further reaching than those on earth. Settlers usually have to defend themselves with a gun. Bows and arrows in space may not be enough. Slingshots will also not be effective. Even a gun. So spaceship or space colony home defense might depend on a more robust weapon.
The result may be that an earth based justice system would be prejudiced from the beginning and lacking the contextual basis on which to render a fair and just decision.
D
Hello
Part of the assumption here is that present systems work well for space. They don't.
If the national govs dont have jurisdiction then the UN would not either. Mutual agreements at the national level seem to work a whole lot better whether it be between two nations or two worlds.
The Hague court is limited to International relations on earth and directly affecting earth to at least LEO and possibly GEO. Beyond that, the rules of nature change significantly from the the normal court dealings with thata Court for Space would be needed. That court should be *in space*. One requirement to be a judge is usually a residence of some sort. Another is that the plantiff and defendant show up in court. This would be an expensive proposition for earth bound judges adjudicating an issue in space.
Earth-based Space Law is based on the Law of the Sea. So making claims at-a-distance will be difficult. Planting a flag and having a military army and fleet to defend any land claims usually helps. Under English Law possession dominates. Sharia law in space might be interesting...
Usually, the first step is that land is seized or purchased by a government. Then the land is parceled out in land grants to colonists (Oklahoma) or annexed (various European countries). Keep in mind that even with a land grant, the government can still seize land from citizens, usually legally.
Space colonization will reach a point where self-governance - independant of earth - will be required. Whether that occurs during the Wild West period of expansion across the Solar System or when there are a million or billion colonists off planet is problematic.
Colonization usually involves a parade of folks from the colonists with hired protection to the military outpost to the local sheriff. Then the government really moves in with police and finally with agencies.
Space colonization will be truly unforgiving. Just getting to the next planet takes major planning with a tremendous amount of support. The earth based support requirements will decline over time and hopefully a colony will grow to self-sufficiency.
The limits of space justice will probably be based on the time to communicate and the distance traveled as well as the cost of entering or leaving a particular gravity well. The speed of light and the associated communication delay might define a virtual courtroom to a short delay measured in seconds.
The next 100 years will prove to be interesting times.
David
Human nature has not changed in the thousands or tens of thousands of years. Not likely to change anytime soon either. We can hope for the best, but probably should plan for the worst as well.
Hi Everyone,
If national governments don't have jurisdiction, couldn't an agency to handle off-planet property rights be set up through the U.N.? Such an agency could draft rules that would avoid appearances of bias between claims, and nations, and an additional branch of the international court of justice at The Hague could be established to adjudicate disputes.
Given that any off planet colony will only be viable if it can extract material from its immediate environment, perhaps some sort of a 3-D homestead rule would be best. EG. any off planet colony would be granted all volume within 5000 meters of established, permanent shirtsleeve environment with a carrying capacity of 10 people, title to lapse to the public domain, if environment not maintained. I know, as a potential colonist, I would not want to be more than 5000 m from maintained pressure, liquid water, food supplies, and a comfortable temperature, no matter how good my space suit.
on second thought, 5000m may be too much. How far would YOU want to have to go, if your space suit sprang a leak? Maybe 500 meters?
Nice thing about such a proposal, is it would tie property rights to colonist worker safety, and, god knows, something like that will be required, if colonization is to be viable. And it would establish the precedent that Human beings must be able to survive anywhere that is to be claimed as human property; a precedent that would prevent many abuses.
How about we even add that to all private property claims here on Earth, and start re-connecting duty and responsibility to property rights? It would be simple on Earth. Just build and maintain a hut with emergency rations, and a water tank, every km across a land holding, and every km along any mine tunnel, with emergency air tanks, in case of tunnel collapse. Surely this represents the minimum standard of care for public safety that we should expect of any land owner? Note: the survival services don't have to be provided for free. I expect all space colonists will have to pay, somehow, for the air they breathe, the water they drink, and the food they eat. I would only insist that the land owner make minimal survival provisions for anyone in his volume. Accidental trespass happens. we just don't want anyone to die from it.
Two very good modellings of workable socio-ecomomic customs, for solar system colonization, can be found in the Robert A Heinlein Novels, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", and "The Cat who Walks through Walls."
If we can't invent laws and customs for space colonists AT LEAST as well thought out as the ones in those stories, I fear our off-planet colonization attempts will be as messy as the history of earth colonization by Europo-American people was. We commit enough atrocity at home. Let's take our best nature into space, not our worst.
All the Best
Doug
# 22780 bysailor.barsoom on April 17, 2012, 9:30 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
It's possible to have a legal right to work land without
owning the land. You can own the products of your work
(processed oxygen, bags made from glass fibers, collected
regolith in those bags) and of course you own what you
bring with you from elsewhere (lander, space suit, teddy
bear from Tokyo).