Asteroid use

You ignore a number of obvious attack points for the position for
hypothetical polly to take. To begin with, tax cuts aren't the big vote
winners they used to be - even in USAmerica... the mere fact that such
policies which probably increase taxes if any serious commercialisation
takes place only makes it easier. Secondly, the broad international
opposition to the complete commercialisation of space as demonstrated by
UNISPACE III. One of the supporters of the e2 mission is the NSSA (National
Space Society of Australia), who's parent body (the NSS) takes a loopy
prohomesteading line which is opposed by about 90% of the local
membership... we made it clear that NSSA support was acceptable only as long
as unacceptable USAmerican policies were not enforced from without; & were
able to quote a list of international organisations who WOULDN'T support our
mission if such nonsenses appeared in our agenda, effectively making the
mission unflyable. We've had no problems since; & may be very close to
putting together the financial package which flies our mission accordingly.

Bear in mind, though, that the commercialisation of space carries costs that
noncommercial space never does: insurance is a big one; as are taxes.
Repudiation of the Outer Space Treaty would be a lot harder politically than
most advocates - who by & large have very little real political experience -
would imagine. Modification would be a lot easier; but would require
international support for the modifications rather than unilateral
nonsense... the licencing of space assets is therefore more likely than
unlimited property rights.

All the best,
Robert Clements