Aldridge Commission supports property rights in space

Wow, I'm really starting to love these guys!

"The Commission recommends that Congress increase the potential for
commercial opportunities related to the national space exploration
vision by providing incentives for entrepreneurial investment in space,
by creating significant monetary prizes for the accomplishment of space
missions and/or technology developments and by assuring appropriate
property rights for those who seek to develop space resources and
infrastructure."

"The issue of private property rights in space is a complex one
involving national and international legal issues. However, it is
imperative that these issues be recognized and addressed at an early
stage in the implementation of the vision, otherwise there will be
little significant private sector activity associated with the
development of space resources, one of our key goals."

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

In article ,
Joe Strout wrote:

Wow, I'm really starting to love these guys!

snip

"The issue of private property rights in space is a complex one
involving national and international legal issues.

Undoubtedly!

Articles 1 ("there shall be free access to all areas of celestial
bodies") & 2 of the Outer Space Treaty come to mind.

Even a nation cannot regulate what it does not control.

By that I mean, any attempt by the UN, or by any one nation or group of
nations, to regulate land titles offworld would necessarily involve
(implicitly or otherwise) a claim to sovereignty (ie ownership & control
of a territory) over the offworld places in question.

Without such a claim, attempting to regulate property rights in such
places would be the equivalent of (say) the US Congress purporting to
regulate land title in (for example) India. That is, it would be
purporting to regulate something it either had no means, or no
intention, of enforcing in the place in question. (If it did intend to
enforce its will then, then the US Congress would be implicitly making a
territorial claim to India.)

However, it is
imperative that these issues be recognized and addressed at an early
stage in the implementation of the vision, otherwise there will be
little significant private sector activity associated with the
development of space resources, one of our key goals."

Probably. However, the last time such issues were "recognized and
addressed at an early stage" the result was the Moon Treaty. :-)

As for the time prior to that...that would probably have been the Treaty
of Tordesilla, in which Spain and Portugual carved up the world outside
Europe between themselves.

I mention that latter treaty, in part, because attempting to settle
offworld property rights at this early stage seems (IMHO) to be roughly
the equivalent of Europe of the 1490s attempting to regulate property
rights in the New World. The Treaty of Tordesilla had nothing to say
about private property of course, but it did attempt to divide control;
and control would be what any national or international effort to
regulate offworld property rights at this stage would need to be about.
Without control, any land titles conferred could end up being worthless
in the sense that they would unenforceable--just as the Treaty of
Tordesilla is now defunct because Spain and Portugual proved unable to
prevent other nations like England, France, and the Netherlands staking
claims of their own.

--
Stephen Souter

http://www-personal.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/

In article ,
Stephen Souter wrote:

"The issue of private property rights in space is a complex one
involving national and international legal issues.

Undoubtedly!

Articles 1 ("there shall be free access to all areas of celestial
bodies") & 2 of the Outer Space Treaty come to mind.

Even a nation cannot regulate what it does not control.

By that I mean, any attempt by the UN, or by any one nation or group of
nations, to regulate land titles offworld would necessarily involve
(implicitly or otherwise) a claim to sovereignty (ie ownership & control
of a territory) over the offworld places in question.

That's a good point. So rescinding the Outer Space Treaty would
probably be a sensible start.

However, it's possible that national lawyers might try to make the
argument that the "free access" means that no particular nation can
attempt to restrict access by other nations.

But I still think pulling out of the OST would be a more sensible
approach.

However, it is
imperative that these issues be recognized and addressed at an early
stage in the implementation of the vision, otherwise there will be
little significant private sector activity associated with the
development of space resources, one of our key goals."

Probably. However, the last time such issues were "recognized and
addressed at an early stage" the result was the Moon Treaty. :-)

Heh -- which at least the US had enough sense not to sign. Obviously
the point here is to recognize and address that past attempts utterly
failed to address them properly. So we should try again.

As for the time prior to that...that would probably have been the Treaty
of Tordesilla, in which Spain and Portugual carved up the world outside
Europe between themselves.

