Property Rights Proposal]

> > I disagree. My opinion is that it should be acceptable to own mining
> > rights to an asteroid or part of an asteroid without developing it or
> > handling it in any way.
> And how would you aquire such a right? By declaring that you now own
> the rock? By buying it from the Solar System Government?

The specific proposal that started this discussion was to establish
a U.N. agency somewhat like the International Telecommunication
Union, to handle and appropriately delegate space property rights
claims. For better or worse, the known inhabitants of the solar
system all pretty much live on one planet right now, and the most widely
recognized authoritative "government" of that planet is the U.N. The
primary issue here is that these property rights be widely recognized,
in particular by the governments of countries where major financial
institutions reside.

>I can tell
> you this: if your national government sells asteroid X to your company,
> with neither you nor your government having done anything in particular
> to earn those rights other than pointing at it with a telescope and
> saying "ours!", and if my company has a mind to mine asteroid X, then
> you had better have a spaceship faster than ours.

Where do you propose to get financing for your fast spaceship? Where
do you propose to market whatever goods you plan to produce from
asteroid X? Where do you propose to hide when international law
enforcement gets ready to track you down for space piracy?

> [...]
> So far this would result in money changing hands with no work being
> done. What's the point in that, except for the speculators?

I take it you don't believe in our successful capitalist system then?
The point is that, if you happen to rightfully own a piece of space
property worth $2 billion, you then have plenty of collateral to
go asking for funding for your space venture.

On the issue of mining rights in northern Canada - I grew up in
Canada (and now live in the U.S.), and the mineral rights markets
in Canada are hugely distorted by government royalties and taxes,
and on the other hand weird incentives to do things that make
little economic sense (the whole syncrude debacle in the 70's,
Newfoundland's Hibernia construction mess, etc). Even so, if it was
significantly more cost-effective for companies to close a mine
in southern Canada and open another in the north, they would do it:
corporations exist to maximize profits and return to shareholders,
they don't sit around planning how to be obstructionist unless they
are monopolies (which should certainly be broken up to restore
a competitive environment).

And if the proposed UN agency sets a minimum price for space property
(say $1 per ton of rock, $1 per square meter of surface) that could be
$50 trillion or more in lunar surface area alone; that will easily prevent
it all getting bought up and locked away by corporations even under
your scenario.

> [...]
> At worst, mining rights without a requirement to do any work would
> result in a lot of asteroids being owned by speculators keeping their
> "property" idle until prices rise some more - and actual building would
> be delayed beyond the *technological* threshold, as it were.

Is this such a bad thing? If we don't do it this way, our
descendants might decry us as the robber barons of the space age,
ruthlessly strip-mining the skies for our present gain, with no thought
for the even greater use future technology may have for asteroidal
materials. Or it may not have - but that should become clear to
space property holders when their property values peak. Let free
markets do their magic here - but the fundamental underpinnings
of free markets lie in clear rights to property.

Anarchy in the skies will get us nowhere.

Arthur Smith (apsmith@...