Smells Like Teen Spirit

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Ian Woollard
wrote:
> http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-03zk.html

It seems to me that Mr. McKnight had to vent some steam because
other groups didn't share his more pragmatic viewpoint. That's OK;
it sure got us talking!

It also appeared that the Moon Society's endorsement of the Space
Settlement Initiative was the straw that broke the camel's back. He
seems to take issue with that endorsement, and perhaps it's because
he respects the Moon Society. I too think poorly of the Space
Settlement Initiative and not knowing much about the Moon Society, I
just thought it was one flakey fringe organization endorsing
another. Having looked into matters a little more, now I too am
puzzled by their endorsement of it, for in my opinion, it reflects
very poorly on the Moon Society.

As to my concerns about the Space Settlement Initiative, below is
got a response from the Space Settlement Initiative advocate.

Oh my, where to start.

This canard about private property rights in the Outer Space Treaty
has more lives than a cat.

I hope you don't mind if I try to pop your balloon on this issue :)

You know, some guys down the street from me declared war on Iraq
before the US did, but nobody paid them any attention. I think it
may have had something to do with the fact that they're not a nation
and have no ability to declare war.

Did you know that the Geneva Conventions don't place any
restrictions on your ability as a private citizen to go to Iraq and
capture prisoners. Does that mean you've got carte blanche?

The Kyoto Accords don't mention anything about how much pollution an
individual creates. Does that mean that you can pollute to your
heart's content?

No to all of the above. The actors in the International system are
nation-states, thus there is no mention of private interest in
treaties, for each nation is responsible for the conduct of it's
citizens. Hence, TransOrbital had to receive US Gov't permission
for their private lunar mission.

The omission that you base your argument on is faulty at its core.

You seem to have invested a lot of energy in your website, so I'm
surprised that you haven't invested a few thousand dollars and gone
to a lawyer specializing in International Law and had a legal
opinion drafted that you could use to buttress your argument. I fear
you might be in for a bit of a letdown though. I'd really like to
see it published on your website.

Further your scheme falls apart in its internal logic.

You state that no government has to claim sovereignty over the moon,
they just have to recognize private ownership. Well private
ownership can't exist without sovereignty. Without law and order,
how are property rights protected?

Your scheme requires the US Gov't to recognize the lunar property.
What if some Russian citizen claims the same plot of lunar land?
Then some Brazilian citizen also claims the land? How is that
resolved without the US Gov't being the judge, thus exercising its
sovereignty over the Moon?

Next, you're calling on the US Gov't to pass legislation prohibiting
title recognition until transport is offered.

All of this recognition, legislation and taxes paid to the I.R.S.
are de facto steps in the "claiming sovereignty" process, that the
Outer Space Treaty prohibits.

In your FAQ, you state, "There is already a sizable demand for phony
deeds to Lunar property, so it is safe to assume there will be much
bigger demand for real deeds to Lunar property."

Well, take a look at these sites:

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_744764.html

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/business/moon_sale_000915.htm
l

As for your safe assumption, it isn't safe to assume it.

Land in the Arctic Circle is cheap and it is legally available for
purchase. Why aren't people flocking to buy it? Imagine the wealth
and new technologies that would develop if we had a thriving society
living comfortably in the Arctic.

In Question 4 of your FAQ, you're having the US recognize French
Natural Law, instead of the Common Law that is the basis of the US
legal system. How much effort do you think it's going to take to
have the US legal system twist into a pretzel to justify the basis
for your scheme? Good luck on this front!

Question 5: You're having the US State department assuring other
nations that your scheme isn't a US land grab; that's exactly what
it is. The legislation is passed by the US Congress, recognition is
from the US Executive, adjudication is addressed by the US legal
system, the State Department is advocating it to other countries,
other nation's claims aren't recognized, but US claims are.

It was fun thus far, but there is so much more in your FAQ to
address, that I think I will leave it for others to continue.

A last word of hope - if you are really looking for an "out" from
the Outer Space Treaty, then look to the creation of a wholly new
state, which for your purposes would claim the Moon. Such a State
would not be a signatory to the OST, and wouldn't be bound by its
provisions.

Politically, the State wouldn't be recognized by any country, but
you wouldn't be violating the OST. If your State came to be viable,
and lunar operations became profitable, then this option may be the
most palitable to the nations of the Earth because no one nation
would have advantage over another. This is almost the same substance
as a UN mandate, but it has a slight twist to it.

I'm sure you'd get a lot more attention if your group did invest a
few grand and published legal opinions from respected International
Law scholars.

After that, start work on the economic rationale for your model. But
first things first.

Good Luck

TangoMan