No, I don't see that as at all comparable. This would be something more
like the Land Grant system used to settle the west (except that in this
case, there are no aboriginal people to complicate the issue).

I mention that latter treaty, in part, because attempting to settle
offworld property rights at this early stage seems (IMHO) to be roughly
the equivalent of Europe of the 1490s attempting to regulate property
rights in the New World. The Treaty of Tordesilla had nothing to say
about private property of course, but it did attempt to divide control;
and control would be what any national or international effort to
regulate offworld property rights at this stage would need to be about.
Without control, any land titles conferred could end up being worthless
in the sense that they would unenforceable--just as the Treaty of
Tordesilla is now defunct because Spain and Portugual proved unable to
prevent other nations like England, France, and the Netherlands staking
claims of their own.

This analogy is quite flawed. You exaggerate the need for control;
there aren't countries (or individuals) all vying to claim the same
hunks of land by force. All that's needed is clear legal status. And
yes, that status can be backed up by force if necessary.

Example: suppose the U.S. decides that any entity that lands something
on the Moon can claim the land within a 100-km radius, as long as that
equipment is functioning and can send back video of the claimed land
upon request. You think there is value in that, so you find investors,
form a company, and land several probes claiming hundreds of km^2 on the
Moon, all in accordance with the law. Perhaps you parcel it off and
sell the pieces (now having a legal basis for doing so).

Now I come along, and for some perverted reason I claim some of the same
land, and start selling some of the same pieces. You can then take me
to court, demonstrate that my claims are invalid, and have my butt
thrown in jail for fraud.

That is all the legal enforcement that is necessary. It will be a
*long* time before anything is done off Earth without there being
someone on Earth who can be held accountable for it. And by then, Earth
governments will be quite capable of pursuing their needs off Earth too.

So there really is nothing needed here but a clear legal status for
property rights, which can be agreed upon by a majority of relevant
nations.

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

In article ,
Joe Strout wrote:

In article ,
Stephen Souter wrote:

As for the time prior to that...that would probably have been the Treaty
of Tordesilla, in which Spain and Portugual carved up the world outside
Europe between themselves.

No, I don't see that as at all comparable. This would be something more
like the Land Grant system used to settle the west (except that in this
case, there are no aboriginal people to complicate the issue).

How is the US land grant system "comparable"? The land that was granted
was part of territory the US had already claimed as its own.

If the US (or UN or any other group of nations) make no claim of
sovereignty to (say) the Moon or Mars yet nevertheless claim to be able
to regulate land title there, why are the titles grant by them likely to
be any more valid than a land title to the same place by some other
nation or group of nations?

In the case of the Treaty of Tordesilla, Spain and Portugual did make
claims of sovereignty, but even then they proved unenforceable when
other nations like France and England simply thumbed their noses at the
treaty. The latter were not a party to it, so they doubtless felt
themselves under no obligation to abide by it. To enforce their rights
under the treaty the Spanish & the Portuguese would therefore have had
to resort not merely to some individual before the courts (like the one
you postulate below) but force of arms.

I mention that latter treaty, in part, because attempting to settle
offworld property rights at this early stage seems (IMHO) to be roughly
the equivalent of Europe of the 1490s attempting to regulate property
rights in the New World. The Treaty of Tordesilla had nothing to say
about private property of course, but it did attempt to divide control;
and control would be what any national or international effort to
regulate offworld property rights at this stage would need to be about.
Without control, any land titles conferred could end up being worthless
in the sense that they would unenforceable--just as the Treaty of
Tordesilla is now defunct because Spain and Portugual proved unable to
prevent other nations like England, France, and the Netherlands staking
claims of their own.

This analogy is quite flawed. You exaggerate the need for control;
there aren't countries (or individuals) all vying to claim the same
hunks of land by force. All that's needed is clear legal status. And
yes, that status can be backed up by force if necessary.

Example: suppose the U.S. decides that any entity that lands something
on the Moon can claim the land within a 100-km radius, as long as that
equipment is functioning and can send back video of the claimed land
upon request. You think there is value in that, so you find investors,
form a company, and land several probes claiming hundreds of km^2 on the
Moon, all in accordance with the law. Perhaps you parcel it off and
sell the pieces (now having a legal basis for doing so).

Now I come along, and for some perverted reason I claim some of the same
land, and start selling some of the same pieces. You can then take me
to court, demonstrate that my claims are invalid, and have my butt
thrown in jail for fraud.

Your scenario assumes that the world is populated only by Americans. Or
at least that both victim and perpetrator will be Americans. That way
the long arm of US law can conveniently reach out and grab them.

As difficult as it may be to believe but the writ of US law only runs on
US soil. Other places have their own laws, their own courts, and their
own governments. If such places are not part of the "majority of
relevant nations", why should they give too hoots about a piece of paper
whose ability to be enforced stops at the borders of those other nations?

If the government of one of the minority decides to set up its own
system why should the bits of paper it may issue be any the less valid
than ones issued by the "majority of relevant nations", especially if
said majority do not claim soverereignty over the places they are
issuing title to? The minority's bits of paper may not be in force in
the US, but then the US's would not bein force in that other nation.

If that other nation gives one of its citizens title to the same patch
of lunar regolith as some US citizen, the US may be able to arrest the
other fellow should he or she ever be rash enough to venture onto US
soil, but how are they going to stop the government which issued it from
issuing further bits of paper?

Invade the other country and throw the lot into Guantanamo Bay?

That is all the legal enforcement that is necessary. It will be a
*long* time before anything is done off Earth without there being
someone on Earth who can be held accountable for it.

And just exactly who would you "hold accountable" on Earth if the land
in question lay on (say) Mars and the rival claimant was living on Mars?
Someone who has gone up to live there on a permanent basis may not have
any assets left in Earth to "arrest".

And by then, Earth
governments will be quite capable of pursuing their needs off Earth too.

You mean in the same fashion the US proved "quite capable" at solving
its Amerindian "problem" back in the 19th Century?

If the US was not making any claim of sovereignty offworld, on exactly
what legal grounds would it propose to "pursue" such "needs" offworld?

So there really is nothing needed here but a clear legal status for
property rights, which can be agreed upon by a majority of relevant
nations.

This is, of course, assuming that it is the US which is on the side of
the "majority of relevant nations".

--
Stephen Souter

http://www-personal.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/

In article ,
Stephen Souter wrote:

In article ,
Joe Strout wrote:

In article ,
Stephen Souter wrote:

As for the time prior to that...that would probably have been the Treaty
of Tordesilla, in which Spain and Portugual carved up the world outside
Europe between themselves.

No, I don't see that as at all comparable. This would be something more
like the Land Grant system used to settle the west (except that in this
case, there are no aboriginal people to complicate the issue).

How is the US land grant system "comparable"? The land that was granted
was part of territory the US had already claimed as its own.

Right.

If the US (or UN or any other group of nations) make no claim of
sovereignty to (say) the Moon or Mars yet nevertheless claim to be able
to regulate land title there

"If" condition untrue, therefore "then" clause irrelevant.

Yes, the body providing legal status to (say) lunar land claims would
have to itself have sovereignty over that area. Ideally this would be
the UN or some large group of nations that have worked out a
shared-sovereignty agreement. But honestly, I'd be satisfied if it were
just the U.S., since the U.S. (for better or worse) is a strong enough
superpower for its claims to have force even if disputed by other
countries. Not absolute force, of course, but probably enough to cause
some investors to risk it.

In the case of the Treaty of Tordesilla, Spain and Portugual did make
claims of sovereignty, but even then they proved unenforceable when
other nations like France and England simply thumbed their noses at the
treaty.

Right. And such could happen again, in theory, and this would factor
into investors' risk estimates. But it's much less likely now than it
was then, especially if the property rights granted are dependent on
some sort of improvement (e.g., a working base capable of surveying the
claimed territory).

The latter were not a party to it, so they doubtless felt
themselves under no obligation to abide by it. To enforce their rights
under the treaty the Spanish & the Portuguese would therefore have had
to resort not merely to some individual before the courts (like the one
you postulate below) but force of arms.

Yes, but in addition, they had made ridiculous claims of ownership to
parts of the world its citizens had never seen. That's very different
from saying: you go settle the land, we'll back up your claim, which is
essentially what the Commission seems to be suggesting here.

If the Spanish & Portuguese had said that, and then some English
colonists had gone and killed a Spanish settlement and taken the land,
well then that would indeed have been a cause for war.

Now I come along, and for some perverted reason I claim some of the same
land, and start selling some of the same pieces. You can then take me
to court, demonstrate that my claims are invalid, and have my butt
thrown in jail for fraud.

Your scenario assumes that the world is populated only by Americans. Or
at least that both victim and perpetrator will be Americans.

No, only that the victim and perpetrator are both subject to the treaty
recognizing property rights. At present that would really only need to
involve the U.S. and Russia, though getting China on board would
certainly be a good idea.

But suppose Canada didn't sign the treaty, and I'm Canadian. OK, then,
perhaps you can't sue me for selling land claims that overlap yours.
But whose do you think will be worth more -- yours, backed by a treaty
including the U.S., Russia, and others, or mine, backed by the lack of
any clear extraterrestrial property rights law in Canada?

As difficult as it may be to believe but the writ of US law only runs on
US soil. Other places have their own laws, their own courts, and their
own governments. If such places are not part of the "majority of
relevant nations", why should they give too hoots about a piece of paper
whose ability to be enforced stops at the borders of those other nations?

They should not. And investors will not give too hoots about the
conflicting land claims of the citizens of such nations, either.

You keep picturing it like some sort of tussle of force, but that's not
the world we live in. It's about economics and investor confidence.
Claims backed by the U.S. government inspire far more investor
confidence, and will generate more economic activity, than claims backed
by, say, Argentina. (Meaning no disrespect to Argentinians; it's simply
a matter of relative economic size and power.)

Let's do it this way. Let the U.S. government (and ideally, other
nations joined in a treaty) provide for its some way for its citizens to
own land in a way recognized by those nations. If you don't have faith
that such claims are worthwhile, then don't buy any. Your arguments and
mine are both irrelevant; in the end the market will decide.

But it's certainly not going to get any better by not trying.

That is all the legal enforcement that is necessary. It will be a
*long* time before anything is done off Earth without there being
someone on Earth who can be held accountable for it.

And just exactly who would you "hold accountable" on Earth if the land
in question lay on (say) Mars and the rival claimant was living on Mars?
Someone who has gone up to live there on a permanent basis may not have
any assets left in Earth to "arrest".

Please take note of word in asterisks in above quote.

So there really is nothing needed here but a clear legal status for
property rights, which can be agreed upon by a majority of relevant
nations.

This is, of course, assuming that it is the US which is on the side of
the "majority of relevant nations".

No, actually nothing in my statement implies that. But in reality, of
course it will be. The only relevant nations now are the U.S. and
Russia, and perhaps China -- and it's very unlikely that Russia and
China are going to run off and make a treaty that leaves the U.S. out.

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

In article ,
Joe Strout wrote:

In article ,
Stephen Souter wrote:

In article ,
Joe Strout wrote:

In article ,
Stephen Souter wrote:

As for the time prior to that...that would probably have been the
Treaty
of Tordesilla, in which Spain and Portugual carved up the world outside
Europe between themselves.

No, I don't see that as at all comparable. This would be something more
like the Land Grant system used to settle the west (except that in this
case, there are no aboriginal people to complicate the issue).

How is the US land grant system "comparable"? The land that was granted
was part of territory the US had already claimed as its own.

Right.

If the US (or UN or any other group of nations) make no claim of
sovereignty to (say) the Moon or Mars yet nevertheless claim to be able
to regulate land title there

"If" condition untrue, therefore "then" clause irrelevant.

Yes, the body providing legal status to (say) lunar land claims would
have to itself have sovereignty over that area. Ideally this would be
the UN or some large group of nations that have worked out a
shared-sovereignty agreement. But honestly, I'd be satisfied if it were
just the U.S., since the U.S. (for better or worse) is a strong enough
superpower for its claims to have force even if disputed by other
countries. Not absolute force, of course, but probably enough to cause
some investors to risk it.

For the US to go it alone would not seem a terribly wise idea--unless it
was proposing to actually colonise such places. No matter how mighty the
US may be on Earth, its laws do not rule in Outer Space; and any attempt
by it to claim they did would doubtless be vigorously resisted by other
would-be spacefaring nations. That is not say that it might not try, of
course. But doing so would be roughly the equivalent of what the Spanish
& Portuguese attempted with the Treaty of Tordesilla, with probably much
the same consequences: unenforceability.

In particular, an offworld land title system will require more from the
US (or for that matter the UN) than having courts and marshalls residing
on Earth. Sooner or later they will need to be resident on (or at least
reasonably near) whatever celestial bodies the US system runs on. There
will also need to be forces of other sorts to back those courts and
marshalls up should the need arise, including (if need be) military ones.

In turn that sort of thing is likely to be rather expensive. The sort of
expense American taxpayers may or may not be prepared to pay for and one
which may or may not be able to be satisfactorily funded by taxing the
would-be offworld land investor.

In the case of the Treaty of Tordesilla, Spain and Portugual did make
claims of sovereignty, but even then they proved unenforceable when
other nations like France and England simply thumbed their noses at the
treaty.

Right. And such could happen again, in theory, and this would factor
into investors' risk estimates. But it's much less likely now than it
was then, especially if the property rights granted are dependent on
some sort of improvement (e.g., a working base capable of surveying the
claimed territory).

Your mention of "investors" suggests you're contemplating absentee
landlords (who need to be encouraged to "improve" their investments) as
the major beneficiary of the system--as opposed to resident homesteaders
who have a built-in incentive to make improvements.

The latter were not a party to it, so they doubtless felt
themselves under no obligation to abide by it. To enforce their rights
under the treaty the Spanish & the Portuguese would therefore have had
to resort not merely to some individual before the courts (like the one
you postulate below) but force of arms.

Yes, but in addition, they had made ridiculous claims of ownership to
parts of the world its citizens had never seen. That's very different
from saying: you go settle the land, we'll back up your claim, which is
essentially what the Commission seems to be suggesting here.

If the Spanish & Portuguese had said that, and then some English
colonists had gone and killed a Spanish settlement and taken the land,
well then that would indeed have been a cause for war.

On the other hand, if an intrepid band of Russian colonists lands the
Mayflowsky II on Mars and settles in at New Plymouth Rock, on land
coincidentally claimed by the Martian Real Estate Incorporated of NY
City, how would MREI get them off its property? After all, possession
surely counts for nine-tenths of the law when the nearest marshall--not
to mention the nearest court--may be millions of miles away on Earth.

Now I come along, and for some perverted reason I claim some of the same
land, and start selling some of the same pieces. You can then take me
to court, demonstrate that my claims are invalid, and have my butt
thrown in jail for fraud.

Your scenario assumes that the world is populated only by Americans. Or
at least that both victim and perpetrator will be Americans.

No, only that the victim and perpetrator are both subject to the treaty
recognizing property rights. At present that would really only need to
involve the U.S. and Russia, though getting China on board would
certainly be a good idea.

But suppose Canada didn't sign the treaty, and I'm Canadian. OK, then,
perhaps you can't sue me for selling land claims that overlap yours.
But whose do you think will be worth more -- yours, backed by a treaty
including the U.S., Russia, and others, or mine, backed by the lack of
any clear extraterrestrial property rights law in Canada?

You're *still* assuming the wrong-doer is on Earth, and therefore within
reach of a terrestrial justice system.

Suppose your Canadian self went and settled on an absentee
(Earth-resident) landlord's claim on Mars. If you, your family, and all
your worldly goods were now on the Red Planet, exactly how would the
long arm of terrestrial law be able to touch you?

True, by then there may well be courts and marshalls on Mars. But that
in turn would imply a more numerous and more settled community; and
therefore one which most likely would be wanting to craft its own laws
and land tenure system. ("No taxation without representation". Etc etc.)
As opposed to a frontier-type community where settlers are few,
marshalls even fewer, and there may well be no courts at all.

As difficult as it may be to believe but the writ of US law only runs on
US soil. Other places have their own laws, their own courts, and their
own governments. If such places are not part of the "majority of
relevant nations", why should they give too hoots about a piece of paper
whose ability to be enforced stops at the borders of those other nations?

They should not. And investors will not give too hoots about the
conflicting land claims of the citizens of such nations, either.

Oh really!

So you would not give "two hoots" if you and some Russian (for example)
both claimed ownership of the same prime patch of Martian real estate,
each of you with a registered land deed from your governments to prove
it?

Would you also not give two hoots if the Russian used his deed to
subdivide that land and build condominiums on it, which he then sold off
for a handsome profit?

Of course, you can take him to court over it. But then by the time you
did so he might no longer own any part of that patch of real estate; and
suing him would probably not going to stop the new condominium owners
moving in. Besides, by then he may have already invested his profits in
more Martian real estate, real estate which just happened to overlap
that owned by other investors of your own country. (Meaning that getting
a court to seize that land to sell off so as to pay you compensation
would probably not be an option.)

In any case, what would you sue him for? By his own country's yardstick
he has broken no law, any more than you would have broken any by doing
the same thing yourself. (We're assuming no land tenure treaties here,
of course.)

You keep picturing it like some sort of tussle of force, but that's not
the world we live in. It's about economics and investor confidence.
Claims backed by the U.S. government inspire far more investor
confidence, and will generate more economic activity, than claims backed
by, say, Argentina. (Meaning no disrespect to Argentinians; it's simply
a matter of relative economic size and power.)

And you keep picturing a system where all the would-be offworld
landowners are residing on Earth, and therefore within reach of a law
suit.

The "world we live in" is one neatly subdivided (for the most part) into
countries, each of which has its own land tenure system, its own police
and justice system to keep its citizens in order, and its own military
forces and assorted treaties and alliances to keep foreigners at bay.
When borders are fuzzy or disputed (eg the Spratley Islands in the South
China Sea)--in other words where there is no real security of land
tenure because the land owners of today could find themselves evicted
tomorrow--investor confidence tends towards the non-existence end of the
scale.

Let's do it this way. Let the U.S. government (and ideally, other
nations joined in a treaty) provide for its some way for its citizens to
own land in a way recognized by those nations. If you don't have faith
that such claims are worthwhile, then don't buy any. Your arguments and
mine are both irrelevant; in the end the market will decide.

But it's certainly not going to get any better by not trying.

My point is that it's way too early to be designing land tenure systems
for places nobody yet lives in. Such an exercise would be about a useful
as drawing up a constitution for a putative United States of Mars: an
interesting intellectual enterprise, but surely impractical in reality.

A more appropriate time will be when people actually start to colonise
such places. They can then either draw up their own systems or (more
probably) draw upon the system used by the colonising power.

snip

So there really is nothing needed here but a clear legal status for
property rights, which can be agreed upon by a majority of relevant
nations.

This is, of course, assuming that it is the US which is on the side of
the "majority of relevant nations".

No, actually nothing in my statement implies that. But in reality, of
course it will be. The only relevant nations now are the U.S. and
Russia, and perhaps China -- and it's very unlikely that Russia and
China are going to run off and make a treaty that leaves the U.S. out.

Russia's spacepower status seems to be steadily slipping away. It may
recover in time, but at the moment it has trouble launching unmanned
missions to other worlds on its own let alone manned ones. China, India,
Japan, and (maybe) Brazil seem to be more likely candidates for space
powers of the future (assuming, of course, their enthusiasm survives the
inevitable failures), but even they are still some way off that status.

For all practical purposes, the US is the only spacepower at the moment.

That said, however, to rely on the US's space power status as the
foundation of an extraterrestrial land tenure system is to build such a
thing on quicksand. Such a system will only survive as long as the US
superiority in space lasts. If some day some upstart would-be space
power challenges that superiority, what then? Should the upstart's will
prevail, the US system's land deeds may well become worthless bits of
paper.

One has only to look at what is happening in Zimbwabe. Once upon a time
people of British descent owned much of the best land in that troubled
nation. But times have changed. The Sun has set on the British Empire,
and now the White citizens of Zimbwabe are being steadily dispossessed
of their land--but land their own ancestors took and held thanks to the
might of the British in the days of their empire.

--
Stephen Souter

http://www-personal.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/

In article ,
Stephen Souter wrote:

Your mention of "investors" suggests you're contemplating absentee
landlords (who need to be encouraged to "improve" their investments) as
the major beneficiary of the system--as opposed to resident homesteaders
who have a built-in incentive to make improvements.

Correct. We're not going to have people actually living on other bodies
for a long time. The trick is to get from where we are now, to that
point in the future where actual squatters are an issue.

In between now and then, we are faced with the problem of kick-starting
an offworld economy. One of the main problems holding back the creation
of such an economy is the nebulous (and in some countries, outright
denied) state of property rights.

It's not about settlement; it's about use of resources. If I want to
land a probe on an asteroid, claim it as my own, and start mining and
selling the resources therein, I currently can't do it. The nebulous
state of property law will prevent me from getting the necessary
investment. With even a reasonably clear stab at property law, I might
well get the backing I need to do the project, and the economic ball
starts rolling.

It's also about real estate futures. Futures markets are a way for
investment risk to be spread out over time, making possible projects
that would be far too risky to fund all at once. They pour money into
the early stages of an industry or market to help it get rolling, in
anticipation of a payoff when the industry/market is mature. In this
case, if a reasonable (note: *reasonable*) system of property ownership
were established, then for a relatively small investment (a few hundred
million US$), a company could claim (say) some lunar land, and sell this
in order to fund more ambitious projects. Again, this helps get the
offworld economy going.

You're *still* assuming the wrong-doer is on Earth, and therefore within
reach of a terrestrial justice system.

Correct. You appear to be dreaming about a future in which people are
setting up cabins on the Moon. That's great, I hope to see such a
future someday, but it doesn't tell us anything about what we must do
*today*, when no one (and only a couple of robotic craft) have even
touched the moon in the last three decades.

So you would not give "two hoots" if you and some Russian (for example)
both claimed ownership of the same prime patch of Martian real estate,
each of you with a registered land deed from your governments to prove
it?

Russia is among the relevant nations. But no, I wouldn't give two hoots
if, say, someone in Argentina claimed the same land on the bases of some
Argentinian law in conflict with the laws of Russia, the U.S., Japan,
and China.

In any case, what would you sue him for?

I wouldn't; in this case I would just ignore him. Like that guy
currently selling lunar plots of land ("for entertainment purposes
only"), his claim is not recognized by anyone that matters and so is not
relevant. (Again meaning no disrespect to Argentina in particular; I
mean any country with no space capability and only a small amount of
economic clout.)

And you keep picturing a system where all the would-be offworld
landowners are residing on Earth, and therefore within reach of a law
suit.

Right. You might notice that my picture matches the real world, and
will most likely continue to match the real world for several decades at
the very least. (And even after we do have people living permanently
off Earth, it will be a very long time before those offworld colonies
are politically independent of their mother countries.)

My point is that it's way too early to be designing land tenure systems
for places nobody yet lives in. Such an exercise would be about a useful
as drawing up a constitution for a putative United States of Mars: an
interesting intellectual enterprise, but surely impractical in reality.

A more appropriate time will be when people actually start to colonise
such places. They can then either draw up their own systems or (more
probably) draw upon the system used by the colonising power.

No, that doesn't work. Nobody is going to develop space (or at least,
it will take very much longer) as long as the property law is unclear.
The lack of clear property rights is one of the key factors preventing
us from reaching that time you imagine.

For all practical purposes, the US is the only spacepower at the moment.

That said, however, to rely on the US's space power status as the
foundation of an extraterrestrial land tenure system is to build such a
thing on quicksand. Such a system will only survive as long as the US
superiority in space lasts.

Agreed. That's why I'd much rather see a system of property rights
endorsed by at least the U.S., Russia, China, and perhaps Japan. Better
yet would be something from the U.N.

Best,
- Joe

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'